Apple has revamped three quarters of its iPod line. Or, more accurately, it upgraded one quarter, redesigned another, took a step back in time with a third, and left the final, not-even-mentioned quarter alone.
iPod touch
The flagship of the iPod line, the iPod touch, is often derided as being merely an iPhone without the phone …
Well I agree with the general trend, but on this occasion Apple are bucking it. UK prices for the iPod Touch: 8GB £189, 32GB £239, 64GB £329. Source: http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodtouch/
Import duties. Taxes. Logistics. Don't pretend Apple are the only ones that 'price gouge' either! Adobe do it (in fact the CS5 suite cost significantly more here) Autodesk do it, Microsoft do it, Sony do it. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that Dell, HP, Toshiba, HTC, Samsung et al do it too. I'm not saying this makes it all right, far from it, just chiding you for making out it's only an offence committed by Apple.
UK price before tax £160.86 , US price before tax (rate @ 1.545 02/09/10) £148.26, which leaves us UK consumers picking up a tab of £12.60 which covers shipping, logistics and import duties. Blame the government for some of that figure and the extra £28.14 that Osborne wants for the treasury in the form of VAT (soon to be more!).
For the love of god what is with this, the prices in the US are *exclusive* of tax, the prices in the UK are *inclusive* of tax, for the most part we end up paying a very slight premium (as we do with pretty much everything).
Apple are absolutely no worse than any other manufacturer of tech products anywhere.
Microsoft did the same for Vista. Bill Gates was asked why and he said it was due to "exchange rates". There was me thinking he had some business acumen.
What use is an accelerometer on a small mp3 player that you wear jogging, the screen would be spinning around all the time, wearing the battery down (transition fx use cpu power).
Plus if it is clipped to your clothing then you will want it upside down, so you look down and lift it up to look at the display.
Honestly, think a little before you are critical of something :)
I was seriously considering getting a Touch if they'd announced a 128GB model. My current 5th gen Classic has got ~47GB on it at the moment, so with future expansion and apps/games etc I'm not entirely sure if only having ~17GB free to play with will be enough. I guess I'll have to hang on to my trusty Classic for another year...
On the train this morning on my way to work I couldn't help but notice that all the commuter grown-ups were using iPod Classics of various generations. Adults need storage and a simple device that they can operate by touch - not with touch. Should have released a 250G Classic and if they drop it entirely it will kill the goose I tell you.
Totally agree - I have a 120Gb iPod and can't fit all my music on it. I basically use it as a massive iPod Shuffle and play stuff from it most of the time in Shuffle mode - call me weird, but I like to listen to random items I have in my collection.
A 250Gb minimum would have been nice (we know Toshiba make the drives!) as I won't be getting a 160Gb one given my collection is at 165Gb currently.
Apple - if you're going to kill off the classic, give out a firmware update for them so they can be upgraded to take larger drives than 160Gb.
Well done Apple on reverting the shuffle design. You are in a pricing bubble again though. $149 for an 8GB nano ? At $179, 16gb player is also too small to take the average punter's CD collection (at reasonable bit rate).
Sandisk make expandable players. With a Clip+ and a 16 Gb micro SD card, and you have a great nano-sized player that packs 24 Gb, plus an OLED screen, for about half the price of the Nano. Indeed for Nano money, you could make that a 32 Gb card.
This nano is the worst bargain since the BBC model B, which sold well to the black jumpers for £400 (you know who you are), because it was hyped daily by the entire BBC corporation. They bought it then, and they'll buy it now. Fashion continues to be a cruel mistress.
The BBC B was a much better featured machine than it's competition in the home market - the price premium was not just to pay for marketing or boost profits.
I am not sure that the same applies to the iPod Nano.
I encode stuff using Ogg Vorbis at 80kbps, I really can't tell the difference between that and 250kbps. The new iPods allow encoding using High Efficiency coding at 64kbps, I bet that's good enough for many people with duff ears like mine :)
The Beeb B was great at competing with the likes of the Dragon 32 in 1981. By 1984 the market had moved on, and while the Beeb were asking £400 for the basic box, Amstrad were charging the same money for an entire bundle - colour VDU, tape recorder, and the cpc464, a technically more advanced box. Ironically, while the cpc464 was seen as the chavs choice, it surpassed the model 'B' in precisely those snobbish areas that were the BBCs main selling points - it had a better OS and a faster basic. Not many people know that, especially if the BBC hype machine had anything to do with it.
