X
Business

Touchscreen iPod to be announced today? Don't bet on it!

Think Secret has a tip from an "unproven source" that Apple will today announce a new widescreen, touchscreen 6G iPod.
Written by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, Senior Contributing Editor

Think Secret has a tip from an "unproven source" that Apple will today announce a new widescreen, touchscreen 6G iPod.

The undefeated champion of the media players - the iPod
The tipster is reporting that Apple will announce the touchscreen iPods today but not ship them until June or July, after the iPhone.  This timing of the announcement is being put down to the fact that the touchscreen technology has "already been perfected and finalized."

I don't think that we'll see a touchscreen iPod for a while because of the associated costsI think that this "announcement" is as real as that email I got today telling me that I'd won the lottery.  Why would Apple jeopardize iPhone sales by pre-announcing a touchscreen iPod now?  That's not like Apple at all.

I also can't see a reason why Apple would so dramatically update the iPod range right now.  iPods are flying off the shelves as they are with little or no competition from anyone or anything else (even Microsoft's Zune).  There's no need to go and stick expensive technology like touchscreen in them just yet.  Sure, Apple might kick up the storage a notch and add 100GB drives soon, but that's only a minor technical update.

Nah, as much as I like the sound of a touchscreen, widescreen 6G iPod (so much so that I would probably buy one) I don't think that Apple is going to announce one today.  In fact, I don't think that we'll see a touchscreen iPod for a while because of the associated costs (maybe the 7G iPod).  The next big thing from Apple is going to be the iPhone, and nothing is going to get a chance to eclipse that and potentially upset Apple's entry into the highly competitive, dog-eat-dog cellphone market.  As far as Apple is concerned, everything has to give way for the iPhone this year, even Leopard.

But ... I could be wrong ...

Editorial standards