Who said anything about Shuffle means being small?
My view:
Juxtapose Shuffle at its current form factor and the supposed new nano. They may not be very similar. But the differentiation is gone. Two same ( read: small ) form iPods were never in Apple line-up before.
I think it is interesting that the new Nano won't be available immediately. Neither will the touch (how can it? beta 3 just hit, how would 4.1 which is needed, be loaded).
So it appears that this might be a unique ipod announcement where not many of the items are available immediately.
Should be interesting to see what this does to sales of older models.
It can't be 3cm by 3cm. That's way too small for the screen to be useful for anything but cover albums. Even then you're pushing it. So people are not suppose to watch any video on their Nanos now? WTF? That would be a huge step backwards in functionality. The screen would need to be at least 4-5 cm for it to be useful for videos or photos.
Something to keep in mind: It will cost twice as much—per ounce.
more cost comparison:
The new nano will cost around twice as much as silver per ounce, 9 times the cost of a BJ from a twenty dollar stank ho, but will cost less than an ounce of good weed.
A nano in one hand, an ounce of silver in your pocket, a bag of good weed in the other hand, and a 20 dollar stank ho on your johnson is worth a whole flock of birds in one giant bush.
What the heck kind of paragraph is this? It's atrocious.
If you want to compare screen sizes, use the same measurements.
The first device you mention lists the height-and-width followed by the mysterious "diameter" measurement. (What the hell is that?) The second device you mention only have a diagonal screen measurement. The final device lists the approximate height and width dimensions, but no diagonal.
I was thinking the same thing. No direct comparison, hence confusing.
Who said anything about Shuffle means being small?
My view:
Juxtapose Shuffle at its current form factor and the supposed new nano. They may not be very similar. But the differentiation is gone. Two same ( read: small ) form iPods were never in Apple line-up before.
As far as I can tell, you don't want this to be the new nano, which means that it MUST be the new shuffle.
I've considered the form factor argument too, which is why I've speculated in other threads that this device could displace the shuffle. Apparently that isn't going to happen though and price (and features) will be the major differentiator between the two.
This is the new form factor for the nano, unless the case manufacturers are completely out to lunch. The old one isn't going to live on. The iPod nano was facing an identity crisis last year, which is why they added the features they did. It will be worse this year with the iPod touch gaining video and possibly shrinking a little bit. Why would the average customer choose a nano over an iPod touch? From most shoppers perspectives, the nano isn't that much cheaper and it isn't that much smaller, yet the screen is tiny in comparision and it lacks iOS. Making the nano tiny solves this identity crisis.
As far as never having two small iPods in the lineup at the same time, I present to you the 2005 mini and shuffle:
The shuffle just shrunk quicker than the mini/nano, but it looks like that is changing.
If you want to insist that this is the new shuffle, please explain why case manufacturers are calling it the nano. If they are privvy to the physical dimensions of the upcoming iPods, they should also be privvy to the names so that they can properly brand their products.
Rather than continually making it smaller, you would think Apple would add HD Radio (instead of FM) and add the Nike sensor. That would add value to the device (which I assume is staying at the same price point.)
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
This is the most inexplicable device I have ever heard of Apple allegedly producing. What is the point in replacing the iPod nano with a glorified Shuffle? This thing would be useless for watching video, can you imagine trying to hold it without it being utterly perverse, never mind making out the picture? I cannot make sense of this nonsense. Surely this can't be the iPod nano, it has to be a new iPod line entirely? In fact, I'm half-inclined to say it's an advanced accessory of some sort, but the gap for the Dock Connector in the cases gives me pause.
Rather than continually making it smaller, you would think Apple would add HD Radio (instead of FM) and add the Nike sensor. That would add value to the device (which I assume is staying at the same price point.)
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
My gut feeling says that the shuffle gets bigger and gets the 3x3 cm touchscreen which doubles as a virtual click wheel. The current shuffle isn't selling well, so adding a screen with coverflow and a click wheel that appears only when needed could help sales.
I also think the nano will get a touch screen larger than the one it currently has (2.8" vs. the current 2.4" maybe). And its separate click wheel goes away in favor of the virtual click wheel that appears on the screen when needed. So it will have a bigger screen but the overall size will remain roughly the same.
And, of course, the iPod touch will get all of the iPhone 4's features except for the phone electronics. FaceTime cameras, Retina display, etc. but maybe it will have the traditional curved metal back instead of the glass slab. (And maybe it will come in black or white, and Steve will announce white iPhone 4 and white iPod touch availability...)
This makes way more sense to me than replacing the nano with this shuffle-esque iPod. The current generation nano is really top notch. If true, this new nano would be a major step backwards. I just can't see Apple sh!tting all over the nano like that. Except for the fat boy, it's always been such a great product.