My advice is therefore to buy a Sansa clip and stick some Led Zeppelin up it.
When my old ipod (from the days when there was only one ipod) died I replaced it with a nano. After that swap I found it harder to operate it in my pocket because of the smaller wheel. It'd be impossible with a touchscreen!
Surely with a device that's designed to be used primarily passively, physical controls are by far easier than an attention-requiring touchscreen.
Yes you would thing that sound quality would be the major consideration. Sadly with most of the target audience it isn't. Most of the MP3 player vendors must know this or they wouldn't ship the players with such totally shit headphones.
"Yes you would thing that sound quality would be the major consideration."
Nope. The law of diminishing returns applies.
Audiophiles won't be happy until someone invents a 100% effective 'travelling cone of silence' that prevents any and all extraneous noise interfering with the music. Unfortunately, there are inherent limits to how much of that unwanted noise you can remove using expensive headphones.
And the noise-cancelling headphone that can also remove noises made by *your own body* has yet to be invented. This means no amount of money can possibly prevent any and all unwanted noise from intruding on your musical bliss. You can buy the most staggeringly expensive loudspeakers, gold-plated speaker wire, and valve amps you can afford, but unless you're medically dead, you'll still be able to hear the sound of your own breathing.
These noises tend to become rather more intrusive when you're exercising, which is why many gym rats or joggers are more than satisfied by an iPod Shuffle or similar.
So, no, sound quality is NOT a major consideration. And never will be. Humans are imperfect listening devices.
So whats the major worry, a 128Kb AAC encoded file is usually more than adequate, even with decent headphones, for the usual environment in which these devices are listened to.
An iPod in any form, sounds no worse than any other portable player i've used...
My girlfriend put her 2nd gen shuffle through the washing machine, and after a day of drying out in a rehab clinic it works again!
I avoided the 3rd gen like the plague, even after losing my 2nd gen I could see the shortcomings of the inline headphones (I had some with my iphone which insta-broke).
I shall gladly buy the 4th gen shuffle on the buttons alone.
Whilst most definitely not an iFan, I do like the iPod, perhaps they should have revamped the turd that is iTunes to make it work properly on a Win PC?
I'm all for shiny tech but when it's a market/brand as mature as iPod surely the support software should work properly?
Like another poster, my G2 shuffle was great until I managed to lose it. Good for mountain biking, buttons you can press without looking at the screen. I have a G5 nano now, you keep having to get it out to navigate around, and locking the controls before the mediocre guide kicks in. And whoever thought of having a shuffle mode which kicks in when you shake the device clearly never went for a run.
I will get the new shuffle and relegate the nano to something plugged into the hifi. And before anyone says "buy someone elses", that someone elses had better work with linux. If there is one thing about the apple line, widespread support in both hardware and in open source OS integration.
Come on the register - you've not used the 3rd gen shuffle have you?
I agree its got drawbacks, but the single button use is not confusing at all - its actually quite intuitive. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything, but I fail to see how it's confusing. A monkey could work it.
I hope they don't let it die, to be replaced by 128gb iPod touches.
I have a 16gb iPhone, used for a variety of things, including a little bit of 'walking into town' music. I also have one of the (slightly old now) 120gb iPod classic, with all my music, used in the car and a variety of other places where i might want all my tunes.
I DO NOT want 2 iPod touches, one as a phone and one for music!!!!
Um ... multitouch is all well and good, but the screen on the new nano seems a bit of a step backwards size-wise. I prefer 240x376 to 240x240, even if there's more dpi.
I can't help but think that half the Nano's features have been removed but yes the price remains the same.
No video playback
No video recording
No games (the nano had access to a nice selection of clickwheel games from the iTunes Store)
Its just music and podcasts on a screen that is impossibly small. Not really that impressed to be honest. I'm gonna pick up the current gen before they become completely unavailable.
The AppleTV suffers from feature removal and downgrading too. No purchasing? No hard drive? Streaming only? And then the video format support is rather pathetic. MPEG3 at onlt 640x480!? Gone is its lovely selection of connectivity in exchanmge for just HDMI.
" — especially from all us stateside iPhone owners still lumbered with Cupertino's iPhone-exclusivity contract with AT&T. "
So it was more important for you to have the device than an acceptable carrier? Cosmetics is therefore higher priority than function.
