How the iPod Touch Works

starexplorer2001 writes "The iPod Touch isn't in stores yet, but HowStuffWorks has a nice summary of how the 'touch' part of the iPod Touch works. Very similar to how the iPhone works, without those pesky rebates! From the article: 'The iPod touch also has a few other features that iPod enthusiasts had hoped to see on standard iPod models. Some users hoped for a wirelessly enabled iPod so they could synch their music or share files with friends over a Bluetooth or WiFi connection. The iPod touch is the first iPod to have wireless capability, although it doesn't use it to synch with a computer or friends' iPods. Instead, you can use it to browse the Web, watch YouTube videos or download music from a WiFi-specific iTunes Music Store. With its widescreen display and WiFi capability, the iPod touch might sound like a big step up from older iPod models. But the iPod touch isn't for everyone.'"

Comments

CmdrTaco's dream come true!

[nacturation]

They finally listened to his comments! Now with wireless and *more* space than a Nomad.

Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true!

[Anonymous Coward]

The comments on that thread make for interesting reading today - I particularly like this one (modded +4 insightful)

Raise your hand if you have iTunes ...

Raise your hand if you have a FireWire port ...

Raise your hand if you have both ...

Raise your hand if you have $400 to spend on a cute Apple device ...

There is Apple's market. Pretty slim, eh? I don't see many sales in the future of iPod.

Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true!

[Mattintosh]

It simply doesn't support Firewire any more.

The first time I heard this, I was shocked and dismayed. Every time I've heard it since, I've been angry.

Via USB, my iPod takes 15 to 20 minutes to transfer my 18 GB of music.

Via Firewire, the same operation takes 8 minutes.

Why am I forced to put up with inferior mechanisms when I replace it? New iPods suck ass because of stupid people that don't know that Firewire is better. This isn't just simple anger, this is pure hate. I hate idiots and the stupidity they cause.

4G iPod forever! (Or at least until Apple puts Firewire support back in.)

Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true!

[0100010001010011]

The reason Firewire is faster is that everything is its own device on the network. USB requires a host. It's also why USB requires more CPU. However, that firewire chip isn't small. When Apple had to choose between firewire chip or video chip, they choose the video.

Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true!

[Neo_piper]

The Reason given at the time was that the Physical Size of the Firewire chips was holding back the reduction in size

But does it have Bluetooth or not?

[Brit_in_the_USA]

Anyone taken one apart and verified if there is bluetooth hardware in it?

Stereo bluetoth headphone support is long overdue for ipods. If hte hardware is there software coudl be round the corner?

Re:But does it have Bluetooth or not?

[MBCook]

What's so important about BT headphones? I'm sorry but that is one thing that I don't see a big deal about. That's just extra power that my iPod will be wasting and another thing to charge/replace batteries in (the headphones). There are a few circumstances I can see (jogging, maybe). But I don't think it is a big necessary thing for most people.

That said, if the BT hardware is in there (like it is in the iPhone), I see no excuse for not including support for it (because all the hardware is there and I can see people using). I just don't see it as important enough to put the hardware in.

Now wireless syncing, I would be big on.

How the iPod Touch Works?

[svendsen]

it works by touching it...duh

Re: How the iPod Touch Works?

[svendsen]

You just put the image of slashdot users touching themselves into my head....after I am done barfing remind me to put you on my enemies list for that :-) lol

But what if it's in my pocket?

[TheCycoONE]

One of the great features of the clicky wheel is that you can grab your ipod in your pocket and adjust the volume or skip tracks easily without looking at the device. On a multi-touch interface you're going to have to look at the screen to know what you are touching, which will make it a lot harder to use in your pocket or while driving.

Re:But what if it's in my pocket?

[samkass]

Apple still sells iPods with clicky wheels if this is important to you, but the clicky wheel and the huge screen won't both fit, so you have to choose. You can get accessories that let you go forward/back without touching the iPod at all, but of course they cost extra, and most car models these days offer optional iPod integration that lets you control them from the car stereo for car use.

