Review: Apple's new iPod nano is a 5G video iPod in a nano-thin shell

24

Comments

  • zwebenzweben Posts: 75member
    "There's also no way to enter a space [in searches]."



    You can enter a space in searches on a 2G nano by pressing next ( >>| ). It only lets you enter one if there is a letter or number right before it.



    I would think that would be the same on a 3G.



    The 2G also has the numbers 1-9 after Z in the list.
  • old mac guyold mac guy Posts: 11member
    I respect Apple for their aggressive moves forward.

    Unlike Microsoft.



    But most of Apple product hardware that changes always

    uses the same software app's with modest changes,

    allowing the transition.



    Why now do the new iPods, deny

    the newly provided software to the orginal iPod users?



    This is a first that everyone has ignored!



    I do understand when the ability of your

    hardware does not allow you to run the

    new software, but is this the case now

    with the new iPods???? I doubt it?



    Old Mac Guy
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Er... No it doesn't.



    Way to go AI. A not-entirely-small error in your opening sentence.



    I think it was supposed to mean that it's the same thickness as the previous nanos, but the way it was written doesn't say that well, because "form factor" includes the width and height too.
  • reminiscingreminiscing Posts: 2member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by theveeb View Post


    The new nano and the classic support Lyrics. Clicking center button now cycles through Volume, Scrubber, Ratings, a new Shuffle Mode, and then full screen lyrics (all other options just update the bootom of the screen). Unfortunately Artwork has been dropped from the cycle so you can't see the album artwork full-screen.



    Thank you so much "theVeeb"



    This is welcome news indeed.



    Now, if they can just get them going on the Touch...!
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Old Mac Guy View Post


    I respect Apple for their aggressive moves forward.

    Unlike Microsoft.



    But most of Apple product hardware that changes always

    uses the same software app's with modest changes,

    allowing the transition.



    Why now do the new iPods, deny

    the newly provided software to the orginal iPod users?



    This is a first that everyone has ignored!



    I do understand when the ability of your

    hardware does not allow you to run the

    new software, but is this the case now

    with the new iPods???? I doubt it?



    Old Mac Guy



    I'm confused, is this poetry or not?
  • minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Old Mac Guy View Post


    Why now do the new iPods, deny

    the newly provided software to the orginal iPod users?



    What are you talking about, the new interface? Apple has done that a ton of times already with the iPod. And these are reportedly a major hardware change and new OS, it would probably take rewriting it to make it work on the old iPod hardware.
  • lantznlantzn Posts: 240member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by CREB View Post


    I think this iPod is ugly than spit, but my eleven-year old niece is dying for one, and I will probably purchase it for her.



    And what is your idea of a nice looking MP3 Video player? You must have really good taste.
  • old mac guyold mac guy Posts: 11member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post


    What are you talking about, the new interface? Apple has done that a ton of times already with the iPod. And these are reportedly a major hardware change and new OS, it would probably take rewriting it to make it work on the old iPod hardware.



    I am not a tec guy, but I wish some one who knows about this conversion of new software would answer this question.

    What would be so bad if Apple offered the software upgrade as an option to old iPod users?

    After all, we have that choice when we went from Panther, to Tiger and now to Leopard.

    Why not on an iPod?
  • melgrossmelgross Posts: 28,805member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Old Mac Guy View Post


    I am not a tec guy, but I wish some one who knows about this conversion of new software would answer this question.

    What would be so bad if Apple offered the software upgrade as an option to old iPod users?

    After all, we have that choice when we went from Panther, to Tiger and now to Leopard.

    Why not on an iPod?



    It's just a guess for now, but at times Apple has updated the software on older machines to match some new feature the newer models have.



    But it's also possible that the new models have had their hardware upgraded too much for the software to work on the older models.



    Coverflow requires a faster cpu, for example. Even on the new models other than the iTouch, you can see what happens if you flip too fast. The older models may not work even this well with it.



    It could be true for some of the other features as well.
  • minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Old Mac Guy View Post


    I am not a tec guy, but I wish some one who knows about this conversion of new software would answer this question.

    What would be so bad if Apple offered the software upgrade as an option to old iPod users?

    After all, we have that choice when we went from Panther, to Tiger and now to Leopard.

    Why not on an iPod?



