Apple’s iPod touch: PDA, not UMPC
Apple announced yesterday that the newest version of the iPod will sport the same “iTouch” interface as the now-released iPhone. The iPod touch inherits a few other things from the iPhone as well: It also sports the WiFi enabled Safari browser, the Personal Information Management (PIM) functions, and the ability to download to iTunes directly, without the support of a computer. In fact, the only thing it doesn’t have that the iPhone does is the phone functions.
I suspect a lot will be written in the coming days about how this new iPod will impact various markets, so I’m going to stick my neck out here and be the first to say that, like the iPhone, it will probably only peripherally affect the UMPC market if at all. I’ll get to my reasons in a moment, but first let me clarify what I mean: The multi-touch interface itself is intriguing and I have some hope that various UMPC manufacturers and Microsoft will be contemplating how they might leverage multi-touch type features into future UMPCs. That’s an impact as far as future hardware and operating systems design is concerned but not an impact as far as skewing the market away from current UMPCs.
I suspect the iPod touch will put a dent in the PDA market, because that’s what the iPod touch is. Like other PDAs, it has a proprietary operating system that won’t allow you to run off-the-shelf software designed for desktops/laptops/handtops. Like other PDAs, it won’t be able to use the vast majority of peripherals, including full-sized keyboards, mice, and displays that can be used on laptops and handtops. Like many other high-end PDAs, it has (somewhat limited) browsing capabilities, PIM functions, and (of course, It’s an iPod.) entertainment functions. So the iPod touch will very likely impact the high-end PDA (read HP iPAQ and Nokia N-series) PDAs, but won’t even be in the consideration for people who want desktop-comparable/compatible functionalities.
10 Responses to “Apple’s iPod touch: PDA, not UMPC”
Leave a Reply
Search
Related Entries
Latest News
- Custom made low-clearance power plugs for your UX
- Introducing MPCT Power Search provided by Google CS
- DIY Gamepad Controller for the UX
- Don’t worry, I’m not leaving!
- What is the UX383CN?
- Results are in: UX490 running Windows XP is the fastest UMPC in town
- Custom made hardcover screen protector and stand for UX
- VGN-UX491-MCD to include mini-CD drive
- UX490 heads to Korea as the UX58LN
- Firefox tip: use favicons instead of text
From a hardware standpoint it definitely sounds like you are dead on about the iPod Touch falling into the category of a PDA instead of a UMPC. I think the iPod Touch will work its magic in the PMP industry, but aside from a nice interface and decent hardware (innovative touch screen) I think the UMPC market will be relatively unchanged by it.
MeanSquare-
What do you think of Jenn from Pocketable.net saying that the iPhone was a UMPC Lite? http://www.pocketables.net/2007/07/review-apple-ip.html
I think the MP3 player market will of course be impacted in a positive way as other makers adapt with better products. As far as impact to the PDA market, what market ? PDA sales peaked a few years ago and continue to decline as devices converge…now the only real “killer” app that everyone has to have is a phone, anything else is just gravy.
As far as the iphpone being a UMPC Lite..NOT. Unless it can run off the shelf WIndows and/or MAC apps it aint a PC in any form, ultra mobile or otherwise.
“What do you think of Jenn from Pocketable.net saying that the iPhone was a UMPC Lite?”
She’s an idiot. The difference between a PDA and a UMPC is that a UMPC runs a full PC OS that lets you run PC apps.
As was said, iPod/iPhone run scaled down/device specific OS’s just like PDAs, that are extremely limited. There is no argument, they are not UMPCs, they are PDAs at best.
Unless Apple unlocks them to let you use OSX apps. Otherwise they are no more UMPCs than PSPs are.
Ouch! I can’t say I’m fond of the unwarranted name-calling, especially since I never said the iPhone was a UMPC.
My definition of a UMPC Lite (as explained in the original article, under the “What’s a UMPC Lite?” heading) is that of an ARM-based MID. MIDs, as defined by Intel, are Linux-based companion devices, not UMPCs with full-blown operating systems: http://www.intel.com/products/mid/index.htm
Yes I think that might have been uncalled for, I think the term UMPC Lite helps to differentiate between the blurry area of MID and UMPCs especially when they are running Linux, who is going to say Linux is not a desktop OS? It helps define that region that would otherwise be debated. IMO I think its a term that companies should use in marketing because it helps to say what the device is and isn’t.
“I never said the iPhone was a UMPC.”
Thus making you not an idiot.
I tend to avoid using derisive terms for other people, hopefully avoiding getting the same in return. I don’t like the term “lite”, but that’s a personal preference due to the potential for confusion. That’s the only thing in Jenn’s review that I might object to though, and I do understand her reasons for going with “UMPC lite” as apposed to MID.
Her review and my comments are two different, but actually complementary, perspectives (once you get past the use of “UMPC.”) Her review shows you what you can do with an iPhone. My comments were more along the lines of what you can’t do and why that’s important for us UMPC (non-lite) users.
Personally, I’d like to see UMPC retain the meaning of using a full desktop-compatible operating system running on a desktop-compatible processor. As long as people do as well as Jenn did at defining what she meant by “UMPC-lite,” it still does.
I’ve got an iPhone and a N800. I travel a lot, and now with the iPhone I’m able to leave my laptop behind. The iPhone does what I need to do on the road: surf the web, check/write e-mails, and play media for entertainment. It only does a few things, but it does those things very well. The interface is like something from the future, it’s so intuitive, fast and smooth. When I pick up the N800 now it’s like going back in time to Windows 95. I hardly use it now and it hasn’t left the house since getting the iPhone.
Bob,
As far as the user interface on the iPhone is concerned, Apple has always been good at user interfaces. Having looked at a number of UIs in Windows, OSX, and Linux and I’ve come to the conclusion that “intuitive” is often a very personal thing. It can also have a lot to do with what you’re used to as well. That said, “fast and smooth” can be quantified and are pretty important to the users sense of how well the device is working.
I’m glad the iPhone’s working for you. This isn’t really a matter of whether or not it would work for me. (It wouldn’t, because my needs go far beyond simple browsing and e-mail.) What I’m concerned about is that there are some pretty capable devices coming out. Some are legitimately UMPCs, others, like the iPhone are more accurately PDAs. That’s not just quibbling with terminology. Words mean things and help us determine whether or not a device might meet our needs before we scan the whole feature set.