iPod I'll get Nano when they look like this

[drjsway]

2" 320x480 retina display
About as powerful as the original iPod Touch
Able to run any iOS app the original iPhone/iPod Touch can run (with the same resolution, this shouldn't be hard)
No external speaker/mic (a headset will work fine)
Bluetooth and Wifi
A VGA camera would be great but not necessary.

 

[roland.g]

I'm sure they'll get on that when the technology arrives. Ha!

Even at double the height and slightly wider, you are asking them to put too much into that small a package. There are physical constraints to what you are asking for.

 

[iParis]

You have no idea how small everything would be if it as that size but on a 320x480 screen. Especially in apps that you can't zoom into unlike Safari or iBooks.

EDIT: Woops. Depth perception completely off. For some reason I was thinking 2cm, not 2in. xD

 

[Alaerian]

What you're asking for isn't very reasonable, nor is it currently feasible in that size. Have you seen the inner components of an iPod Touch? You're essentially demanding an iPod Touch in a Nano package - it's not physically possible to do what you're wanting.

Plus, on that small of a screen, most apps would be completely unusable and would need to be rewritten, if not devoid of any support at all, for that model.

 

[drjsway]

At 2" inch (maybe 2.25" like the Nano 5G), a 320x480 screen would still be lower pixel density than the iPhone 4.

 

[drjsway]

What you're asking for isn't very reasonable, nor is it currently feasible in that size. Have you seen the inner components of an iPod Touch? You're essentially demanding an iPod Touch in a Nano package - it's not physically possible to do what you're wanting.

Plus, on that small of a screen, most apps would be completely unusable and would need to be rewritten, if not devoid of any support at all, for that model.

It's taking an iPod Touch and removing the cameras, mic, external speaker, and gyroscope. Plus, I'm sure an ARM chipset about the same power as the original Touch could be made much smaller now.

Don't see why it's unreasonable since this nano would be taller than the current one and I'm not adding any new hardware except a faster processor that can run iOS, and bluetooth/wi-fi.

 

[roland.g]

At 2" inch (maybe 2.25" like the Nano 5G), a 320x480 screen would still be lower pixel density than the iPhone 4.

It's not the screen size, it's the componentry that has to go into it. The engineering, even at Apple isn't there to put the power of a 1G Touch into something that small, even on a scaled down iOS.

 

[billysea]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.

 

[alust2013]

I do agree, that would be cool, even if it was like the current nano's OS plus video. I think that is a bit more reasonable

 

[roland.g]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.

I'll continue to disagree. The reason the Nano got the features you mention over time is that they were trying to make the Nano more than it was with add-ons year after year for marketing. Truth is video recording belongs in a Touch or iPhone. Video viewing belongs in a Classic, Touch, iPhone or iPad. Same with things like Speaker, Games, Notes, etc. Only Contacts and Calendar syncing might be arguable and come back in a software update. Possibly notes too. But truth is, they know that most Nano owners workout or run with it, and a lot of students use it or people commuting. If you want to watch video, a Nano is not the answer. Not in the evolution of the Nano, which this is. The Shuffle doesn't work for people who want a screen and/or Nike+ support. This does that with a clip, small package, easy to use.

 

[Alaerian]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.

Since you are so unhappy with everything Apple has to offer and you feel you can do it better, I'd recommend pursuing some investors to assist you in your own startup. Perhaps you'll be able to compete head to head with Apple in the portable media category.

Quoting from below, just for emphasis:

I don't think the Nano needs to run apps. It's been all about the music and the audio content. We have the iPod Touch and the iPhone for that.

 

[R94N]

I don't think the Nano needs to run apps. It's been all about the music and the audio content. We have the iPod Touch and the iPhone for that.

 

[tibi08]

What you're describing isn't significantly different to the iPod touch. Sure, you're going to argue it's just that tiny bit too big - but that gives the screen estate to run actual apps. Plus it can share apps the same size with the iPhone.

I think you're missing the point with the new nano. It's outstandingly brilliant. It's just a mp3 player, and it's the best mp3 player ever known (the iPod touch not being "just" an mp3 player).

 

[hcho3]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

 

[roland.g]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

Point made. I don't see Apple putting an A4 chip in a Nano.

It's outstandingly brilliant.

Best post.

