Reviewers were enthusiastic about the iPod touch, although they took issue with the still photo resolution of the rear camera, the reduced viewing radius and dimmer display than the iPhone 4, and the lack of GPS or camera flash. Although some reviewers were initially skeptical about the iPod nano, in general, they were positive about the drastic redesign of the device. The iPod shuffle for the most part stayed out of the spotlight, but reporters did welcome the reintroduction of physical buttons.
While responses to the new iPod models were favorable across-the-board, Ping failed to live up to expectations. The general consensus was that Ping had potential, but needed work.
In her review titled "The Good, The Bad, and the So So," Boehret highlighted the iPod touch as "remarkably thin" with "beautiful" HD video footage and impressive audio. Ping, on the other hand, she found to be "socially awkward."
"One of Ping's biggest downsides is that it doesn't import lists of friends from other established social networks," wrote Boehret.
Boehret found the iPod nano's redesign "surprising," and particularly enjoyed the integration of touch photo viewing.
Baig welcomed the iPod touch enhancements that brought it closer to the iPhone 4, but missed notable features from the iPhone, such as GPS, LED flash, and the 5-megapixel camera. The iPod touch is "still a winner," though, and Baig is confident it will remain the most popular iPod.
According to Baig, the iPod nano is "awfully cute," but Apple has "given and taken away." The touchscreen, diminutive size, and clip come at the cost of the video camera.
Ping is the only disappointment out of this batch of products, as it just "isn't quite there." Baig finds the general idea behind Ping appealing, but sees it as "incomplete."
Hesseldahl was "generally impressed" with Apple's changes to the iPod line.
At first, using the smaller touchscreen on the iPod nano "seemed ridiculous" to Hesseldahl, but after use, he found it intuitive. He hardly missed the video playback and video camera features of the the previous generation iPod nano, noting that in this case, it was "stripped down for the better."
The iPod touch "kicked up the intensity about a dozen notches" with its "muscular" A4 processor and Retina display. Hesseldahl found the still photos to be just "fine," and the HD video impressive.
For Hesseldahl, Ping is missing a "key point:" seamless integration of a music-sharing experience with existing social networks such as Facebook and Twitter.
Other reviews
">Engadget
51 Comments
I Had To Cancel Joining Ping When I Learned You Have To Relinquish Your iTunes Reviews Nickname if you join. I have almost 300 reviews up there under the name FutureMedia and I'm not willing to give up my review nickname to join Ping. Stupid rule.
I think everything apple does is terrific.
I find it interesting the contrast between Engadget's solid praise of the new nano and PCMag's very critical review. 2 and a half stars is extremely low, even if one doesn't appreciate the changes for one's own use.
I have not gotten my hands on the new Nano yet, but from what I saw I would say that previous version (5th Gen I believe) is way better. Touch screen seems way too small, and the lack of camera, gamer and calendar seems like a big omission. If I owned the 5th gen I would keep it. Will try to hit up store tomorrow and see if they got any on display so I can give a better opinion.
I find it interesting the contrast between Engadget's solid praise of the new nano and PCMag's very critical review. 2 and a half stars is extremely low, even if one doesn't appreciate the changes for one's own use.
I too fiind it quite disappointing that Apple chose to eliminate more than 50% of the features of the 5th generation (e.g. video capture/playback, contacts, games, etc.) all just to reduce the display to a mere 1.54 inches (what is this 2005?) and incorporate multi-touch capabilities that answers a question no one ever asked of any previous Apple Nano.
Much as the 3rd generation was a serious misstep for its awkward form-factor, this one fails to equal its predecessor in any practical way, yet it's the same price - Not Good.