Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnageddon
I wish I had said that. Oh wait, I did many times.
And that is not a bad thing at all. (I think I have said that a few times too)
NYT's David Pogue agrees. Twice.
|
I think you have that backwards. The Touch is basically a downsized iPad.
I know that this seems to be saying the same thing you did, but it really isn't. The Touch is a kind of crippled iPad - it does a lot of the same things, but there are many things the iPad does that the Touch won't be doing, or at least, not as well. I've read - but find it hard to believe - that the Touch won't do iBooks. (It has to
at least have an iBook Reader app!) I know that the Touch can't do graphic novels/comics as well as the iPad will. Those iWork apps aren't going to be much use on a Touch.
So I'm already beginning to think of my iPhone, which is the Touch with a phone, as a kind of satellite of my iPad, my Pad Away From Home.
This is one of the reasons that I think that one of the impacts of the iPad will be to sell more Touches. A lot of people without an iPhone but with an iPad are going to want a Touch, which, incidentally, now costs $199. If I were Apple, I'd bundle them for a while just to get that concept across.
Random thought: is an iPod Touch a
Touche in France?