Whats with anands new lame ipod touch article

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,739
452
126
Anand has always focused on the hardware and specs, which is exactly what the review entails. I'm not saying it's the best thing he's written, but getting up in arms for omitting the price is silly.
 

aphex

Moderator<br>All Things Apple
Moderator
Jul 19, 2001
38,572
2
91
Reviewers are entitled to their opinions, thats why its a review :)
 

bearxor

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2001
6,605
3
81
A lot of people were expecting an iPhone 4 without a phone. It was a good review that addressed that expectation and only that expectation.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Exactly. For 1/3 of the cost you want 9/10'ths of the functionality? The price should've been included. What if was $99? Then the whole review changes.

Exactly the price is fundamental to how one judges a product, and against its actual competitors. aspects totally omitted from the article...which makes it a poor review. If the zune was cheaper and had a retina display and a 5mp hd camera, and a faster processor and all that then fine, you could go negative as that is the actual competition it is up against, but comparing it the iphone without acknowledging the apples to oranges comparison and vast price difference is just skewing an article to cast something in a negative light. its simply not a fair take on it, its not a balanced article.
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
Reading comprehension please! The review was partly in response to consumers thinking about the iPod Touch as being similar to or, a replacement for, the iPhone 4. Of course it was an apples to oranges comparison, sheesh! Back to your iCave.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
167
106
Plus the unsubsidized price is kind of silly anyhow - it's not like you can buy an unsubsidized phone in the US where Anand is in the first place. Your options are to pay [obscene amount] over 2 years for an iPhone, or [slightly less obscene amount + $200-$400] for another phone and an iPod Touch.
 

zokudu

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2009
4,364
1
81
I think ViRGE hit the nail on the head. Your thinking if you look at the cost of ownership of the iPhone over 2 years it comes out to a lot more than the iPod touch but don't think that most people will need a phone anyway. In reality your going to have a cell bill either way and you can buy an iPhone for slightly more than an iPod touch and get better functionality and no real loss at the end of the day.
 

Paperlantern

Platinum Member
Apr 26, 2003
2,239
6
81
I think ViRGE hit the nail on the head. Your thinking if you look at the cost of ownership of the iPhone over 2 years it comes out to a lot more than the iPod touch but don't think that most people will need a phone anyway. In reality your going to have a cell bill either way and you can buy an iPhone for slightly more than an iPod touch and get better functionality and no real loss at the end of the day.

This makes sense, yes the costs even out in the end, however, that doesn't make it okay to do the review this way. I do agree that Anand should have at least acknowledged what he was doing by comparing it to the iPhone 4 rather than its direct competition of the Zune or some other portable MUSIC/MEDIA player just because they both have many similarities like, they both play music. Making the comparison that he made is like comparing a product, say like a 4x4 truck to a 4 door sedan just because they both roll down the road, and then knocking the 4 door because it sucks in the snow or wont climb over a rock. Or slandering the truck because the gas mileage isn't as good as the sedan's. It doesn't make sense. Of course they aren't the same... because THEY AREN'T THE SAME! They aren't meant to be!
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
A lot of people were expecting an iPhone 4 without a phone. It was a good review that addressed that expectation and only that expectation.

Exactly. I was thinking of buying one as a toy, this article explained exactly what I'd be giving up compared to a real iPhone.

Everyone reading the article knows that smartphones on contract are heavily subsidized, so there was no real need to say that.
 

CptObvious

Platinum Member
Mar 5, 2004
2,501
7
81
The review was critical but useful. After reading it and looking at some sample pics of the camera, which look like pictures of a digicam I had in 1999, I think I'll pass on upgrading my 3rd gen Touch.
 

BlueWeasel

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
15,943
475
126
The review was critical but useful. After reading it and looking at some sample pics of the camera, which look like pictures of a digicam I had in 1999, I think I'll pass on upgrading my 3rd gen Touch.

I'm in the same boat. I could probably ebay my 3G Touch and upgrade for a net cost of ~$100. Not sure if it's even worth it to do that.
 

rdp6

Senior member
May 14, 2007
312
0
0
While the newly released iPod Touch is definitely not an iPhone 4 without the phone/gps/camera, it seems that was pretty much the case with the previous generation. The iPhone 3GS and matching iPod Touch were very similar, except maybe the iPod Touch's processor was clocked a bit higher. So in this respect the article was very informative to me- I would have been pretty disappointed to miss half of the RAM and the IPS screen.

Where I live there is no AT&T coverage so there is no way I'll get an iPhone. Except for on mobile phones, cameras are not allowed where I work (in the least restrictive areas).

I am pretty glad I have the 3GS version of the iPod Touch. I would have liked to see a current vs previous comparison of the iPod Touch models. Especially the rightmark results.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Plus the unsubsidized price is kind of silly anyhow - it's not like you can buy an unsubsidized phone in the US where Anand is in the first place. Your options are to pay [obscene amount] over 2 years for an iPhone, or [slightly less obscene amount + $200-$400] for another phone and an iPod Touch.

I'm paying Sprint $45 a month and the Touch Pro2 was free. Add $229 for a Touch and that is still WAY cheaper than an iphone and ATT. And I have lots more capability. Only thing I wouldn't have is the iphone camera, but that isn't as good as a real camera and isn't worth hundreds of dollars difference in cost.

There also lots of prepaid phones that are much cheaper per month than ATT.

Just an example why the review is way off base in comparing a subsidized price to a retail product price.

If consumers expected an iphone for $229, anand should have told them they were wrong to expect that.
 
Jul 10, 2007
12,041
3
0
Plus the unsubsidized price is kind of silly anyhow - it's not like you can buy an unsubsidized phone in the US where Anand is in the first place. Your options are to pay [obscene amount] over 2 years for an iPhone, or [slightly less obscene amount + $200-$400] for another phone and an iPod Touch.

uhhh... you can walk into the apple store and pay $600 for an iphone 4 sans contract.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Exactly the price is fundamental to how one judges a product, and against its actual competitors. aspects totally omitted from the article...which makes it a poor review. If the zune was cheaper and had a retina display and a 5mp hd camera, and a faster processor and all that then fine, you could go negative as that is the actual competition it is up against, but comparing it the iphone without acknowledging the apples to oranges comparison and vast price difference is just skewing an article to cast something in a negative light. its simply not a fair take on it, its not a balanced article.

Not really for everyone. Sure budgets exist, but in the end a review should be based on price doesn't matter...especially if giving a 1-10 rating.

It's like the guy selling a 1980 Mustang in *mint* condition. You drive out there and it's got visible bondo and 4 wheels that don't match. He then chimes in "well it's mint for most 30 year old cars".
 

sxr7171

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2002
5,079
40
91
The review seemed fair and it well delineates the differences between it and the iPhone 4. Given that iOS is to today as Palm OS was to 1999, I think the pricing is excellent. Sure its a music player and one of the highest order, but it also is today's popular PDA platform. I think while you get more from an iPhone 4 you pay dearly for it. $229 is a great price to have this PDA/Music Player. It's no iPhone 4 but it's not $779 either (roughly its unlocked price in Canada). I think he says as much in the review.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
I suspect AT got a ton of page hits on the iPhone 4 article, maybe shooting for the same effect?

I think it was a pretty sad article myself, while the iPhone 4 article was spot on, this one missed the mark.