33GB iPod Touch?
9:14 pm, November 24th, 2008, Lonnie Lazar
On the Apple Store website, it seems clear your choices among the iPod Touch offerings are 8GB, 16GB and 32GB models. Alerted by a photo posted by Flickr user iTomath, however, I was drawn to the What’s New with iTouch info page on the Apple site and, sure enough, the photo on the page as of this writing appears to indicate a 33GB device. Not that 1GB makes any difference in this day and age, but it does seem odd, doesn’t it?
Posted by Lonnie Lazar in News | Comment on this article
You have got to be kidding here! That is obviously a graphic spluge of a 2 not a three. A 33GB iPod makes no earthly sense. This post should be on the cover of the Enquirer. It’s practically a Vampire Baby birth photo. OMG! Desperation alert!
Don’t quit your day job bro.
Derf Dorfman, on November 24th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
http://store.apple.com/uk/engrave/MB533BT/A?mco=MTcyODA4Mw
32 GB
Aaron Miller, on November 24th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Man, I always appreciate people noticing little stuff like this.
applelog, on November 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
http://www.apple.com/uk/ipodtouch/whatsnew.html
The UK site says 32GB. And yes it does look like someones drawn it on. I think someone on the apple web team is playing with us
Peachey, on November 25th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Wow. It’s definitely 30 bucks cheaper than the 80GB iPod I just bought. Shit.
cilaes, on November 25th, 2008 at 3:40 am
No, the photo is not a fake it’s just magnified. Go check http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/whatsnew.html, download the image and zoom in on it.
If the photo was modified (and it looks like it was) the changes were made by someone who works for apple not the people that maintain the “cult of mac” blog.
A Sampaio, on November 25th, 2008 at 3:53 am
Just looks like a bad job with the clone stamp tool to me…
Dave, on November 25th, 2008 at 5:35 am
That second “3″ is all smudged up. It’s either an artifact of JPEG compression or the image has been retouched (poorly).
Don Pope, on November 25th, 2008 at 6:24 am
That really is a pathetic excuse for an article.
I mean, why don’t we doctor the photo again and make it say 64 gb, or 512, then we can talk about it.
But seriously, why bother posting this.
Brodie, on November 25th, 2008 at 7:23 am
The two ‘3’s don’t even look the same.
txrd, on November 25th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Oops – sorry, that was me. Got some grease from my mcmuffin on the back of my iPod there. Move along.
phoenix, on November 25th, 2008 at 9:26 am
What a stupid thing to Photoshop. Seriously. If someone is going to photoshop and electronic device, at least make it like A BILLION GIGS. Thats so obviously faked…bad photoshop job, too.
Disappointment.
rishi, on November 25th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Thats my Flickr page mentioned there.
@ rishi
It was not PhotoShopped. It is a finding on the Apple site it’s self. The only ‘editing’ that was done to my image was zooming into the image and then applying that to the original image so people can see it a little bit clearer.
I hate it when people go right into posting “OMFG!!1! ITS FAKE! PHOTOSHOP!1!!” without even properly checking the image or the image’s sources.
In fact, I didn’t even use PhotoShop at all. I used the Preview app for everything done in that image.
iTomath, on December 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
[...] Cult of Mac.] bb_keywords = “ipod touch, ipod”; bb_bid = “2727″; bb_lang = “pt-BR”; bb_name = “custom”; [...]
iPod touch de 33GB? No site da Apple tem…, on December 21st, 2008 at 5:27 pm