 

[Dr Kevorkian94]

I think that size screen and a VGA camera would be just fine

 

[JohnnyQuest]

I think the size of that mock-up is just useless. Why would you want all the functionality of iOS on a package that's still so small? I really like where they took the new nano, but wish that the screen was just a tad bit larger...like if they have just chopped the wheel off of the previous generation and added the new touch functionality to the screen. I currently have a 4G iPod nano, and will most likely sit this update out, although I like the overall functionality of the new nano.

 

[old-school]

I think you're missing the point with the new nano. It's outstandingly brilliant. It's just a mp3 player, and it's the best mp3 player ever known

Well said. Get that man a chair, he can stay!

 

[headset]

I dig it. I think it's totally feasible. Not to run full ios apps, but specific, highly optimized versions of a couple apps. Maybe only one app, facetime. Maybe it would have to be a little thicker, a little bigger. But if apple can make a dick-tracy watch, they totally will.

 

[billysea]

Since you are so unhappy with everything Apple has to offer and you feel you can do it better, I'd recommend pursuing some investors to assist you in your own startup. Perhaps you'll be able to compete head to head with Apple in the portable media category.

Quoting from below, just for emphasis:

So what do you actually contribute to this discussion? Asking people with opinion to go somewhere and only Apple fanboy to stay, accept and admire?

I totally agree Apple should have a machine that doesn't have to do anything other than to just play music, or your 'theory' about separating the market from the iTouch/iPhone (which I found stupid since Apple has ton of products overlap in features over the years, and now they are overlapping the Shuffle in terms of 'featureless'). But for the cost they are charging for the Nano, it SHOULD have more features. It's not the point of how much features you care to use, but the balance between price and features. $150-180 is way overprice for a music-only device.

As I said in another thread, this thing will still sell though especially at the beginning. The Apple fashion brand, and the 'wow' factor from the size differences to previous models, will always sell machines. But sale numbers and product value/quality is never equal in our society, and I am here only to give my opinion on the value/quality.

However, I can see this new Nano as the (first step of an) evolution to the Nano line (instead of a natural successor to the old Nano). Next year after they take in all the criticisms they will do a much better job implementing other features while still keeping the machine small (but not as small and featureless as now).

 

[Alaerian]

But for the cost they are charging for the Nano, it SHOULD have more features. It's not the point of how much features you care to use, but the balance between price and features.

Forums ate my post. Ergo, TL;DR below.

You didn't create the device; therefore, you don't get to set the price. If you want to set your own price and demand specific features, then grab some investors and create your own.

There are plenty enough features to balance out the price. A smaller form factor comes at a price. So does an above average LCD with multi-touch capabilities. I'm sorry if it's not what you have demanded, but again, it's not your creation.

If you are so insistent on having "fluff" features like video recording, a camera, and the ability to make pancakes and fold your laundry ... why don't you simply get an iPod Touch?

You aren't understanding that the Nano isn't marketed to the crowd that needs everything above. It's apparently being marketed towards those looking for a fairly full-featured music player that is small and unobtrusive for active people. Why else would they have included a clip, a tiny form factor, a rotating screen, Nike+ integration, and a pedometer? I'm sorry that it doesn't have what you think it needs, but it just doesn't look like it was designed for what you'd be using it for.

$150-180 is way overprice for a music-only device.

Oh, and with this logic, the Classic should be discontinued too, right?
/facepalm

 

[m.a.c.b.o.y]

Looks like great idea to me, I'll hold out for that! The nano now is way too small.

 

[ConnorTurnbull]

No. Apple are moving their iOS device to a higher resolutions. They're not going to try and get develops to keep scaled back apps for a Nano.

I think it'll be RIP Nano in a few years.

 

[drjsway]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

Why would you say something like this? Did I mention I was applying for a design job at Apple? Of course, I'm staying a customer and I'm speaking from a customer point of view.

At 2", it will have a ppi of 288, which is retina at 12" away assuming 20/20 vision. 20/20 = 1 arcminute = 3438 feet. 1/288 = .00347 inch per pixel. 12"/3438' = .00349 inch per pixel.

Why don't you learn about what you talking about before you speak? You just come off as ignorant.

As far as processing power, The original iPhone only had slightly faster chipsets than the ones used in the current nanos. With the added height, they could certainly fit a processor the same speed as the iPhone 1 (or optimize/streamline iOS more). The added height would also give it a bigger battery.

Of course the Nano doesn't NEED apps and no one will be force you to use them but it would be nice to have them there. And of course not all apps would work well given the size but simple apps like weather, calculator, stocks, and simple games would be great.

 

[M-5]

Good luck typing on a screen that small.