Apple's iPod Touch (2010) Review, Not a Poor Man's iPhone 4
by Anand Lal Shimpi on September 9, 2010 12:38 AM EST- Posted in
- Gadgets
- Apple
- iPod Touch
Battery Life
Apple rates the new iPod Touch at 7 hours of battery life playing video and 40 hours of audio, this is down from 10 hours on the iPhone 4 (the 4 is still rated at 40 hours of audio playback). I’m still working on battery life tests but I’ll update this section once the results are in :)
Update: At 50% brightness and volume set to 50% I measured 8 hours and 10 minutes of video playback battery life on the iPod Touch.
Final Words
I was extremely curious about the new iPod Touch simply because of the pretty big leap Apple made with the iPhone 4. I suspect many of you may have had the same questions - whether the new iPod Touch really could be a contractless iPhone 4. While the new Touch is a nice iPod, it’s not an iPhone 4.
The size and dimensions of the new Touch are wonderful. This is one aspect of the iPhone 4 that I don’t miss. I long for the day when we’ll see all smartphones this thin and light.
For what could ultimately be a great FaceTime platform, I am very disappointed that Apple dropped the ball with some obvious shortcomings. Not shipping earbuds with a mic is very unfortunate, and the external speaker is too quiet for a comfortable FaceTime conversation. The rear facing mic worked in my experience but it seems like an odd place to put it.
The new Touch is pricey. In fact, Apple’s entire updated iPod lineup struck me as more expensive than they should be. At $229 for an 8GB player, it actually costs you more up front to get into an iPod Touch than it does to get you into an iPhone 4. If all you need is an MP3 player, you’ll want to look elsewhere. The appeal of the iPod Touch is really the App Store. So if that matters to you, the price is easier to swallow but still noticeably higher than I’d like.
The pricing guarantees Apple is going to continue to have incredible quarters going forward. Apple found sneaky ways to reduce the total BOM (bill of materials) cost on the new iPod Touch. A cheaper chassis compared to the iPhone 4, no GPS, less DRAM on package (256MB vs. 512MB), a cheaper screen and a worse imaging sensor. Granted the iPod Touch is significantly less expensive than the iPhone 4, particularly if you take into account the AT&T contract you need for the latter. At least the new iPod Touch was on par with the iPhone 4 as an MP3 player, which is important given this is an iPod.
The bottom line is that the new iPod Touch is not an iPhone 4 without the phone, it’s more like an updated iPod Touch - maybe even an iPod Touch 3.5. It’s not bad but it's not great either. You have to set your expectations accordingly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
86 Comments
View All Comments
descendency - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
Wow. Nice to see someone admit it instead of darting around the clearly inferior device. Lots of people are just giving this ultra high review scores for no good reason.Is it a good device? Sure. Is it an iPhone 4 minus the phone like the original iPod touch was to the iPhone at the time? Nope. not even close.
I'm kind of saddened by a lack of GPS, higher quality screen, more ram (which will impact it down the road in what you can and can't buy out of the marketplace), higher resolution camera, and speaker.
It really seems like a lower quality device than what could have been produced, which is something I never used to see Apple do. I knew they produced expensive stuff, but I always felt it was top notch. This seems . . . less so.
I was really really hoping the iPod Touch 2 would look like an iPhone 4. If it did, I would have probably bought one.
quiksilvr - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
You do not understand Apple economics. If you thought Apple has never made low quality devices, you clearly have been absent these past 5 years when the iPhone came out.When the iPhone came out, it was gimped from the very start. It didn't have copy and paste, no flash support, no memory expansion, no multitasking. Hell, it didn't even have 3G! But it knew it had other selling points (an actual UI, shocking!) and a top-notch touchscreen.
This allows them to make minimal upgrades every year to the system (now with 3G! ZOMG!), which makes the sheep buy it every single damn year.
Apple makes products to make their previous generation look bad. But also, they make other current products to make OTHER current products in their lineup to look even better and to give them room for the future so they can make a product that makes your current phone look like a POS.
