iPhone, iPod Touch Get GPS-like Capability

#1 .kvn on 15 Jan 2008 - 21:49

Paying for extra upgrades is a kick in the head for iPod Touch users. So I'm guessing Apple will make some money off this then drop the price completely in a couple of months. As for the iPhone 'updates' Apple are really dragging their feet on this as we want mms and video. They are possible in jailbroken iPhone apps so come on Apple!

(1 reply) #2 +Fugi on 15 Jan 2008 - 21:53

Looks like i'll be buying an ipod touch

, if i go order one right now think I would get these features without paying $20?

#2.1 +Axon on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:10

That is correct

(8 replies) #3 RAID 0 on 15 Jan 2008 - 21:58

So it's like fake GPS. What if you're not around a cell tower? How are you going to find out where you are. At least GPS uses a fricken satellite, so unless in extream weather conditions, you'll be able to get the signal. This is weak.

#3.1 dagamer34 on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:36

If you're not around a cell phone tower, what data connection are you using to stream map data to you? O_o

#3.2 noleafclover on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:27

Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #3.1)

If you're not around a cell phone tower, what data connection are you using to stream map data to you? O_o

Exactly, you don't get anything if you don't have a signal. And the questions could go on... How would it "triangulate" a signal in regional areas which might have only 1 tower nearby? Worst "GPS" ever.

Last edited by noleafclover on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:28

#3.3 whocares78 on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:53

Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #3.1)

If you're not around a cell phone tower, what data connection are you using to stream map data to you? O_o

umm you getthe map packs like almost ever other GPS software aplication..

#3.4 hotrod on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:50

Google maps for my Blackberry 8700 already has this technology and I must say it works quite well at "predicting" your location. Of course it works better the more towesr you have around you. I don't think this technology was ever designed to replace GPS but to give GPS like features to devices that don't have power robbing GPS built in. A nice feature is that it will show you search results relavant to your current location and map it out for you which definitely aids in finding whatever you're looking for, even if it thinks you are on the next street over.

#3.5 +Smigit on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:32

Quote - (noleafclover said @ #3.2)

Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #3.1)

If you're not around a cell phone tower, what data connection are you using to stream map data to you? O_o

Exactly, you don't get anything if you don't have a signal. And the questions could go on... How would it "triangulate" a signal in regional areas which might have only 1 tower nearby? Worst "GPS" ever.

With other phones + Mapping software you can download the maps to the phone thus cutting out the need for a data connection. My Nokia N95 for instance functions in this manner, although you have the option to stream them should you wish.

Last edited by Smigit on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:33

#3.6 noleafclover on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:58

Quote - (Smigit said @ #3.5)

With other phones + Mapping software you can download the maps to the phone thus cutting out the need for a data connection.

Yeah, that's with real GPS. My HTC TyTN II does this perfectly

But with A-GPS and Google maps you don't really have that option, you need a data connection, which is why it's mostly a crap solution. That and you can't really use it for driving...

#3.7 rage710 on 16 Jan 2008 - 05:58

Quote - (hotrod said @ #3.4)

Google maps for my Blackberry 8700 already has this technology and I must say it works quite well at "predicting" your location. Of course it works better the more towesr you have around you. I don't think this technology was ever designed to replace GPS but to give GPS like features to devices that don't have power robbing GPS built in. A nice feature is that it will show you search results relavant to your current location and map it out for you which definitely aids in finding whatever you're looking for, even if it thinks you are on the next street over.

Exactly. I have the same on my Dash. Really neat, as I fired it up one day, and I saw a blue circle on the screen, then I realized thats where I was, kinda freaked me out at first. Neat tech, imo.

#3.8 chainsaw_007 on 16 Jan 2008 - 19:41

Quote - (noleafclover said @ #3.2)

Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #3.1)

If you're not around a cell phone tower, what data connection are you using to stream map data to you? O_o

Exactly, you don't get anything if you don't have a signal. And the questions could go on... How would it "triangulate" a signal in regional areas which might have only 1 tower nearby? Worst "GPS" ever.

I totaly agree that this is the 'worst GPS' ever but what you guys are forgetting is that this is an 'extra feature'
If apple wanted they could have kept it locked, so its better then nothing i guess. and over top of that there are cellphone towers all over the place, there are hardly any spots and dont have single so this should work under normal conditions. for those that have to pay $20 for this i think is a rip-off so i wouldn't bother but its nice to have if your getting it for free ^^

(4 replies) #4 bobbba on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:07

How exactly is an ipod touch going to locate itself using cellular beacons given that it isn't a phone?

