We summarized some of the early reviews of the iPod nano to get an idea about what the general opinion would be. Now that reviews have started to pop up about the iPod touch, we thought we’d do the same thing. So what we did was, we picked a few reliable reviews and blended them together to get an idea of what people think of the new touch-screen player.

Design

The first thing we’re going to talk about is the design, and all of the reviewers seemed to agree on this point. The iPod touch looks much like the iPhone but a lot thinner; 8 mm to be exact. It has the same scratch resistant display but harder and sharper edges. As with all Apple products, it looks amazing. CNET comments on the design: “The Touch shows the love of committed designers, hardware engineers, and usability experts.”

It features a very minimized amount of buttons due to it’s intuitive touch-screen interface, a fact that is both good and bad. The majority of reviewers we’re disappointed with the absence hard volume controls, which is understandable of course. But the iPod touch represents a step closer towards “buttonless” technology and if this is the price to pay, I’d personally be glad to do so though I can see how it would be impractical at times.

Interface

They all, however, like the touch-screen interface that is heavily based on the iPhone. Once you get it out of your pocket, accessing the volume control is merely a matter of pressing the menu-button twice. Navigation is pretty much identical to the iPhone and Cover Flow is excellent. Here’s some reviewer feedback:

“This is the coolest way to navigate a music menu I have ever seen.” - PC Magazine

“The futuristic novelty of zooming photos with a pinch of the finger or flying through your music collection in Cover Flow is difficult to quantify into a bullet point, but it is probably the most justifiable reason to invest in the Touch.” - CNET

“Much of the iPhone experience remains intact: the wonderful multitouch navigation, the supreme Safari browser, the ease with which you can sync to iTunes, then grab and go without that annoying Eject delay.” - Gizmodo

Features

The feature set is what most reviews focus their complaints on. But I personally think that this is also a very misunderstood aspect of the iPod touch. Instead of comparing it with it’s predecessors, reviewers tend to compare it with the iPhone which is something else entirely. The iPod is, and have always been, a media player. The iPhone is a phone. But anohow, what are they complaining about?

Well, the iPod touch lacks much of the iPhone’s features. It doesn’t have email functionality, speakers, microphone, camera or Bluetooth. Neither do you have the ability to add calendar events. But aside from Bluetooth, I see no reason to have any of these features in a media player. It’s basic purpose is to play media. The iPhone, on the other hand, functions more like an organizer and needs those features.

However, most of the reviewers miss the iPhone functionalities. Here’s what they have to say about it:

“While we still would have liked to have the option to email over WiFi, its intended purpose is as a portable media player, not a mobile communicator, so we can follow that line of thought. But why leave out its notes, weather, stocks, and Google maps apps?” - Engadget

“When looking at the iPod touch, you have a choice: you can either see it as an evolutionary leap for iPod, or a slight downgrade from iPhone.” - Gizmodo

“If only the whole iPod-as-PIM-concept had been thought through to the point where both contacts and calendar events could be entered on the iPod.” - Playlist Magazine

Battery life

Here’s another point where all reviewers seem to agree. The battery life of the new iPod touch is impressive. Playlist Magazine played audio continuously for 22 hours and 41 minutes. Apple states that the touch can play 5 hours of video on a single charge, though Gizmodo constantly played video for almost 7 hours. “The battery life is ridiculously good”, they write in their review.

Screen

However, the screen is reportedly not as good as the iPhone’s. Certain black tones look strange which makes dark video less fun to watch. CNET, on the other hand, found the video experience overall good so I guess it depends on individual devices or maybe how picky you are. But Playlist provides a side-by-side comparison that proves that the iPhone in fact has a brighter display.

Conclusion

While most of the reviewers were disappointed on one point or another, they still came to the conclusion that it’s a great media player. What people need to understand is that, even though it may look like one, the iPod touch is not a phone. It’s not supposed to keep you organized; it’s supposed to entertain you. Anyhow, here’s some overall thoughts about the new iPod:

“This time around, in Apple’s obsession to edit, they managed to leave some of the best stuff on the cutting room floor.”
Engadget

“The bottom line, if there is one, is that this will certainly be a great product for people who are unable or unwilling to sign up for AT&T. But spending $399 on the 16GB touch is not better than spending $399 on an 8GB iPhone.”
Gizmodo

“Still, despite the common complaints, the Touch is unquestionably the most video-worthy iPod yet.”
CNET

“No portable media player has ever done this much so easily, or looked so good doing it.”
PC Magazine

Sources: PC Magazine, CNET, Gizmodo, Engadget, Playlist