The Shuffle doesn't have a screen, but the NANO does! ZOMG lets spend 100 bucks more!
The Nano got stripped of its bigger screen, video capability, video camera, calendars and games. Why? To make the iPod Touch look good! And hey, the iTouch's got a front facing camera, a faster processor and a crisper screen! Everybody wins right?
And the iPod Touch is a gimped version of the iPhone 4 yada yada yada.
So when you are buying a Shuffle, that means you are saving up for the Nano ($100 more and I get a screen!). When you buy the Nano, you will be saving up for the Touch (only $50 more, right?), and when you buy the Touch, you will be saving up for the iPhone 4. And when you have the iPhone 4, you will be saving up for the iPhone 5.
Golgatha - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
[q]The Nano got stripped of its bigger screen, video capability, video camera, calendars and games. Why? To make the iPod Touch look good! And hey, the iTouch's got a front facing camera, a faster processor and a crisper screen! Everybody wins right?[/q]Wow, I like my 3G and 4G Nanos my wife and I have, but the new Nano definitely does look gimped.
Watwatwat - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
Inferior to what? A smart phone that costs twice as much when unsubsidized? When subsidized you pay a massive amount more in total anyways, so the comparison is flawed. Appales to apples is unsubsidized cost vs unsubsidized cost. Whats the itouch vs an zune or such. Not vs an iphone.I don'tcare if apple produces expensive stuff? Youd care if the touch cost twice as much thats for sure, you wouldn't buy it, even apple can go too far with price. This isn't the mac book air, its already having that higher end market served by the iphone itself. This is the iphone nano or such.
Comparing it to the iphone to cast it in a bad light is stupid. If you are going to do such a stupid thing, use the ipones unsubsidized price of 500 or 600 dollars to make it fair, then you really understand whats going on. Apples selling an "iphone" touch for less than half the price, so yes, something is not going to be as nice. But don't pretend the haters would spend 600 dollars on an ipod touch.
Otherwise its mindless bashing.
bmurthy - Friday, September 10, 2010 - link
I think the comparison is completely fair. Your point only makes sense, if you buy the iphone not to use with AT&T and pay the full price. Why would you?I actually think the review is an excellent reality check for people before they put the money down, considering how many people I know that are seriously considering using ipod touch a secondary device to a simpler phone.
gkbeer - Friday, September 10, 2010 - link
it's sad that it doesn't have all the specs of an iPhone4, it's still a lot better than the previous gen Touch.o0hobart0o - Saturday, September 11, 2010 - link
First of all, this device is basically the same as an iphone 4 except the cellular service and gps. It may lack a little in memory, but that won't account for much honestly. I think everyone is mad and wants to diss this new ipod touch because, yes, it does come very close to having all the same features. Same high res screen, same high def camera with high def video recording, facetime. All these things were the main reason everyone went out to buy the iphone 4. So it is simple enough to see that everyone is just mad that apple has come out with another device that pretty much does all those things for way cheaper. So cheer up iphone 4 users, apple has been doing this for the last 10 years at least...you aren't the first ones.dmeader - Sunday, September 12, 2010 - link
Did you read the article? it is not the same as the iphone 4.It's the same general shape and formfactor as the iphone. It shares some of the same capabilities. BUT.... NOT the same screen, NOT the same camera, NOT the same memory. Please stop with the endless Apple fanboy defense strategy against anyone who criticizes anything they make.
xpose2000 - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
Great job with this review, definitely makes me not as excited about upgrading my 2nd gen itouch. The speaker is my most disappointing thing to read. I was hoping it would sound more like current gen cell phone speakers.I can deal with the rest of the shortcomings, I basically just wanted a camera, mic, faster processor, and wireless N. I got all those things.
I'd still say its the best option out there and will probably still get it.
Watwatwat - Thursday, September 9, 2010 - link
yea but look at the iphones unsubsidized price.500 dollars, or 600 dollars.
the itouch starts at 2xx dollars.
this article was poorly written to cast to ipod touch in a negative light based on apples to oranges comparison.