The answer, it isn't.

#4.1 RAID 0 on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:10

Oh snap!

#4.2 +Jedimark on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:19

Quote - (bobbba said @ #4)

How exactly is an ipod touch going to locate itself using cellular beacons given that it isn't a phone?

The answer, it isn't.

Read the article! - Also, the video at: http://www.apple.com/iphone/gettingstarted...ate2/small.html states the device can use nearby WI-FI base stations to receive location information which would mean the iPod Touch would be able to locate itself.

Last edited by Jedimark on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:35

#4.3 whocares78 on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:56

Quote - (Jedimark said @ #4.2)

Quote - (bobbba said @ #4)

How exactly is an ipod touch going to locate itself using cellular beacons given that it isn't a phone?

The answer, it isn't.

Read the article! - Also, the video at: http://www.apple.com/iphone/gettingstarted...ate2/small.html states the device can use nearby WI-FI base stations to receive location information which would mean the iPod Touch would be able to locate itself.

so you have to be near at the very least 2 known WIFI base stations, which is why i am guessing it wont work in a lot of places...

#4.4 NeoTrunks on 16 Jan 2008 - 04:11

Quote - (whocares78 said @ #4.3)

Quote - (Jedimark said @ #4.2)

Quote - (bobbba said @ #4)

How exactly is an ipod touch going to locate itself using cellular beacons given that it isn't a phone?

The answer, it isn't.

Read the article! - Also, the video at: http://www.apple.com/iphone/gettingstarted...ate2/small.html states the device can use nearby WI-FI base stations to receive location information which would mean the iPod Touch would be able to locate itself.

so you have to be near at the very least 2 known WIFI base stations, which is why i am guessing it wont work in a lot of places...

No, you don't.

(2 replies) #5 JamesWeb on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:22

The 'GPS' element of this is pretty laughable, the point of GPS is to pinpoint exactly where you are, I think most people could point out kind of where they are on a map.

And if you couldn't, then you're really in trouble... And probably the sort of person who'd buy an iPod Touch, so hey, go for it.

#5.1 dagamer34 on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:37

Geez, it's not that people can't do it at all, but to do it quickly (i.e. less than 3 sec).

#5.2 +Smigit on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:35

Quote - (dagamer34 said @ #5.1)

Geez, it's not that people can't do it at all, but to do it quickly (i.e. less than 3 sec).

Well how quick is this? It'll still take a bit of time to locate yourself plus stream the data. I doubt it's that overly quick, especially with my experience of using a similar feature on my phone.

(1 reply) #6 +njlouch on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:37

Agreed - this is nowhere near GPS quality.

#6.1 chainsaw_007 on 16 Jan 2008 - 19:48

Quote - (njlouch said @ #6)

Agreed - this is nowhere near GPS quality.

agree, this is nowhere near the GPS quality but then again the ipod touch isn't meant to be a GPS. What everyone is forgetting is that this is an 'extra feature' so if you dont like it then go and get a REAL GPS for about $100-$300.

#7 J400uk on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:48

Better than nothing though, like a poor mans GPS. Best thing is this is free to everyone who already has an iphone

#8 +Ji@nBing on 15 Jan 2008 - 22:53

So in other words, they are punishing the people who already bought a touch, for no reason. I was going to get a touch in a couple of weeks, but this has totally changed my mind. What's the point if they are going to try and ding me $20 for every little software update? They just lost a sale.

#9 PsykX on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:12

I am going to... need to pay for this upgrade? There's NO WAY I am doing this.

Sorry, come again.

#10 hotdog963al on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:14

iPhone apps on the iPod Touch is nothing new!

#11 craybox on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:22

you bought an ipod touch for what it is a flash music player.

would you like mail and other apps if so you can purchase. it's simple early adopters always pay a premium whichever way you look at it.

(1 reply) #12 evo_spook on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:34

This doesn't do anything for me, but I wonder, how many in here would be rubbing themselves with glee if this was something that had being introduced onto the Zune instead?

methinks, the idea would suddenly become marvelous

#12.1 whocares78 on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:57

umm no it woudl still be a rather crap idea...

