iLounge

21

tick tick

Posted by kpsprabhu on July 15, 2006 at 3:42 AM (PDT)

22

Palm PDAs have had Touch Screen interfaces for 10 years now, so the whizzes at Apple shouldn’t have too much difficulty knocking one together.

Posted by Galley in Greenville, SC on July 15, 2006 at 9:04 AM (PDT)

23

Yeah but nobody uses their Palms while jogging, hardly anyone has Palms (compared to iPods) and they actually do break pretty well.  My Palm Tungsten’s screen scratches way easier than my iPod Nano’s but I don’t use it as much as the iPod, don’t take it jogging, don’t stuff it in my pockets and don’t just throw it around.  The common experiance for an iPod is just to be beat to hell, and for the most part it stands up to it.

I’m not saying a touch screen couldn’t be done, but just because Palm does it doesn’t mean it’ll work on the iPod.

Posted by Jeffery Simpson on July 15, 2006 at 9:55 AM (PDT)

24

Woot, if they do add the touchscreen, that will truely kill the Microsoft “ipod killer” Hope they do add better memory and better battery life… and more scratch resistant.

Krn iPod

Posted by Krn iPod on July 15, 2006 at 11:31 AM (PDT)

25

I’ve probably had more accurate guesses based on reason than any rumour site I know of. You didn’t have to be a genius to see that eventually the iPod would play video. Apple seemed to have taken its time with the 5G but their timing is always right on the edge.

Anyway, as has been pointed out many times by others, the main problem with the idea of a touch screen iPod is that there is no conceivable way to include tactility. The 3G was cool (I have two of them) but the other models, before and after, could be operated by feel alone.

Touch screens have historically been poorly received by consumers. My Sony DV camera has a touch screen menu. It is handy in one way but it’s not as efficient as physical buttons. There’s a place for everything, though.

Perhaps the type of people who post on forums have different tastes than those who don’t.

Posted by Pikemann_Urge on July 15, 2006 at 6:48 PM (PDT)

26

pfff….i would ned at least like 5 terabites for me to be satisfied enough to buy an ipod :p

Posted by jimmy on July 15, 2006 at 9:00 PM (PDT)

27

It shouldn’t be too hard for Apple to make a touch screen iPod. My Nintendo DS Lite has one, and it’s working fine with marks only visible under bright light. I don’t care for 100GB, but a 3.5 inch display could make me get rid of my Nano and buy the video iPod.

Posted by sports4mecc on July 16, 2006 at 2:28 PM (PDT)

28

Whoever calls this the “True video ipod” is a real dumbass. The current iPod can play video, thus it’s a TRUE VIDEO ipod

I just hope they release a separate traditional ipod cuz i want ipod to be for music

Posted by Dennis Morgan on July 17, 2006 at 4:59 PM (PDT)

29

The touch screen thing seems a bit over the top. I thought VIDEO was over the top but what do I know. All I can say is this - the reason I bought an iPod in the first place was that it’s smaller, tougher, cheaper, and has more memory than my iPAQ. I had been using my iPAQ on bikerides and was starting to wonder how long it would last before it broke. (I had a Palm and the screen cracked within a week or carrying it in a backpack) So I bought a 4GB nano. Sadly, I ran out of room quickly. BUT- my iPAQ lives. And don’t think I really need more memory. I can live with 4GB for at least another 6 months.

Posted by iPAQ Owner on July 20, 2006 at 12:57 PM (PDT)