I just bought a new ipod touch today. I've had a 2gb. nano for the past three years, and felt it was time to get a new one. Anyways, I saw some new nanos with video capability, and was torn between those and the touch. For the $80 more I figured I'd be happier in the long-term with the touch, but I wanted to hear some opinions also.

So far I've got some basic opinions

Touch:

Pros:
Internet
Bigger screen
games/interface

Cons:
Bulkier than the nano
shorter battery life than the nano
Less space than the nano

Nano:

Pros:
small and compact[I work out with my ipod alot]
less costly
more space.

So IM, have I made a good choice in getting the touch, or should I return it and get the nano?

If we confront iPod as a "music listening device," you should by all means stick with the Nano. I'd actually recommend an iPod Classic, as they have the most space.

But if you more just want to dick around, and drain your wallet in the App Store...then perhaps you should stick with the Touch.

Either way, you're getting very little storage. If you don't have that much music to listen to, then I guess it's not a problem...
However personally, I've got 36GB of music, and I'm still having to deal with a 30GB maxed out iPod 5G (Video). I don't care how many bells and whistles the Touch, the Zen, the Zune, the iRiver, the WHATEVER has - if it doesn't have enough capacity, I'm not using it. If you're a music lover, your music player should be like a portable library.

That's what I stand by.

yeah, echoing what GR already said, it just depends on what you're looking for in a music player. I personally just wanted a music player with a ton of room, so I snagged one of the new 120 GB ipod classics. They're fairly cheap compared to previous generation models with a ton more room so for me it was a deal i couldn't pass up. So if having an ipod touch gets you all hot and bothered, then keep it. But if you're looking for simple functionality the Nano would probably be better.

or just man up and get a classic.

I, too, am rolling with an insufficient 30 GB model. Go for whatever is the most practical for you.

I don't consider iPods to be good MP3 players. The audio quality isn't very good, the compatibility is pretty low, and iTunes is a pretty bad client in general. I use a Creative Zen Vision M, and it's starting to show its age but I love it. My next step will probably be the latest Zen, since they seem to be the best at audio quality.

I don't care what make or model a music player is, but capacity is the most important aspect, followed by compatibility and ease of use. As such, I can't even begin to consider an iPod Nano or an iPod Touch. I have an 80 GB iPod, and never have I put anything that isn't music on it. I may have played one of the games once, though.

They now have 32 GB micro SD cards, and an iPod Nano can only hold a quarter of that? Fucking please. Anyway, nowadays, my preferred method of music listening is through a computer, because with the falling prices of computers, it is really ridiculous to be paying hundreds of dollars for mere portability. Of course, I still have my iPod, but I doubt I'll get another one after it breaks, which it will, because it's an iPod.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]They now have 32 GB micro SD cards, and an iPod Nano can only hold a quarter of that?

with the falling prices of computers, it is really ridiculous to be paying hundreds of dollars for mere portability.[/quote]

1) Couldn't agree more. I remember a time when a 1GB USB stick would set you back a good amount of money...Now, they're practically giving 2GB sticks away. Nanos are fucking accessories. If you're really just going to put like, 200 songs on there, just get some off brand piece of shit that'll get the job done for a lot less.

2) I don't get what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that MP3 players, as standalone devices (I'm talking about non-multimedia iPods) are just too expensive in general, compared to say, a decent netbook for $300-500? Or are you saying that everyone should just buy a small computer and whip it open when they want to listen to music.

I mean, I guess it does seem a little insane to pay $250 for a simple music player, when fully fledged computers are not much more expensive. I have a feeling things are going to converge more and more though, once companies like Palm, Nokia, Samsung, RIM, etc get a handle on good UI. My phone has 8GB of memory - in the next few years, if they could significantly increase the memory while giving me a good playing interface like the iPod, then I'm sold on an all in one. Is that how you envision things heading in the future too, Sheer? I can totally justify giving pocket space to a dedicated music player, but maybe the future will just converge everything well enough.

As it is now, I can totally justify the cost of an iPod Classic - out of anything I own (besides my computer), I get the most...uh...what is it..."consumer surplus" out of my iPod. If you consider how often I'm plugged into that thing, $250 for something I can get almost daily usage of for years is definitely reasonable.

And as for Alucard's post: I can't comment on the comparative sound quality...but I can definitely say that the iPod's usability is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else I've messed around with, whether it be a Zen or Zune.

I said what you thought I said. If I can buy a computer for $300, why should I pay the same amount of money for a portable music player? Anyway, I think smartphones will eventually replace music players. For instance, my phone has an 8 GB micro SD card that comes with it. However, since it uses removable storage, it can easily use 16 GB and 32 GB cards (currently), and the opportunities for expansion are indefinite. They're not quite at a ditch-my-80GB-iPod tier yet, but in a few years, they undoubtedly will be.

The main problem I've had with cell phones (especially the media aspect) is just shitty UI. A split second delay is too sluggish.
If a smart phone is really gonna be an ALL-in-one device for me, it has to actually be on-par to the iPod's interface. Which is extremely responsive and intuitive.

I think phones are getting there, if the Palm Pre is as usable as it looks.

I own an older palm model, the treo, and i can totally see it having pretty decent audio capabilities. I just feel more comfortable having an ipod AND a phone. I'd rather not drain the battery of my phone listening to music for hours on end, and then when I actually need to make a call the battery life ends up being too low to hold a decent conversation. And there are headphones out there that can link to your cell phone so you can be able to answer a call even if you have them up to 11 or whatever. I just think that depending on one device so heavily makes me a bit uneasy to be honest, because if it breaks or dies you're FUCKED. Having two separate devices for music and phone calls/internet just seems more practical to me. Battery life isn't really something I want to HAVE to consider every time I have the urge to listen to music, especially when you're nowhere near an electrical outlet to keep it charged.

Oh shit, you're right - fucking batteries.

[quote="skool"]battery[/quote]

Oh yeah, good point.

That's why owning an iPhone is completely crazy to me. With moderate usage, you'll be hard pressed to get through an entire day without a charge.

"So? Just make sure you charge it every night..."

Okay, but what if you forget? It happens. What if you have an unusually long phone call and forget to turn the Wifi off or whatever?

Batteries need to last. I'd rather have a good phone with amazing battery life than a top of the life phone with poor battery life. It's not even worth it if I can't rely on it.

[quote="GoldenRhino"][quote="skool"]battery[/quote]

Oh yeah, good point.

That's why owning an iPhone is completely crazy to me. With moderate usage, you'll be hard pressed to get through an entire day without a charge.

"So? Just make sure you charge it every night..."

Okay, but what if you forget? It happens. What if you have an unusually long phone call and forget to turn the Wifi off or whatever?

Batteries need to last. I'd rather have a good phone with amazing battery life than a top of the life phone with poor battery life. It's not even worth it if I can't rely on it.[/quote]

I think I made a pretty recent post in the News section, but they're going to start producing batteries that have really fucking short recharge times now, so battery technology is improving.

Battery technology has been improving since batteries were invented.

[quote="Blank"]they're going to start producing batteries that have really fucking short re[b]charge[/b] times now, so battery technology is improving.[/quote]

Long life is more important than short recharge times, in my opinion.
Also, according to the news, scientists have discovered the cure for cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimers.
But until these "discoveries" can be manufactured and sold to people, I don't really give a shit.