Never trust anybody who puts form above function. Remember, the Hindenburg had great form, so did the Titanic, but function was a tad lacking in both cases.
Paris because Paris exemplifies form over function.
To me the nano was always a smaller version of a classic (especially true for the 3rd gen) for those who wanted something smaller or needed less space but didn't want to make the compromises which were needed for the really tiny size of a shuffle. This new one seems more of a 'deluxe shuffle' or 'shuffle touch' than a smaller iPod. Seems to me they had two designs for the shuffle and non for the nano, so decided to call the expensive design the nano and keep the other for the cost-concious.
If they'd wanted to do a proper nano I think either (or both) of the following would have been better:
1) Capacity bump to 32gig. This would then be a possible direct replacement for the older 30gig classics many people still have (though not called a classic back then).
2) Shrink the 16gig version of the old touch, using the newer higher dpi screen technology to keep the same resolution in a smaller device.
Still never mind, what I was really interested in was seeing if the classic would get a capacity bump to 240 (or even 320) so I can ditch mp3 and re-rip my CDs uncompressed.
Where do I put my thumb when opening the clip? Looks like you only have very narrow space or you will be accidentally clicking the wheel (shuffle) or activate something on the touchscreen (nano). Or the thing will shoot from your fingers because your thumb is too much on the edge. I always thought the 2nd gen shuffle was rectangular for a reason. It's still the most pretty and mobile MP3 player IMO, shame it's so noisy.
My 2nd gen Nano is getting a little crashy and I was pondering a replacement. From my POV Apple's ruined it. So my choices are previous gen Nano or non-Apple. The latter's favourite.
Well, if you going to sell an expensive toy, you may as well increase your environmental costs by having huge clear plastic boxes in which to hold the tiny plastic boxes.
The Touch is not an iPhone without a contract. It does not have GPS. If the new touch had GPS and a good camera I would be getting one. As it is I will pass for at least another year. I want to be able to go on a walk take pictures at various places on the walk and then upload the details of the walk to the web. You can do this with iphone but not ipod touch. iPhone is too expensive and touch lacks decent camera and GPS
Also Apple TV is disappointing its HD is only 720p. I brought a 1080 HD TV guess I will also pass for yet another year on that too.
Well if the touch gets to 128 Gb then they just need to upgrade the Classic to a 320 or 500 Gb drive. You know a useful size if you have a lossless library.
My wife's trusty, beat-to-blazes 1st gen Shuffle mysteriously disappeared a few days ago. I'm pretty sure she didn't know about the new iPod lineup though.
Register
Apple has revamped three quarters of its iPod line. Or, more accurately, it upgraded one quarter, redesigned another, took a step back in time with a third, and left the final, not-even-mentioned quarter alone. iPod touch The flagship of the iPod line, the iPod touch, is often derided as being merely an iPhone without the phone …
Page:
UK prices
"The new iPod touch will be available next week at $229 for 8GB, $299 for 32GB, and $399 for 64GB."
If anyone wants the UK prices, just swap the dollar sign for a pound sign.
No need for the exchange rate to be mentioned as always with apple
Not as bad as all that...
Well I agree with the general trend, but on this occasion Apple are bucking it. UK prices for the iPod Touch: 8GB £189, 32GB £239, 64GB £329. Source: http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodtouch/
Every. Single. Fucking. Time... (Part 2)
Import duties. Taxes. Logistics. Don't pretend Apple are the only ones that 'price gouge' either! Adobe do it (in fact the CS5 suite cost significantly more here) Autodesk do it, Microsoft do it, Sony do it. I haven't checked, but I'd bet that Dell, HP, Toshiba, HTC, Samsung et al do it too. I'm not saying this makes it all right, far from it, just chiding you for making out it's only an offence committed by Apple.
UK price before tax £160.86 , US price before tax (rate @ 1.545 02/09/10) £148.26, which leaves us UK consumers picking up a tab of £12.60 which covers shipping, logistics and import duties. Blame the government for some of that figure and the extra £28.14 that Osborne wants for the treasury in the form of VAT (soon to be more!).
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh
For the love of god what is with this, the prices in the US are *exclusive* of tax, the prices in the UK are *inclusive* of tax, for the most part we end up paying a very slight premium (as we do with pretty much everything).
Apple are absolutely no worse than any other manufacturer of tech products anywhere.