I just cant bite it. This can't be a Nano. it's a shuffle. Doesn't anyone else get it?
Yes, I think the same thing... this is some sort of Shuffle Plus. Of course, this is a Rumor site so we'll see if this is just misdirection. I believe it could be a mistake for Apple to make this sized device as a Nano (especially if the price stays the same).
Having said that, even the less popular (and more limited devices like the Cube) -- are great machines. I don't think that Apple makes that many mistakes... the Stick-of-gum iPod Shuffle is Too small for my tastes... so I'd include this is the too limited device category... it's a mistake IMHO (the headset controller was supposed to make it useful).
This is the most inexplicable device I have ever heard of Apple allegedly producing... Surely this can't be the iPod nano, it has to be a new iPod line entirely? In fact, I'm half-inclined to say it's an advanced accessory of some sort, but the gap for the Dock Connector in the cases gives me pause.
Very good point, Jensonb.
I seem to recall reading a Job's interview where he mentioned a "new" device... perhaps "new device category."
If you want to insist that this is the new shuffle, please explain why case manufacturers are calling it the nano. If they are privvy to the physical dimensions of the upcoming iPods, they should also be privvy to the names so that they can properly brand their products.
I seem to recall that the case makers do not get detailed info about upcoming devices, much less names. They seem to get very simple drawing that only indicate the dimensions and I/O points on the device. Only after the reveal are more comprehensive plans made available.
As for the nomenclature, I think it?s mostly irrelevant. I think the more important question is why we think Apple would kill the current Nano styling?
Note that Apple has been building this device for 7 generations now. Five generations of the Nano, which replaced 2 generations of the iPod Mini which used a 1? HDD over NAND. So what reasoning do you have to think Apple will, for the first time since building iPods continue a product line by removing features? Why would a device that was capable of being held in the hand for video recording now be replaced with one that either has no such ability or would seem to be less comfortable to hold if a video camera was included?
What really bugs me is the display size. Why not go with a larger display that is equal to or greater than the current Nano?s display. In widescreen a square display will make video unwatchable. You could also pack more features into the larger footprint. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically do so if they maintain or increase the feature set in the process.
It?s for this reason I think (regardless of what this is called) that the current Nano design will not likely be killed tomorrow as it fits a niche that is not covered by this rumour, the Shuffle, the Touch or Classic.
Also, even with the Classic so long in the tooth it?s still part of their lineup even when they kept adding new iPods. Why must one die so the other can live?
Comments
Shuffle doesn't mean small...
Who said anything about Shuffle means being small?
My view:
Juxtapose Shuffle at its current form factor and the supposed new nano. They may not be very similar. But the differentiation is gone. Two same ( read: small ) form iPods were never in Apple line-up before.
These little thing will be extended appleTV remotes... to use apps/play games on the apple tv, buy more to play multiplayer!
That would explain why the cables coming off the display are so damn long.
So it appears that this might be a unique ipod announcement where not many of the items are available immediately.
Should be interesting to see what this does to sales of older models.
It would be interesting if it had a front facing camera and WiFi.
FaceTime?
Introducing the iPod Pequeno.
I bet it will be called iPod nano nano. From planet Ork.
What is the point of this thing?
More awesome, less space.
Something to keep in mind: It will cost twice as much—per ounce.
more cost comparison:
The new nano will cost around twice as much as silver per ounce, 9 times the cost of a BJ from a twenty dollar stank ho, but will cost less than an ounce of good weed.
A nano in one hand, an ounce of silver in your pocket, a bag of good weed in the other hand, and a 20 dollar stank ho on your johnson is worth a whole flock of birds in one giant bush.
More flags, more fun.
Just something to consider
-
What the heck kind of paragraph is this? It's atrocious.
If you want to compare screen sizes, use the same measurements.
The first device you mention lists the height-and-width followed by the mysterious "diameter" measurement. (What the hell is that?) The second device you mention only have a diagonal screen measurement. The final device lists the approximate height and width dimensions, but no diagonal.
I was thinking the same thing. No direct comparison, hence confusing.
"Sixth-generation iPad nanos on deck for..."
Whooooooo!!!! iPad nanos!!!!!
Who said anything about Shuffle means being small?
My view:
Juxtapose Shuffle at its current form factor and the supposed new nano. They may not be very similar. But the differentiation is gone. Two same ( read: small ) form iPods were never in Apple line-up before.
As far as I can tell, you don't want this to be the new nano, which means that it MUST be the new shuffle.