    Because the new ipod is likely all new hardware and OS.



    iPods use a different design model than general purpose computers. Apple can add more features and improvements if they can change the hardware and software and optimize it for each new generation instead of worrying about compatibility.



    Many new features wouldn't even be possible to run on older ipods because they don't have the processing power to handle them.
  • michaelbmichaelb Posts: 242member
    Something I was pleasantly surprised about:



    Gen 1 iPod nano Lanyard Earphones work just fine on the 3rd gen nano. The connector-jack spacing is the same.



    Both standard lanyard and in-ear lanyard types. These are often being discounted at shops so snap 'em up while they're going.
  • scolbertscolbert Posts: 7member
    The 3rd gen nano is a superb product! I love the screen because it is so bright. I agree with the reviewers comment that Apple photos don't do it justice, see this product in person and you'll buy one!
  • nightcrawlernightcrawler Posts: 643member
    What is the better technology, harddisk- or flash-storage and why?



    What about the battery in the ipods, can they be replaced without a screwdriver and are replacement-batteries sold openly in retail-chains? If not, how long are these batteries fresh and working before stopping to recharge satisfactorily?



    Nightcrawler
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    What is the better technology, harddisk- or flash-storage and why?



    There is no single better or worse answer unless you provide specifics on what you want. Even then, the factors may vary depending on the part number used. The biggest advantage for hard disk is cheap & big storage. Flash is generally more durable and generally takes a little less power, but it costs a lot more per GB.



    Quote:

    What about the battery in the ipods, can they be replaced without a screwdriver and are replacement-batteries sold openly in retail-chains? If not, how long are these batteries fresh and working before stopping to recharge satisfactorily?



    You can buy replacement batteries for previous models, but it's not a replacement that the average person should do. I think the new nano and classic can probably be opened with a razor blade. That can be unsafe though, mess up and the blade cuts you.



    I think reputable services will offer battery replacement for maybe $40 plus shipping. You aren't likely to need to replace the battery for three years anyway, unless you are a very heavy user.
  • nightcrawlernightcrawler Posts: 643member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    There is no single better or worse answer unless you provide specifics on what you want. Even then, the factors may vary depending on the part number used. The biggest advantage for hard disk is cheap & big storage. Flash is generally more durable and generally takes a little less power, but it costs a lot more per GB.



    What I need is big capacity and sturdy reliability and durability.



    I have heard that harddisk's content gets erased when dropped onto the floor, and I have heard that flash-memory can have heat-problems destroying it, when copying more than one file at once to it.



    Are that real problems, or just myths?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    You can buy replacement batteries for previous models, but it's not a replacement that the average person should do. I think the new nano and classic can probably be opened with a razor blade. That can be unsafe though, mess up and the blade cuts you.



    I think reputable services will offer battery replacement for maybe $40 plus shipping. You aren't likely to need to replace the battery for three years anyway, unless you are a very heavy user.



    What a pity, 1-3 years can pass very quickly. Why doesn't apple let us users switch batteries according to need and will without having to use blades or screws or repair services?



    Nightcrawler
  • mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,653member, moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    What I need is big capacity and sturdy reliability and durability.



    Sounds like you have to wait until flash capacities have increased. We should see something iPod nano-sized with a capacity of 160 GB within five years.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    I have heard that harddisk's content gets erased when dropped onto the floor



    It's not so much "gets erased", more "HDD can be irreparably damaged if you drop it". Hard drives work by storing information on circular discs (platters), which are read by tiny electro-magnetic "heads". The heads hover a minute distance above the surface of the platters. If the heads "crash" into the platters, the platters are physically damaged. Any data that was stored in the area of the platter where the head crashed is likely to be lost. Other data is still in tact, but the HDD would have to be sent to professional data-recovery people, who in a controlled clean-room environment could take the platters out of the damaged HDD, put them into a new reading mechanism, and then recover the data. This can be rather expensive.



    However, many of the latest hard drive/computer systems, have mechanisms which can detect if they are falling, and quickly "park" the heads before impact. When the HDD hits the floor, the heads are not above the platters and therefore cannot crash into them. I don't know for sure if the latest iPod "classics" have this feature, but I would have thought that they probably do.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    and I have heard that flash-memory can have heat-problems destroying it, when copying more than one file at once to it.



