33GB iPod Touch?

Lonnie Lazar ()

33GB iPod Touch?

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?

33GB iPod Touch?

DON'T MISS
White iPhone 4 is Slightly Thicker – May Not Fit Some Cases

13 comments »

About the author

Lonnie Lazar

Lonnie Lazar is a writer-musician-web designer-attorney. He writes about Apple for Cult of Mac and Mac|Life, and about VoIP and telecommunications for Voxilla. Follow Lonnie on Twitter @LonnieLazar, join the Cult of Mac on Facebook, and find Lonnie's photos on Flickr.

(sorry, you need Javascript to see this e-mail address)| Read more posts by .

Posted in News |

  • http://www.ratemypoo.com/ Derf Dorfman

    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.

  • http://www.aaronmillerillustration.com Aaron Miller
  • http://applelog.ru applelog

    Man, I always appreciate people noticing little stuff like this.

  • http://www.davidmckeitch.com Peachey

    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 :P

  • cilaes

    Wow. It’s definitely 30 bucks cheaper than the 80GB iPod I just bought. Shit.

  • A Sampaio

    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.

  • Dave

    Just looks like a bad job with the clone stamp tool to me…

  • Don Pope

    That second “3″ is all smudged up. It’s either an artifact of JPEG compression or the image has been retouched (poorly).

  • Brodie

    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.

  • txrd

    The two ’3′s don’t even look the same.

  • http://www.gearsandwidgets.com/ phoenix

    Oops – sorry, that was me. Got some grease from my mcmuffin on the back of my iPod there. Move along. :D

  • http://mymultitouch.wordpress.com rishi

    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.

  • http://www.isharemac.com iTomath

    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.