Survey: iPod Touch 2G vs. iPhone 3G Redesign

While the second-gen (2G) iPod Touch comes blinging with a sexy, polished steel back design, a refreshing update from their original look, the iPhone 3G's new plastic backs seemed like a step backwards for some after abandoning their brushed steel design. Features aside, which one rocks harder in the design department? Better yet, which one would make a better iPhone?

Comments (5)

I really, really like that iPod Touch 2G chrome. Must... do... hack....

posted by ekoshyun on September 11th 2008 at 1:39pm
view ekoshyun's profile

The plastic of the iPhone 3G is apparently for better reception, not just looks, and it actually doesn't look and feel cheap and plasticky, so I vote iPhone 3G!

posted by Shannon in SF on September 11th 2008 at 3:39pm
view Shannon in SF's profile

i'll admit i do like the curves of the new iphone/touch, but i much prefer my 1st gen iphone's metal back. one, because it's metal, two because it's brushed. i hate the chrome on the back of ipods! scratches way too easily not to mention all the fingerprints/smudges.

posted by Matt. M on September 11th 2008 at 5:19pm
view Matt. M's profile

I love the LOOK of the chrome back, but I hate the constant smudges/fingerprints. Just makes it dirty to the point of being impractically ugly. I'll stick with the plastic on the back of my 3g.

posted by pandemicsoul on September 12th 2008 at 6:23am
view pandemicsoul's profile

I agree with Matt M. the brushed metal 1st gen iphone is tops as far as looks go, but what's most important to me is which material allows for best reception?

posted by greyrussian on September 12th 2008 at 9:23am
view greyrussian's profile