Because
Sales tax varies between states. We don't have that problem
So much for setting an example
"Apple are absolutely no worse than any other manufacturer of tech products anywhere."
So rather than set a fair example and charge the right price, the same price as in America they charge more for sending their crap to the UK
Just as they tried charging $1000 dollars for an iphone in Pakistan and ended up with hardly anyone buying one
Maybe they got the idea from Microsoft?
Microsoft did the same for Vista. Bill Gates was asked why and he said it was due to "exchange rates". There was me thinking he had some business acumen.
Accelerometer on the nano?
I've not read the specs, but it was clear from the presentation that uncle Steve had to manually reorient the screen using a two fingered twist!
You did watch the presentation on live stream, right??
Maybe Steve was holding it wrong?
x2
Feature not a bug
What use is an accelerometer on a small mp3 player that you wear jogging, the screen would be spinning around all the time, wearing the battery down (transition fx use cpu power).
Plus if it is clipped to your clothing then you will want it upside down, so you look down and lift it up to look at the display.
Honestly, think a little before you are critical of something :)
I'll hold out for the 128GB Touch
I was seriously considering getting a Touch if they'd announced a 128GB model. My current 5th gen Classic has got ~47GB on it at the moment, so with future expansion and apps/games etc I'm not entirely sure if only having ~17GB free to play with will be enough. I guess I'll have to hang on to my trusty Classic for another year...
Missed the Ball
On the train this morning on my way to work I couldn't help but notice that all the commuter grown-ups were using iPod Classics of various generations. Adults need storage and a simple device that they can operate by touch - not with touch. Should have released a 250G Classic and if they drop it entirely it will kill the goose I tell you.
Classic
Yes, let's ignore our sales figures and cater exclusively for the very people who are least likely to replace their device!!
;-)
RE: Missed the Ball
Totally agree - I have a 120Gb iPod and can't fit all my music on it. I basically use it as a massive iPod Shuffle and play stuff from it most of the time in Shuffle mode - call me weird, but I like to listen to random items I have in my collection.
A 250Gb minimum would have been nice (we know Toshiba make the drives!) as I won't be getting a 160Gb one given my collection is at 165Gb currently.
Apple - if you're going to kill off the classic, give out a firmware update for them so they can be upgraded to take larger drives than 160Gb.
Size does matter
Well done Apple on reverting the shuffle design. You are in a pricing bubble again though. $149 for an 8GB nano ? At $179, 16gb player is also too small to take the average punter's CD collection (at reasonable bit rate).
Sandisk make expandable players. With a Clip+ and a 16 Gb micro SD card, and you have a great nano-sized player that packs 24 Gb, plus an OLED screen, for about half the price of the Nano. Indeed for Nano money, you could make that a 32 Gb card.
This nano is the worst bargain since the BBC model B, which sold well to the black jumpers for £400 (you know who you are), because it was hyped daily by the entire BBC corporation. They bought it then, and they'll buy it now. Fashion continues to be a cruel mistress.
Beeb
The BBC B was a much better featured machine than it's competition in the home market - the price premium was not just to pay for marketing or boost profits.
I am not sure that the same applies to the iPod Nano.
Just get some worse ears then....
...yours are too high fidelity.
I encode stuff using Ogg Vorbis at 80kbps, I really can't tell the difference between that and 250kbps. The new iPods allow encoding using High Efficiency coding at 64kbps, I bet that's good enough for many people with duff ears like mine :)
The Led
The Beeb B was great at competing with the likes of the Dragon 32 in 1981. By 1984 the market had moved on, and while the Beeb were asking £400 for the basic box, Amstrad were charging the same money for an entire bundle - colour VDU, tape recorder, and the cpc464, a technically more advanced box. Ironically, while the cpc464 was seen as the chavs choice, it surpassed the model 'B' in precisely those snobbish areas that were the BBCs main selling points - it had a better OS and a faster basic. Not many people know that, especially if the BBC hype machine had anything to do with it.
My advice is therefore to buy a Sansa clip and stick some Led Zeppelin up it.
Touchscreen nano?
Boooo to that!
When my old ipod (from the days when there was only one ipod) died I replaced it with a nano. After that swap I found it harder to operate it in my pocket because of the smaller wheel. It'd be impossible with a touchscreen!
Surely with a device that's designed to be used primarily passively, physical controls are by far easier than an attention-requiring touchscreen.