Not a PDA replacement...

[porcupine8]

I was originally super-excited about the iPod Touch as a PDA, but I just found out that you can't enter calendar entries on it, you can only sync them from your computer. :( Oh well, now I don't have to be sad about the price!

The part of this article that I found most interesting is that you need to use your skin for the touch screen to work - that kinda rules out any sort of future handwriting recognition.

I guess I just really want Apple to give me a real PDA - an iNewton - instead of an iPod that looks kinda like a PDA.

Re:Not a PDA replacement...

[porcupine8]

Aaaaand he also said publicly many times that Apple wasn't making a phone. I don't trust anything he denies in public.

I read somewhere that Apple was approached by a team wanting them to create a tablet for medical use - and they said that touch-screen technology wasn't up to where it needed to be for such a device to be as good as they'd want to make it. They didn't say that they would never consider such a device, or that people wouldn't want it - just that it wasn't currently feasible.

By PDA, I just mean I want something that I can enter scheduling and to do info into on the go, rather than at my computer. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to make the iPod touch do this, and probably a third party will do it soon.

Now, a true tablet Mac, that's really my dream-come-true, and I think it will happen eventually. No, not everyone wants or needs one, but I think there's enough of a niche market for it that if Apple could do it really well, they'd do it. But as the anecdote above shows, they won't do it until they know they can do it better than anyone else.

Storage is the biggest limitation

[Sciros]

$400 for 16 gigabytes of storage is simply not good enough for a lot of people with large music libraries who like to have 30-40 albums to listen to on command.

I like to watch video on these portable players (I have a Cowon A2 myself), so there's also seasons of anime or whatever to take up 4-8 gigs each.

In a year or so, when these things will hold 64 Gigs of flash memory, they will be great purchases for someone like myself. Until then, they're not even an option. And that's the single biggest "improvement" I'm looking forward to in future iPods. (Though I'll probably just grab a Q5 when it's available.)

But hey gotta start somewhere.

Re:Storage is the biggest limitation

[Mr. Underbridge]

The "I MUST have every single song in my collection at all times!!" demand is such a red herring.

Well, these days it's somewhat reasonable to expect a device to exist that will hold the music collections of everyone who isn't a professional DJ. That said, such a device exists: the full-size regular iPod. What's not reasonable is to expect every music player on the market to hold all the music you could possibly own.

Re:really

[Poromenos1]

The thing is that it has 5 times less storage than the older iPod (80 GB). Sure it's got touch and wireless, but that just means no tactile feedback, no wireless syncing (I have many computers around the house, even my mobile has a browser) and less space at a higher price. Not the most attractive deal.

I'm waiting a bit

[TeamSPAM]

As a long time Apple fanboy, I'll invoke the don't buy the rev a rule on the iPod Touch. To an extent, the Touch is what I wanted when I saw the iPhone. Unfortunately, the storage space isn't big enough for my music collection. I'd like to have at least 32GB of storage available before I think about buying one.

This should be a short article

[Itchyeyes]

Sounds like this would be a pretty short article: "Exactly the same way the iPhone does, but without the phone."

This Slashvertisment rates a 4.7 out of 5

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

This Slashvertisment rates a 4.7 out of 5.

The (product) isn't in stores yet, but (whatever) has a nice summary of how the ("gee whiz" feature) of the (product) works.

Excellent opening statement. It stimulates Desire, which we all know is the precursor to in the marketing "AIDA" scheme. (And when you release the product, just submit another article.)

With its (feature 2) and (feature 3), the (product) might sound like a big step up from (previous model of product). But the (product) isn't for everyone.

Great introduction of the features, especially the "big step up" part. And you've even given your target audience a reason to click into the submitted link too. (You've suggested there are people this product may not be perfect for, not that anyone reading this on Slashdot would fall into that "un-hip" category.)

Fellow Slashvertisers take note - this format can be applied to your next submission too!

Give Up on The Wireless Hacking

[asphaltjesus]

Let's pause for a moment to inject a dose of engineering reality.

