Comments on: Apple, Microsoft trade places selling iPod touch and Zune HD

By: shiver me timbers

shiver me timbers — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 13:13:58 +0000

@ 7Hypothesard:

Thanks for the links. I always thought I missed out on downloading the complete interview video when D removed it from their site, only leaving the abridged one. Then Apple only offered the abridged one on its site. I never knew the full length interview was offered as a video podcast. I want to keep this for posterity.

By: ChuckO

ChuckO — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:00:03 +0000

Yea, the price issue is ridiculous. They would do what they did with the iPhone where they continue to sell the iPhone 3G for value shoppers while moving on with the 3Gs. The obvious plan was to sell the old 8gig Touch to entice people up the value chain while offering the larger models with the camera. But again this is where Apple secrecy makes a lot of sense. Since they never announced the Touch with a camera they can plausibly deny they were doing it otherwise everyone would stop buying them until the camera version came along and that could make for a crummy xmas at Apple. They are running a business after all.

By: commun5

commun5 — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:13:26 +0000

@ bartfat

You need to reread the Ars Technica review before any further generalizing about the quality of the OLED screen. They confirmed the claims about outdoor use and battery drain that Dan made in his previous article on the Zune HD:
“The OLED screen on the Zune HD is one of its key marketing points, and it’s certainly attractive. Colors pop from the screen, which is quite detailed for its size. The first two generations of Zunes had 320×240 screens, while the Zune HD is 480×272 (the iPod touch, for comparison, has a 480×320 screen, while the nano is 340×276). The screen is a pleasure to use, though unless you spend a lot of time watching videos on the Zune it’s not a make-or-break feature. It is very difficult to read in direct sunlight.

OLED screens do raise battery life concerns, and their power use is directly related to the content that’s displayed (all white screens use far more power than all black screens). Microsoft seems to acknowledge this when it says that the Zune “offers a premium viewing experience on the go while being respectful of battery life.” “Respectful,” but not “thrifty with.”"

By: tmay

tmay — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:33:55 +0000

I’m thinking that Apple failed in attempting to place a camera in a package that is 3.8 mm thinner than the iphone (8.5 mms 12.3 mm) while still supporting both still images and video. As atouch owner, I would be willing to upgrade for still and video, but I’m less inclined to for video only, even 720p video, tempting as that might be.

I don’t believe a word that Steve said about the touch pricing as being the constraint.

At any rate, Apple will get it figured out, and we will see still image/ video capabilities in the future for the touch.

By: ChuckO

ChuckO — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:32:44 +0000

I have a bunch of miscellaneous ideas that the discussion has brought up: Is Apple a hardware company? They seem to be a software/design company. The failure to get iPod Touch’s with cameras out is less a failure of Apple’s it seems than their outsourcing partners. That’s why to me calling them a hardware company is a little odd. This situation also seems like it reinforces Apple’s notorious secrecy. They would be in a difficult business position having to defend current sales of iPod touches if they were on record as having a new version on the way. I’m personally waiting to see what happens before buying a Touch. Then finally, could this really be about differentiating the Touch from the iPhone? Short of suddenly finding myself with a large amount of disposable income I need to piss down a hole there’s no way I would be interested in paying for AT&T’s data plan (I currently rock an AT&T goPhone) but put a camera on an iPod Touch and I become very interested in buying one. Is there really that many people that would go with a Touch instead of an iPhone due to the camera?

By: ChuckO

ChuckO — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 19:17:28 +0000

It seems far fetched to think this is much of an opening for Microsoft. I’ve seen a few analysts suggesting that MS is really trying to convert the 25% of people not using iPod family devices. Microsoft’s insistence on renting music seems like a mistake. All Apple needs to do is come out between now and early next year and say they’ve heard all the cries for a camera on the iPod Touch and so they’re adding it immediately and the issue is over. People are way to commited to the iPod and iTunes to make a sudden change. The biggest thing for Microsoft would be to come up with a long term media strategy that they can stick with and try to get people already using their various platforms committed to using it and then try to entice people outside that group to it. Then maybe they could be positioned when the next device revolution comes along to take advantage of it but based on their history of offering third rate copies of other’s ideas and staggering like wounded elephants from strategy to strategy that seems unlikely.

By: daGUY

daGUY — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:59:32 +0000

@luisd: “My view is that if apple have included a camera, the price would have had to go up, and sales would be mainly replacements of older Touch’s. By leaving it out, and bringing the price down, they are attracting lots of new costumers”

No way. First of all, they added a camera to the iPod Nano and they kept the price the same – $149.

Second of all, the Touch only got a price drop of $30 (the old 8 GB model was $229). Since they were able to add a camera to the Nano for FREE, I’m sure they could’ve added one to the Touch too. Production costs always go down over time anyway, so even with the $30 drop in price, they probably could have added a camera and still maintained their margins.

Third of all, what do you make of the 32 and 64 GB Touches not having cameras? It just doesn’t make sense – they could put a camera in the $149 Nano for FREE, but they couldn’t add one to the $399 Touch because of the need to “keep prices down”?

Finally, I’d wager that adding new hardware features would do more to attract new customers than a tiny price drop. All of the Touch’s features exist in software, which can be updated, so if you already have one then there’s little to no reason to buy the new model. On the other hand, had Apple added a camera, you’d HAVE to buy a new Touch in order to get it.

By: stefn

stefn — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:02:26 +0000

“Now it’s back in the game.”

By: stefn

stefn — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:01:48 +0000

My take away: Not much love anywhere for Apple’s decision to not include video at least on the more expensive Touches. And strategically Apple missed the opportunity to step on the Zune’s neck. Not it’s back in the game. Listen to the MacBreak Weekly guys slobber over the Zune yesterday.

I do agree with some commenters on RD that Leo and some of the TWIT folks are getting a bit too precious. Apparently they hear the echoes when their names are announced. Not Alex. Not Scott.

By: ChuckO

ChuckO — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:24:56 +0000

Why is the truth Microsoft bashing or explaining what Apple is good at FanBoi-ism? It’s like the people here who complain about the political commentary, why is your belief system so fragile that someone challenging them causes you so much distress?