@ShaggyDoggy
Yes you would thing that sound quality would be the major consideration. Sadly with most of the target audience it isn't. Most of the MP3 player vendors must know this or they wouldn't ship the players with such totally shit headphones.
"Yes you would thing that sound quality would be the major consideration."
Nope. The law of diminishing returns applies.
Audiophiles won't be happy until someone invents a 100% effective 'travelling cone of silence' that prevents any and all extraneous noise interfering with the music. Unfortunately, there are inherent limits to how much of that unwanted noise you can remove using expensive headphones.
And the noise-cancelling headphone that can also remove noises made by *your own body* has yet to be invented. This means no amount of money can possibly prevent any and all unwanted noise from intruding on your musical bliss. You can buy the most staggeringly expensive loudspeakers, gold-plated speaker wire, and valve amps you can afford, but unless you're medically dead, you'll still be able to hear the sound of your own breathing.
These noises tend to become rather more intrusive when you're exercising, which is why many gym rats or joggers are more than satisfied by an iPod Shuffle or similar.
So, no, sound quality is NOT a major consideration. And never will be. Humans are imperfect listening devices.
Errr...
MP3 != Quality
So whats the major worry, a 128Kb AAC encoded file is usually more than adequate, even with decent headphones, for the usual environment in which these devices are listened to.
An iPod in any form, sounds no worse than any other portable player i've used...
Do the iPod shuffle.
My girlfriend put her 2nd gen shuffle through the washing machine, and after a day of drying out in a rehab clinic it works again!
I avoided the 3rd gen like the plague, even after losing my 2nd gen I could see the shortcomings of the inline headphones (I had some with my iphone which insta-broke).
I shall gladly buy the 4th gen shuffle on the buttons alone.
I feel dirty now...
Whilst most definitely not an iFan, I do like the iPod, perhaps they should have revamped the turd that is iTunes to make it work properly on a Win PC?
I'm all for shiny tech but when it's a market/brand as mature as iPod surely the support software should work properly?
Paris, iTouch
Welcome back useful shuffle
Like another poster, my G2 shuffle was great until I managed to lose it. Good for mountain biking, buttons you can press without looking at the screen. I have a G5 nano now, you keep having to get it out to navigate around, and locking the controls before the mediocre guide kicks in. And whoever thought of having a shuffle mode which kicks in when you shake the device clearly never went for a run.
I will get the new shuffle and relegate the nano to something plugged into the hifi. And before anyone says "buy someone elses", that someone elses had better work with linux. If there is one thing about the apple line, widespread support in both hardware and in open source OS integration.
3rd gen shuffle
Come on the register - you've not used the 3rd gen shuffle have you?
I agree its got drawbacks, but the single button use is not confusing at all - its actually quite intuitive. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything, but I fail to see how it's confusing. A monkey could work it.
Karl Pilkington
Is that the same monkey that piloted a space ship to the moon? Does the shuffle come with a banana dispenser?
iPod classic
I hope they don't let it die, to be replaced by 128gb iPod touches.
I have a 16gb iPhone, used for a variety of things, including a little bit of 'walking into town' music. I also have one of the (slightly old now) 120gb iPod classic, with all my music, used in the car and a variety of other places where i might want all my tunes.
I DO NOT want 2 iPod touches, one as a phone and one for music!!!!
ipod nano
Um ... multitouch is all well and good, but the screen on the new nano seems a bit of a step backwards size-wise. I prefer 240x376 to 240x240, even if there's more dpi.
Nano... apps?
Will the Nano be open to app store developers?
If people carry reference cards and "cheat sheets" on their iPhones, I'm sure there's a market for the same sort of apps on something so teeny....
downgrade?
I can't help but think that half the Nano's features have been removed but yes the price remains the same.
No video playback
No video recording
No games (the nano had access to a nice selection of clickwheel games from the iTunes Store)
Its just music and podcasts on a screen that is impossibly small. Not really that impressed to be honest. I'm gonna pick up the current gen before they become completely unavailable.
The AppleTV suffers from feature removal and downgrading too. No purchasing? No hard drive? Streaming only? And then the video format support is rather pathetic. MPEG3 at onlt 640x480!? Gone is its lovely selection of connectivity in exchanmge for just HDMI.
I think...
that they removed the camera as it was probably squeezing the entry point into the Touch range.