1. We're talking about a low-power device with very limited programming capacity. That's different from the storage capacity.
2. How, in technical terms will files be shared?

Let's say a hacker can use the wireless+dhcp client. Then what? A bonjour client perhaps? Maybe, but bonjour just advertises services. So, put an ftp server behind that maybe? Great! The hacker will need, Bonjour libraries and all the underlying dependencies, an ftp server and an ftp client and enough cpu/memory to run it all. It reminds me of a line from the remade Oceans 11, "Let's say you rob Terry Benedict's casino. You're still in the middle of the f*cking desert!"

iPod Touch == Crippled iPhone

[Coppit]

They disabled appointment entry for the calendar widget. That's really too bad, since I was hoping that this device could be the convergence of my Palm T|X and my iPod. Does anyone know if they crippled any other features of the iPhone? I would have bought one if it truly was an iPhone minus the phone. (I refuse to give AT&T $1500 on top of the not-even-subsidized cost of the iPhone.)

I guess the other thing I'm waiting for is an API for programmers. I like to store my passwords and PINs using encryption on my device. (1) Storing them on someone's server using their Safari-based web app won't work, and (2) Hacks people are using to write native apps aren't sanctioned and may stop working in the future. Sigh... C'mon Apple, open it up!

Re:utter bs

[pandrijeczko]

Anyone thats says they "need" to carry around 100GB of music is talking utter crap.

I don't "need" to carry around 100GB of music with me - I "like" to have it with me because I listen to a lot of music, it sits in a small DVD case on 25 DVDs alongside my laptop so I can copy stuff off to my MP3 player any time I like.

I'm willing to bet that most people with more than 30GB haven't listened to every song they own.

Wrong. I don't watch much TV, I have music on in the background most of the time and generally find an hour or two each day to just sit and listen to some music.

To be honest I think it's more of an ego thing for people like the parent poster, they need to have as much music as possible with them at all times.

Wrong again. 25 DVDs in a small case is simple enough to stick in a laptop bag and forget about. It's just "easy" to have my music collection with me most times, it makes no odds what other people think.

These type of people download the entire discography of the doors (about 30 albums) just to say they have it, not because they love the doors..

Who said anything about downloading? Yep, I download from BitTorrent or Usenet occasionally to preview an album - but if it's good, I buy the CD and make my own MP3s, if it's crap then I delete it. MP3s are just a convenience for me, I much prefer the disc to play in a reasonably good hifi - but I've never paid to download music and never will.

Suffice it to say, I don't earn enough to buy the entire catalogue of an artist. I buy what I like, and that's it.

Re:utter bs

[pandrijeczko]

Even though I know you won't ever agree, i'm sure in that 100GB of music there are plenty of songs that you can't remember when you last listened to them.

I can tell you that I've listened to them all at some point, I can't tell you an exact day. My collection's a bit fluid anyway, in as much as there's the occasional CD I've lost interest in that I resell on eBay but I do get through them. Sure, having an album on in the background isn't truly "listening" to it but I do have music on around 4 hours a day.

Yeah, sure you bought all that music.. if you dont earn enough to buy an entire back catalogue, you dont earn enough to have 100GB which, is probably over 1000 albums..

I'm in my 40s, I've been listening to the likes of Yes, Genesis, Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd since I was about 13 years of age, as well as rock I now listen to blues, Motown, some electronic stuff like Tangerine Dream and Mark Shreeve and even a bit of classical.

I never buy CDs in high street shops, look for the best prices and buy used on eBay and in local shops. I can ***100%*** guarantee you that I have 900+ original, non-copied CDs. With that size of collection, there is no point my downloading and hoarding stuff because I just wouldn't find the time to listen to it - like I said, it's a great way of previewing stuff that I can't hear on the radio, nothing more.

Re:eBook?

[radish]

Assuming it's like the iPhone (and everything I've read says it is) then no - there's no way to store anything on it other than loading music/video etc through iTunes.