• Registered: 2007-09-05
  • Posts: 11

Topic: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

With Apple releasing their updated iPod line, and including a wireless, web enabled, touch screen version now (iPod touch) for $299, is there a potential that this could totally overlap with the Chumby capabilities/audience?

Don't get me wrong...I've been anxious awaiting the release of the Chumby. But, now I'm wondering if my lust for a wireless device that has a nice display and gives me various entertainment/business news can be sated by this "iPhone without the iPhone" device.

If they don't really compare, I'd be interested to know the key differences.

  • Registered: 2006-08-29
  • Posts: 204

Re: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

I'd say no. The chumby is sort of "always on" and not portable -- in a good way.

They're really different products, in my opinion.

  • Registered: 2007-09-05
  • Posts: 11

Re: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

I messed up the subject line. Should have been 'New iPod (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like'.

The iPod would certainly have the potential to be 'always on' as well. Just leave it in an area with a constant WiFi signal. Even better, perhaps you could connect, with your iPod, to the Chumby emulation website and, poof, Chumby behavior running inside your iPod!

I'm looking for technical reasons you couldn't do most of the same things on the new iPod touch that you would do on the Chumby. I know they're intended for different implementations and perhaps audiences.

  • Duane
  • Duane
  • Blue Octy
  • Offline
  • From: San Diego, CA
  • Registered: 2006-08-24
  • Posts: 8,197

Re: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

Obviously, we don't any more about this device that you all do, but we think the use cases are pretty different.  We're designed for "always on" connection to the Internet, while they're designed to be a portable media device with network access and a secondary behavior. We're also extremely liberal about allowing third-party content and people have historically had to resort to hacking to install software on iPod-family devices.

It will be interesting to see what their battery life is like when actively using the wifi - they only give battery specs when playing video and audio and specifically note that the wifi is turned off.

We've been expecting that devices would show up in the market that would have some overlap with chumby - after all, it's such a great idea and a lot of technologies are converging to make the timing ripe for this class of device.  And Apple is the most obvious company to do so - so no shock here.

All in all, it's a very interesting device - I'll probably have to buy one to replace my ancient 1st gen shuffle smile

Duane's Website

  • Registered: 2007-09-05
  • Posts: 11

Re: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

Hey Duane,

Thanks for your insights. Yes, we've been preparing for always-on, built-in wifi devices for quite some time. So, I too believe the Chumby, iPod, Nabaztag, etc. are only the 'tip of the iceberg'.

Having a critical mass of developers on-board is definitely a plus, as well as offering a powerful platform to build on. And, Apple has been a bit unclear about how open this gadget will be. Developing web page functionality, inside of Safari, is somewhat limiting.

Obviously, you could get an AC adapter for your iPod and treat it like a stationary device (for your psuedo-Chumby implementation). Not sure how the displays will compare side-by-side. Also, I believe the Chumby has external speakers which are not on the new iPod touch.

  • Registered: 2007-09-05
  • Posts: 25

Re: New iPhone (iPod touch) potentially too Chumby-like?

There is a cult for "i" anything; I wonder what sort of iHacks will come out for the iTouch? How many people on this board might jump ship to buy this device. Me I am wonder how quick the internet would be on this machine. But one of the pluses for me would be no power cord. However there seems to be so many other devices coming out I just might wait a bit.