I've considered the form factor argument too, which is why I've speculated in other threads that this device could displace the shuffle. Apparently that isn't going to happen though and price (and features) will be the major differentiator between the two.
This is the new form factor for the nano, unless the case manufacturers are completely out to lunch. The old one isn't going to live on. The iPod nano was facing an identity crisis last year, which is why they added the features they did. It will be worse this year with the iPod touch gaining video and possibly shrinking a little bit. Why would the average customer choose a nano over an iPod touch? From most shoppers perspectives, the nano isn't that much cheaper and it isn't that much smaller, yet the screen is tiny in comparision and it lacks iOS. Making the nano tiny solves this identity crisis.
As far as never having two small iPods in the lineup at the same time, I present to you the 2005 mini and shuffle:
The shuffle just shrunk quicker than the mini/nano, but it looks like that is changing.
If you want to insist that this is the new shuffle, please explain why case manufacturers are calling it the nano. If they are privvy to the physical dimensions of the upcoming iPods, they should also be privvy to the names so that they can properly brand their products.
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
Rather than continually making it smaller, you would think Apple would add HD Radio (instead of FM) and add the Nike sensor. That would add value to the device (which I assume is staying at the same price point.)
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
Agreed.
My gut feeling says that the shuffle gets bigger and gets the 3x3 cm touchscreen which doubles as a virtual click wheel. The current shuffle isn't selling well, so adding a screen with coverflow and a click wheel that appears only when needed could help sales.
I also think the nano will get a touch screen larger than the one it currently has (2.8" vs. the current 2.4" maybe). And its separate click wheel goes away in favor of the virtual click wheel that appears on the screen when needed. So it will have a bigger screen but the overall size will remain roughly the same.
And, of course, the iPod touch will get all of the iPhone 4's features except for the phone electronics. FaceTime cameras, Retina display, etc. but maybe it will have the traditional curved metal back instead of the glass slab. (And maybe it will come in black or white, and Steve will announce white iPhone 4 and white iPod touch availability...)
This makes way more sense to me than replacing the nano with this shuffle-esque iPod. The current generation nano is really top notch. If true, this new nano would be a major step backwards. I just can't see Apple sh!tting all over the nano like that. Except for the fat boy, it's always been such a great product.
I just cant bite it. This can't be a Nano. it's a shuffle. Doesn't anyone else get it?
Yes, I think the same thing... this is some sort of Shuffle Plus. Of course, this is a Rumor site so we'll see if this is just misdirection. I believe it could be a mistake for Apple to make this sized device as a Nano (especially if the price stays the same).
Having said that, even the less popular (and more limited devices like the Cube) -- are great machines. I don't think that Apple makes that many mistakes... the Stick-of-gum iPod Shuffle is Too small for my tastes... so I'd include this is the too limited device category... it's a mistake IMHO (the headset controller was supposed to make it useful).
This is the most inexplicable device I have ever heard of Apple allegedly producing... Surely this can't be the iPod nano, it has to be a new iPod line entirely? In fact, I'm half-inclined to say it's an advanced accessory of some sort, but the gap for the Dock Connector in the cases gives me pause.
Very good point, Jensonb.
I seem to recall reading a Job's interview where he mentioned a "new" device... perhaps "new device category."
If you want to insist that this is the new shuffle, please explain why case manufacturers are calling it the nano. If they are privvy to the physical dimensions of the upcoming iPods, they should also be privvy to the names so that they can properly brand their products.
I seem to recall that the case makers do not get detailed info about upcoming devices, much less names. They seem to get very simple drawing that only indicate the dimensions and I/O points on the device. Only after the reveal are more comprehensive plans made available.
As for the nomenclature, I think it?s mostly irrelevant. I think the more important question is why we think Apple would kill the current Nano styling?
Note that Apple has been building this device for 7 generations now. Five generations of the Nano, which replaced 2 generations of the iPod Mini which used a 1? HDD over NAND. So what reasoning do you have to think Apple will, for the first time since building iPods continue a product line by removing features? Why would a device that was capable of being held in the hand for video recording now be replaced with one that either has no such ability or would seem to be less comfortable to hold if a video camera was included?
What really bugs me is the display size. Why not go with a larger display that is equal to or greater than the current Nano?s display. In widescreen a square display will make video unwatchable. You could also pack more features into the larger footprint. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically do so if they maintain or increase the feature set in the process.
It?s for this reason I think (regardless of what this is called) that the current Nano design will not likely be killed tomorrow as it fits a niche that is not covered by this rumour, the Shuffle, the Touch or Classic.
Also, even with the Classic so long in the tooth it?s still part of their lineup even when they kept adding new iPods. Why must one die so the other can live?