(2 replies) #13 verbal11 on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:35

sucks that they're charging for it. I've been using the mobile google maps beta on my Blackberry and it uses this "fake-gps" functionality. Works pretty well in my opinion, I use it combined with the traffic feature to help me navigate around freeway traffic during my commute.

http://www.google.com/gmm/mylocation.html?hl=en

Last edited by verbal11 on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:36

#13.1 evo_spook on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:38

ok that might work with phone towers, but how the hell does it work with wifi?

#13.2 +Axon on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:13

Quote - (evo_spook said @ #13.1)

ok that might work with phone towers, but how the hell does it work with wifi?

Take a peek at Skyhooks website: http://www.skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/

There are actually one or two ways this has a slight advantage over GPS in metropolitan areas.

(7 replies) #14 MGS4-SS on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:42

$20 for an update.

That is bull****.

#14.1 Croquant on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:52

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

#14.2 whistlerxp on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:26

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.1)

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

I can't believe people still believe this myth. If Leopard, Tiger etc were just service packs, Macs would be running the same POS Mac OS X was in 2000. But instead numerous reporters say it's better than Vista and XP.

#14.3 Croquant on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:51

Quote - (whistlerxp said @ #14.2)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.1)

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

I can't believe people still believe this myth. If Leopard, Tiger etc were just service packs, Macs would be running the same POS Mac OS X was in 2000. But instead numerous reporters say it's better than Vista and XP.

Yeah, whatever. They're still charging you for a service pack.
Do you not understand that XP sp1 and sp2 were/are free? How about the four Win2K service packs? Did you pay for those? No? Then what are you on about?

Last edited by Croquant on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:51

#14.4 +Fugi on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:03

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.3)

Quote - (whistlerxp said @ #14.2)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.1)

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

I can't believe people still believe this myth. If Leopard, Tiger etc were just service packs, Macs would be running the same POS Mac OS X was in 2000. But instead numerous reporters say it's better than Vista and XP.

Yeah, whatever. They're still charging you for a service pack.
Do you not understand that XP sp1 and sp2 were/are free? How about the four Win2K service packs? Did you pay for those? No? Then what are you on about?

Now notice the drastic amount of changes in Leopard, Tiger ect and compare it to the changes in service packs... yeahhhh... quit crying about having to pay for something. No one if forcing you to buy an update and you bought a touch for what it is you had no clue that this sort of stuff would come around.... quit complaining about it.

#14.5 whocares78 on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:10

Quote - (Fugi said @ #14.4)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.3)

Quote - (whistlerxp said @ #14.2)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.1)

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

I can't believe people still believe this myth. If Leopard, Tiger etc were just service packs, Macs would be running the same POS Mac OS X was in 2000. But instead numerous reporters say it's better than Vista and XP.

Yeah, whatever. They're still charging you for a service pack.
Do you not understand that XP sp1 and sp2 were/are free? How about the four Win2K service packs? Did you pay for those? No? Then what are you on about?

Now notice the drastic amount of changes in Leopard, Tiger ect and compare it to the changes in service packs... yeahhhh... quit crying about having to pay for something. No one if forcing you to buy an update and you bought a touch for what it is you had no clue that this sort of stuff would come around.... quit complaining about it.

umm did you ever install XP SP2?...

#14.6 evo_spook on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:14

Quote - (whocares78 said @ #14.5)

Quote - (Fugi said @ #14.4)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.3)

Quote - (whistlerxp said @ #14.2)

Quote - (Croquant said @ #14.1)

No, This Is Apple!

Apple charges for it's service packs, you know.

I can't believe people still believe this myth. If Leopard, Tiger etc were just service packs, Macs would be running the same POS Mac OS X was in 2000. But instead numerous reporters say it's better than Vista and XP.

Yeah, whatever. They're still charging you for a service pack.
Do you not understand that XP sp1 and sp2 were/are free? How about the four Win2K service packs? Did you pay for those? No? Then what are you on about?

Now notice the drastic amount of changes in Leopard, Tiger ect and compare it to the changes in service packs... yeahhhh... quit crying about having to pay for something. No one if forcing you to buy an update and you bought a touch for what it is you had no clue that this sort of stuff would come around.... quit complaining about it.

umm did you ever install XP SP2?...

Yes, and there was a hell of a lot more changes in the Jump from Tiger and Leopard, these were complete operating system upgrades, not service packs that SP2 was.

#14.7 +Smigit on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:39

Quote - (whocares78 said @ #14.5)

umm did you ever install XP SP2?...