Perhaps people were buying the nano at that price point as it had record capability. Why spend more to get a touch?
Now that it is gone fromt he nano range if you want record you move up models.. simple upsell technique.
HR Fluff and Stuff
" — especially from all us stateside iPhone owners still lumbered with Cupertino's iPhone-exclusivity contract with AT&T. "
So it was more important for you to have the device than an acceptable carrier? Cosmetics is therefore higher priority than function.
Never trust anybody who puts form above function. Remember, the Hindenburg had great form, so did the Titanic, but function was a tad lacking in both cases.
Paris because Paris exemplifies form over function.
No video playback on 6th gen Nano?!
Damnation, I totally missed that. Thank goodness I picked up a 5th gen a couple of weeks ago.
Why not just call it a shuffle with a screen? People would be wetting themselves to praise it. As it is, this feels more like a huge backwards step.
You know you're getting old...
... when you see the first picture and think "Christ, that's a lot of packaging" :)
Is the 'nano' actually a nano anymore?
To me the nano was always a smaller version of a classic (especially true for the 3rd gen) for those who wanted something smaller or needed less space but didn't want to make the compromises which were needed for the really tiny size of a shuffle. This new one seems more of a 'deluxe shuffle' or 'shuffle touch' than a smaller iPod. Seems to me they had two designs for the shuffle and non for the nano, so decided to call the expensive design the nano and keep the other for the cost-concious.
If they'd wanted to do a proper nano I think either (or both) of the following would have been better:
1) Capacity bump to 32gig. This would then be a possible direct replacement for the older 30gig classics many people still have (though not called a classic back then).
2) Shrink the 16gig version of the old touch, using the newer higher dpi screen technology to keep the same resolution in a smaller device.
Still never mind, what I was really interested in was seeing if the classic would get a capacity bump to 240 (or even 320) so I can ditch mp3 and re-rip my CDs uncompressed.
This post has been deleted by its author
Do the clips work?
Where do I put my thumb when opening the clip? Looks like you only have very narrow space or you will be accidentally clicking the wheel (shuffle) or activate something on the touchscreen (nano). Or the thing will shoot from your fingers because your thumb is too much on the edge. I always thought the 2nd gen shuffle was rectangular for a reason. It's still the most pretty and mobile MP3 player IMO, shame it's so noisy.
So much for the Nano
My 2nd gen Nano is getting a little crashy and I was pondering a replacement. From my POV Apple's ruined it. So my choices are previous gen Nano or non-Apple. The latter's favourite.
Packaging from hell
Well, if you going to sell an expensive toy, you may as well increase your environmental costs by having huge clear plastic boxes in which to hold the tiny plastic boxes.
*bangs head on desk*
It's a f*cking fashion accessory. It's all about looks and packaging. Love apple or hate them, they do both of those *very* well.
Have you not seen the excess packaging on, say, perfume, jewely or watches?!?
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Where's the GPS on Touch?
The Touch is not an iPhone without a contract. It does not have GPS. If the new touch had GPS and a good camera I would be getting one. As it is I will pass for at least another year. I want to be able to go on a walk take pictures at various places on the walk and then upload the details of the walk to the web. You can do this with iphone but not ipod touch. iPhone is too expensive and touch lacks decent camera and GPS
Also Apple TV is disappointing its HD is only 720p. I brought a 1080 HD TV guess I will also pass for yet another year on that too.
Classic
Well if the touch gets to 128 Gb then they just need to upgrade the Classic to a 320 or 500 Gb drive. You know a useful size if you have a lossless library.
Hmm
My wife's trusty, beat-to-blazes 1st gen Shuffle mysteriously disappeared a few days ago. I'm pretty sure she didn't know about the new iPod lineup though.
Why have a dedicated MP3 player
Because I can do without my MP3 player when the battery goes.
But I can't do without the phone. Modern phones eat through their charge quick enough
without me draining the battery when using the MP3 functionality
Your guess is wrong
@Michael Jennings, a higher MP sensor is not thicker, it's just more expensive.
iPhone nano...
...what chance of one I wonder?
Now that would be cool!
Pedowhat?
A pedometer? Is it an instrument for pedophile to measure the distance to the nearest child?
The grubby one with sweets in the pocket...
Shuffle problems
The headphone controls on my 4Gb Shuffle have died. So that means they can only give me a 2Gb replacement when I go into the Apple store tomorrow???
Page: