iPod iPod Nano 2010--Where's it Headed?

[tigress666]

I am sure it will sell a lot (especially at the beginning) due to its 'wow' factor. But in terms of practicality and value this definitely a failure.

It's not that it is wrong to have a music player that only play music, but for the cost they are charging, $150-180 for a machine that only play songs nowadays? It's way overpriced.

Bah, the ipod was way overpriced years ago. It's Apple, that's how they are.

And honestly, maybe you don't find it practical but I can tell you it hits exactly the right reasons I want to have a Nano despite already having an iPhone (it hits all the things the ipod touch/iphone really can't do as well that makes it not redundant to have). It's a huge improvement imho (though I'd be yelling bloody murder if there was no way to have physical buttons but you can buy a remote to go with your headphones and for me, I already have headphones I love with a remote cause they work with my current nano and my iphone).

I don't need a video camera or video playing ability, anytime I'd use that I have my iphone on me which will do a far better job than the little video camera they could put on the nano and the little screen even the fifth gen has. I need something small that is light and stays out of the way, even better that I can clip it onto things. With physical buttons for when I don't want to look (Though honestly the iphone is now fine for that with the remote, and hte nano will be fine for that with the remote as well).

They are not marketing the nano for those that want video capability, they have an ipod Touch for that (and why would they want two of their products competing for the same market, it's a very smart business move honestly). THey are marketing for those that need a music player on the go. That doesn't compete with the Touch and in fact can still be useful for those that have a Touch/iPhone.

 

[KLTechNerd]

The Nano? You should be a software engineer at Apple if you know a way to get that done. Who wouldn't want OS X on an iPod Nano?

/endsarcasm

I like this idea
I would buy a iPod nano with OS X on it, the best part about it is that it would be a cheaper mac on the market, than the expensive Mac mini.

 

[KLTechNerd]

There are no podcasts on the new nano?

Most of the Podcast are in video now, the new nano can't play video. So I do not think that the new nano can play Podcast

 

[tigress666]

Most of the Podcast are in video now, the new nano can't play video. So I do not think that the new nano can play Podcast

It's quite possible it can still play the audio. But it does have a whole button/menu dedicated to podcasts so it's not like they completely left them out (it's not a feature I use, I just know it's there cause I've already decided that one is going on the last screen since I don't use it).

Kinda like on my music videos I have it will play the song but not the movie when I have it on music mode (of course I have not tested if it will do the same on the new nano but I suspect it will).

 

[KLTechNerd]

There are no podcasts on the new nano?

It's quite possible it can still play the audio. But it does have a whole button/menu dedicated to podcasts so it's not like they completely left them out (it's not a feature I use, I just know it's there cause I've already decided that one is going on the last screen since I don't use it).

Kinda like on my music videos I have it will play the song but not the movie when I have it on music mode (of course I have not tested if it will do the same on the new nano but I suspect it will).

Good point maybe the new nano does do that but seeing the video though is so cool

 

[speedyraf]

The 6th gen iPod nano guide (found in the Manuals section of Apple's website) says it can be used as a disk drive like its predecessors. That implies "Notes" to me, so why did Apple leave out the similar calendar and contacts applications? The latter are programs I use often with my 2nd gen iPod nano. Does it make sense to wait for a software update and see what changes with the 6th gen iPod nano? I'm also considering a refurb 5th gen iPod nano but don't know if more places around here will start banning camera laden technology. Once my local Apple store has the 6th gen iPod nano in stock, I'll actually see and handle one. That's exciting!

 

[gonzaload1987]

Bah, the ipod was way overpriced years ago. It's Apple, that's how they are.

And honestly, maybe you don't find it practical but I can tell you it hits exactly the right reasons I want to have a Nano despite already having an iPhone (it hits all the things the ipod touch/iphone really can't do as well that makes it not redundant to have). It's a huge improvement imho (though I'd be yelling bloody murder if there was no way to have physical buttons but you can buy a remote to go with your headphones and for me, I already have headphones I love with a remote cause they work with my current nano and my iphone).

I don't need a video camera or video playing ability, anytime I'd use that I have my iphone on me which will do a far better job than the little video camera they could put on the nano and the little screen even the fifth gen has. I need something small that is light and stays out of the way, even better that I can clip it onto things. With physical buttons for when I don't want to look (Though honestly the iphone is now fine for that with the remote, and hte nano will be fine for that with the remote as well).

They are not marketing the nano for those that want video capability, they have an ipod Touch for that (and why would they want two of their products competing for the same market, it's a very smart business move honestly). THey are marketing for those that need a music player on the go. That doesn't compete with the Touch and in fact can still be useful for those that have a Touch/iPhone.

You have just make me convince to buy a new and shine graphite ipod Nano "touch"

 

[coolman1081]

Small IPod Touch

Its Pretty Much Just a Small IPod Touch!!!
Not Even A Click Wheel I Just Bought a Black 5th Generation Nano 2 Weeks Before this Came Out. I Bought 2 Click Wheel Games For It. Now This Comes Out It Doesn't Run IPhone Apps and It Doesn't Run Click Wheel Apps. So Yeah.

 

[billysea]

I don't understand the laughable "Apple taking out features of the Nano so it doesn't collide with the iPod Touch market" argument.

Apple has products that overlap in features for years. The Nano and Touch have video playback (and other features) overlapped for the last 3 years.

The main draw point that differentiate Touch and Nano is iOS - the ability to run apps, surf the web, play games etc. They do want to differentiate the market, but stripping out features such as video playback and speaker is not for that reason.

If you think that way, you might as well ask them to take out the touch screen and the iOS-wannabe interface - because that is even more associated with the iTouch.

 

[tigress666]

I don't understand the laughable "Apple taking out features of the Nano so it doesn't collide with the iPod Touch market" argument.

Because the market they are aimed at are more concerned about how easily portable it is and how easy to navigate. Those are the two most important things. They are looking to sell this to people who just want a music player that is unobtrusive and don't need or use the features. Those using this to walk or excercise with mainly.

You get problems when your two products compete for a similar market. For example the video playing part of it. Those who excercise don't really need that or use it (or use it to take videos). Those who would use it are more likely (if they are smart) to go for the Touch. Yet it will still pull some sales from the Touch, the item Apple really wants to sell to at least a few who just want something cheaper. But it won't sell as well overall cause it will fail to appeal to most of those people cause the Touch does that stuff better (and for really not that much more), and it won't appeal as much to those who want to excercise cause they want something that will fit in a small pocket better (or even better, clip on to somethign cause you don't always have pockets when you are working out). So you get a device doesn't excel at anything

Yes, the Shuffle does also compete for this crowd, but it's a great intro device being so cheap so they keep it around to entice those who just want something really cheap to get them introduced to Apple products.

I mean I can already tell you I see a trend in those who like the idea of the new nano and those who don't (check out the people who complain about it vs. the people who defend it).

Those who like it don't want something more full featured, don't care as much about size, and just want a music player for their on the go needs . They are looking for something simpler, easy to carry around, and don't need the extra features more than they need a small, easy to carry size (either don't really care about having a multi-feature device, just want a music player, or already have one, like me who has an iphone already).

Those who don't like it want to be able to do more stuff with it. Almost always they don't care about size, some even complain the nanos already were getting too small (which leads me to wonder why do they even care when they can get a Touch that does far far more and really isn't that much bigger than the fifth gen nano). They care about the thing having features. They would in general be better served by a Touch.

 

[SlamJam12]

Experiment?

I wonder if Apple is experimenting with this design for the iPod nano. It is very similar in size and design to the iPod shuffle. The difference is the touchscreen and buttons on the two devices. The two new iPods can be used for the same things; just what the consumer prefers in the touchscreen or buttons. This is the first drastic change in an iPod that I have seen that kept the name of its model. Who knows where it will go from here.

 

[Spankey]

Picked one up for my wife. Aside from the storage size (for me 32GB is necessary), it is great. The sound quality is very good, the radio received excellent reception in my area, and the size is perfect for a portable music player.

I'm thinking of getting one for myself.

 

[tubemonkey]

Here is what I would like to be in the new iPod - Camera in a different position (the current position is awkward in my opinion)

You're in luck. Steve heard your plea and moved the camera to the iPod touch. Now it's no longer awkward.

 

[tubemonkey]

someone must like them because all of my local apple stores are sold out of nanos. I don't need a camera, video, notes and all that crap. just a simply music player with enough space for all my music that i can work out with and not have to worry about damaging my iphone. nano is perfect for me!

I agree. Who needs that useless stuff you mentioned or a touch screen cluttering up a basic music player? That's why I have a Sansa Clip+. It's less than half the price and more versatile.

 

[tubemonkey]

Because the market they are aimed at are more concerned about how easily portable it is and how easy to navigate. Those are the two most important things.

It's more difficult to navigate now because you physically have to look at it in order to operate it. Not so with a button music player.

 

[Trek2100]

Bah, the ipod was way overpriced years ago. It's Apple, that's how they are.

And honestly, maybe you don't find it practical but I can tell you it hits exactly the right reasons I want to have a Nano despite already having an iPhone (it hits all the things the ipod touch/iphone really can't do as well that makes it not redundant to have). It's a huge improvement imho (though I'd be yelling bloody murder if there was no way to have physical buttons but you can buy a remote to go with your headphones and for me, I already have headphones I love with a remote cause they work with my current nano and my iphone).

I don't need a video camera or video playing ability, anytime I'd use that I have my iphone on me which will do a far better job than the little video camera they could put on the nano and the little screen even the fifth gen has. I need something small that is light and stays out of the way, even better that I can clip it onto things. With physical buttons for when I don't want to look (Though honestly the iphone is now fine for that with the remote, and hte nano will be fine for that with the remote as well).

They are not marketing the nano for those that want video capability, they have an ipod Touch for that (and why would they want two of their products competing for the same market, it's a very smart business move honestly). THey are marketing for those that need a music player on the go. That doesn't compete with the Touch and in fact can still be useful for those that have a Touch/iPhone.

I soooooo totally agree with you. I think I love you

It's more difficult to navigate now because you physically have to look at it in order to operate it. Not so with a button music player.

Get earphones with a remote. It makes everything so much easier, especially when running where even a click wheel is a pain.

Additionally, video capability on the new Nano would be absurd (IMHO), given it's small size. I don't even like to watch videos on my iPhone and my eyesight is fine. The iPad is about the smallest screen size that makes video watching pleasurable.

 

[mlts22]

There is one place the new Nano shines, and that is a MP3 player when docked, either in a car, or a clock radio. It does not need an insert and has such a low profile that there are no physical support issues when it is sitting in a docking station. Of course, some docks may block button access.

 

[roland.g]

I wonder if Apple is experimenting with this design for the iPod nano. It is very similar in size and design to the iPod shuffle. The difference is the touchscreen and buttons on the two devices. The two new iPods can be used for the same things; just what the consumer prefers in the touchscreen or buttons. This is the first drastic change in an iPod that I have seen that kept the name of its model. Who knows where it will go from here.

I seriously thought that the Shuffle would be the better bet for about half a second. Then I realized...

Reasons why the Shuffle and Nano are not just differentiated by the touchscreen and buttons:

1. The Nano has Nike+ support and that is huge for people who run and work out.

2. While the Shuffle does support multiple playlists through voiceover, many people want to see what they are choosing.

3. I think for a lot of people, 2GB in a Shuffle is too little. 200-400 songs means having to sync too often. An 16GB Nano will sufficiently hold 2000-2500 songs.

4. Not something I see myself using, but the Nano has a Radio.

Sure I like the idea of the Shuffle's physical buttons, but for me #1, 2, & 3 are too much to overlook for getting a Shuffle.

The only thing the Nano could have used besides built-in Nike+ thus eliminating the need for the receiver dongle was a physical pause button. Short of using remote headphones it would be nice to pause music without waking it first. Even using the wake button to pause through a double-click would have been nice.

 

[tactician1016]

I seriously thought that the Shuffle would be the better bet for about half a second. Then I realized...

Reasons why the Shuffle and Nano are not just differentiated by the touchscreen and buttons:

1. The Nano has Nike+ support and that is huge for people who run and work out.

2. While the Shuffle does support multiple playlists through voiceover, many people want to see what they are choosing.

3. I think for a lot of people, 2GB in a Shuffle is too little. 200-400 songs means having to sync too often. An 16GB Nano will sufficiently hold 2000-2500 songs.

4. Not something I see myself using, but the Nano has a Radio.

Sure I like the idea of the Shuffle's physical buttons, but for me #1, 2, & 3 are too much to overlook for getting a Shuffle.

The only thing the Nano could have used besides built-in Nike+ thus eliminating the need for the receiver dongle was a physical pause button. Short of using remote headphones it would be nice to pause music without waking it first. Even using the wake button to pause through a double-click would have been nice.

1. I would have to agree, the Nike function is pretty useful. I used it on my 3rd gen Nano. I am interested to see how the new one can do this.
2. Again, agree. Although, having the new shuffle, the playlist function is pretty simple to use.
3. Also a good point. Personally, as my sig indicates, I am using it as a secondary iPod. My iTunes library has about 600 songs (almost 5 gb in 256kbps AAC), so I can load it with my favorites.
4. Probably a useful concept, but wouldn't use it personally.

All in all, while I do agree with you on a lot of this, I think my main gripe with the new nano is, to quote the iLounge review, what they took away. While it is incredibly small, this can actually be both good and bad. I personally don't like the concept, and view it as taking a good idea (small devices) too far, much like last year's shuffle.

 

[Ashen]

Alright, let's do one of these for the nano. The iPod forum gets a bit dull about this time of year, so let's speculate.

I think this year for the nano we will see pretty tame updates.

I think we will get:

--Same exact form factor and colors
--Maybe a slightly brighter screen
--30 hour battery
--32 GB (guaranteed after a 16 GB cap for two years)

Other than that I really think it will stay the same; there's not a lot they can do with the form factor, and given a lot of updates to the line last year, this year will probably be a relatively tame year for the nano, with mainly just the capacity bump and battery life bump (and possibly a little better screen but doubtful). I think you will see 8 and 32 GB versions; Apple likes to hang onto that 8 GB slot to keep the price low, but I can't see them offering three capacities for the nano--hence, the 16 GB will get dropped. Price points will remain the same.

What do you think?

Personally I think the current nano is perfection, I just think it needs 32 GB and it would be perfect (and better battery life is never a bad thing).

iPod is a great gadget to have, the Apple people have always come up with fresh ideas and applications every time they launch the new edition of all the types of iPod. I am sure that it will be much more attractive than before and will surely impress its fans like always without fail. IPods always rock.

 

[Brucewl]

I think 8G is totally match my demand with nano, I will manage my songs at set intervals.

 

[kdum8]

Three things kill the iPod nano 6G for me, the first two more than the last.

1. No Calendar - I use iCal on-the-go to keep my appointments and since they removed this and I don't have an iPhone this is the major deal-breaking feature for me. So far I haven't found a hack solution for this. A way to check my calendar on-the-go is very important for me.

2. No video - small the screen may be, but for watching video podcasts which I do a lot, I would really appreciate this functionality.

3. Not yet 32GB storage - This may be only due to price at this point, but for me 16GB is just not enough. I can however, live with 16GB at a pinch.

"Get an iPod touch!!" I hear you scream. Yes, indeed that is my only option, but frankly it is too big and the nano's portable size is ideal. Apple must have lost sales by removing previous functionality.

Unfortunately because 'Apple always knows best' they often taketh away with one hand what they giveth with the other. It happens all the time with both their software and hardware. Quite a pain when they get it wrong.

 

[setback]

I think they would rather increase the size of the memory than lower the price.