SP2 was an exception but really for MS in relation to it's service packs. They don't usually add so many new features like that and I dare say they wouldnt have with SP2 had Vista not being so delayed.

(1 reply) #15 +tunafish on 15 Jan 2008 - 23:48

Im so glad i got my Nokia N95. That has proper GPS and near enough everything the iphone has

#15.1 Magallanes on 16 Jan 2008 - 14:02

n95 is not just a gps but with the latest update (july 2007?), n95 is also A-GPS. AGPS is the sum of a real gps plus this "gps wannabe" that try to determine the position using cellular beacon (antenna)

(2 replies) #16 Ogmius on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:34

Another reason to never buy an Apple product.

I have my HTC 8925 (ATT Tilt) and I have not looked back once since I got it. There is no substitute for TRUE GPS

Last edited by Ogmius on 16 Jan 2008 - 00:34

#16.1 evo_spook on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:09

Quote - (Ogmius said @ #16)

Another reason to never buy an Apple product.

I have my HTC 8925 (ATT Tilt) and I have not looked back once since I got it. There is no substitute for TRUE GPS

What about listing reasons not to buy other products cause they all have their faults?
Or do you reserve that for Apple and ignore other companys faults?

Where do you call it a day?

#16.2 whocares78 on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:39

Quote - (evo_spook said @ #16.1)

What about listing reasons not to buy other products cause they all have their faults?
Or do you reserve that for Apple and ignore other companys faults?

Where do you call it a day?

you save complaints of other products for the forums on the other products!!!

i call it a day when the suns up, when the sun is not up it becomes night

(1 reply) #17 +macf13nd on 16 Jan 2008 - 01:30

as a poster mentioned above; early adopters pay a premium. every time. apple will not be disavantaged by this move. everybody who's livid bought an iPod touch because they were seduced enough to buy a flash mp3 player on the premise that it looked and felt amazing (fair enough it does, but its not the most *practical* choice). new users will benefit.

they have addressed the widely raised problem of a lack of GPS functionality on the iphone with a half measure that is easily (and cheaply) addressed.

in 200x (early) i bought a 10gb ipod and was glad that i didn't buy the original. however, in theory i'm livid that I didnt wait till the 160gb came out. in practice i utilised the service available to me at the time.

all this being said, i'm surprised that apple are charging legacy touch users to upgrade...

it is, to simplify, like advising someone to not buy a computer on the premise that in a years time you'll be able to buy a better one.

£0.02

#17.1 +Smigit on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:45

Apple *could* be hurt I think although likely not alot. Still, they have basically delivered a kick to it's iPod touch users by charging them for an upgrade that iPhone and new Touch users don't have to pay for. While it won't stop many, they could still loose customers over such an action especially if MS continues it's policy of supporting the old Zunes with new features to bring them closer in line with later hardware revisions. Many people will look at the two and may very well go the MS product because they provide better updates.

It kind of reminds me of the time Apple charged people to enable wireless N on their laptops via a software update.

Anyway yes, it won't hurt them alot but the negative backlash will cost them some customers I think.

#18 stifler6478 on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:21

So is it $20 for the entire update, or $20 for the GPS feature? The article doesn't seem to make it quite clear...

-Spenser

(1 reply) #19 simon360 on 16 Jan 2008 - 02:47

I'll pay $20 for this, after all, it has new features. Most phones don't get useful software updates at all, not to mention the iPods. And iPhone users get it for free.

Sure, I'd like to update my Touch for free, but this is better than what used to happen.

#19.1 ZombieFly on 16 Jan 2008 - 09:33

Quote - (simon360 said @ #1)

Most phones don't get useful software updates at all

Say What?

#20 +warwagon on 16 Jan 2008 - 07:17

Leave it to apple to suck every dime they can out of you.

#21 ZombieFly on 16 Jan 2008 - 09:35

Anyone with half a brain will have already purchased a phone made by HTC. Their smartphones/PocketPC's have had the ability to provide 10x more than the iPhone for over 5 years.

Wake up people, don't fall into the trap, do the research first and don't just buy apple because everyone else does.

#22 Rakito on 19 Feb 2008 - 17:55

Hey I dont understand this could some one could tell me how the GPS like thing works on the ipod touch so what if I am not connected to wifi will thie thing still work ? could someone tell me how this thing works on the ipod touch thank you

Neowin.net