iPod Touch - iPhone without the phone bit isn't it?

[Krypton]

Am I missing something with the iPod Touch - it just seems like an iPhone 4 without the phone capability?

 

[SquareDaff]

Correct!!

 

[martint235]

Am I missing something with the iPod Touch - it just seems like an iPhone 4 without the phone capability?

More or less yes. I believe there's actually an app kicking around that will let you make voice calls from an ipod touch over WiFi, or it may just be that FaceTime nonsense that Apple keep spouting about. (my HTC Touch Cruise allowed video calling over the 3G network not just Wifi and that was 3 years ago)

 

[Krypton]

What's the point of that then? Just seems stupid. Why not do one or the other?

Are the iPod Touch things a lot cheaper or something?

 

[ColinJ]

Spooky - I was just saying that to someone last night! Why carry two things around when you can carry one?

 

[Coco]

What's the point of that then? Just seems stupid. Why not do one or the other?

Are the iPod Touch things a lot cheaper or something?

What don't you get? Why do Apple have two apparently similar products?

The main differences are the 3G capability and the GPS (IIRC). The Touch needs a WiFi signal for any internet access. The iPhone will allow you connectivity whereever there is a 3G, Edge or WiFi signal.

The iPhone needs some sort of data/voice contract with a mobile operator, the Touch doesn't.
The Touch is also a lot cheaper.

 

[Norm]

What's the point of that then? Just seems stupid. Why not do one or the other?

Are the iPod Touch things a lot cheaper or something?

Aside from being a lot cheaper, what's the issue with a company offering two similar products?

After all, why do Ford have the Ka and the Mondeo, they both just carry 5 people from one place to another. And why watch TV or films, there are only 5 different story-lines in the world anyway.

Horror of horrors, I understand that some people even have more than one bicycle, even though (as my wife tells me) we can only ride one at a time.

 

[woohoo]

The Touch is a lot cheaper to buy and a lot cheaper to run (no data charges). BT (through FON) and the likes of Starbucks etc (even my local greasy spoon) offer free wifi (if you have registered/have one of their cards) and if you go abroad you won't get stiffed for enormous GSM data charges. Many of these smart phones can be a bugger to set to "no GSM data" and even if you do, some apps re-activate without your knowledge.

My mate has just come back from the States and he found free wifi everywhere. He was able to listen to live sport at no cost through the SkySports app (not my thing but it saved him a fortune).

 

[marzjennings]

I have an ipod touch which I use to play music and movies, browse the web, play games, follow sports and give to the kid to keep her quiet when we're driving some where. As I get a phone from work I didn't need a whole iphone.

 

[Black Sheep]

Aside from being a lot cheaper, what's the issue with a company offering two similar products?

After all, why do Ford have the Ka and the Mondeo, they both just carry 5 people from one place to another. And why watch TV or films, there are only 5 different story-lines in the world anyway.

Actually, the Ka can only take four people in a ryan air type squish, it's never had five seats.


The I pod touch is an evolution of the original Ipod, the idea being that you have more control options using the touch screen and you can put games on it, it was also a bit of a test bed for the iphone that came soon after.

there is a price difference of a couple of hundred pounds (or used to be) for having, basically an ipod touch with a built in smartphone

I had an Ipod nano (one of the small ones) which my wife has kidnapped since I never use it anymore as my iphone works as an ipod.

 

[style over speed]

What's the point of that then? Just seems stupid. Why not do one or the other?

Are the iPod Touch things a lot cheaper or something?

its much thinner and lighter...