    I've not heard that. There is a maximum number of times that a flash "cell" can be re-written. It's up in the tens of thousands, so is ok for a music player. There may be problems using flash as a hard drive replacement in a computer, though.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    Why doesn't apple let us users switch batteries according to need and will without having to use blades or screws or repair services?



    Having no battery "door" allows for the thinnest possible form-factor. It also improves manufacturability, increasing margins (= lower prices for us, more profit for Apple) .
  • nightcrawlernightcrawler Posts: 643member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Sounds like you have to wait until flash capacities have increased. We should see something iPod nano-sized with a capacity of 160 GB within five years.



    Sounds good, maybe only four years for 80 GB-Flash-nano, would suffice for me.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    It's not so much "gets erased", more "HDD can be irreparably damaged if you drop it". Hard drives work by storing information on circular discs (platters), which are read by tiny electro-magnetic "heads". The heads hover a minute distance above the surface of the platters. If the heads "crash" into the platters, the platters are physically damaged. Any data that was stored in the area of the platter where the head crashed is likely to be lost. Other data is still in tact, but the HDD would have to be sent to professional data-recovery people, who in a controlled clean-room environment could take the platters out of the damaged HDD, put them into a new reading mechanism, and then recover the data. This can be rather expensive.



    However, many of the latest hard drive/computer systems, have mechanisms which can detect if they are falling, and quickly "park" the heads before impact. When the HDD hits the floor, the heads are not above the platters and therefore cannot crash into them. I don't know for sure if the latest iPod "classics" have this feature, but I would have thought that they probably do.



    Thanks for the detailed information. If the new ipod classic had this protection-feature that parks the heads when sensing a fall, would that mean that the reliability and durability of the harddisk therein would be on par with flash-memory?









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    I've not heard that. There is a maximum number of times that a flash "cell" can be re-written. It's up in the tens of thousands, so is ok for a music player. There may be problems using flash as a hard drive replacement in a computer, though.



    Interesting.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Having no battery "door" allows for the thinnest possible form-factor. It also improves manufacturability, increasing margins (= lower prices for us, more profit for Apple) .



    I prefer function over form and price. I think it's essential to have a battery-"door".



    Nightcrawler
  • jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,936member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post


    What I need is big capacity and sturdy reliability and durability.



    Then you'll have to learn the art of compromise. You can't have everything. That said, HDD players aren't horribly unreliable, I had accidentally dropped mine onto concrete several times, but the reliability did degrade, it did need to be replaced after maybe a dozen drops.



    Quote:

    What a pity, 1-3 years can pass very quickly. Why doesn't apple let us users switch batteries according to need and will without having to use blades or screws or repair services?



    I don't think 1 year is likely, even for a heavy user. I think the typical range is 2-4 years.



    Apple has never used screws, though many of their competitors have. I really don't see why you have a problem with screws, doing it after three years is fine. The cost of the service is low enough for me, and I still haven't needed to use it yet. I use my player for several hours every day.
  • ersatzplanetersatzplanet Posts: 13member
    a Qoute:



    "Held at a normal reading level, the screen is as large as a regular TV set sitting across the room."



    Thank God somebody finally said this in a review! I used to own one the very first portable TVs - a Sinclair thay had a 1" or so display (it used the tube CRT used as eyepieces in larger video cameras) and everyone asked how could i watch it when it was so small. I told them to cut a hole in a piece of pader that size and sit in the normal place they watched TV and hold the paper till the screen fit the hole - it was almost always the distance you would hold a paperback - and the screen was crisp and bright. Now this was way before the advent of giant TVs like today but still a viable test. I have a 39" set and my last gereration classic held at book distance is a little larger and MUCH clearer and brighter than my TV across the room (especially with my older eyes).
  • dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    You're saying that the viewing experience is better on a tiny display than on a large display?



    I felt the review went a bit overboard on the whole video-iPods-have-disproven-the-naysayers thing. The iPod market share and available technology has simply made video playback a why-not feature.



    Overall, people still aren't that interested in watching video on a minuscule screen. Compared to overall iPod usage, it is a seldom used feature. Well, other than the initial novelty of showing off what the gadget can do. Other than that, people pretty much return to using their iPods for audio.



    Not that video support should be neglected. Only that it hasn't, and never will, be a heavily used feature. In my opinion, handheld video playback nay-sayers have been vindicated more than disproved.
Sign In or Register to comment.