First look: iPod nano 09 unboxed

[AppleInsider]

Apple's new iPod Nano sports a larger screen, video recording, a built-in Nike+ pedometer, VoiceOver, and an FM radio with a Tivo-like live pause feature in last year's slim package. Here's what's in the box.

You might not guess much has changed just by looking at the outside, which remains largely identical apart from being offered in a new palette of nine colors.

The device also still ships in the now familiar, small glass coffin packaging, in a choice of 8GB ($149) or 16GB ($179) versions.



Inside the small box, Apple includes a dock adapter, USB cable, and stereo headphones, although the included earbuds lack both integrated playback controls and an integrated mic. The nano still works with iPhone-style integrated mic headphones, but you'll need to buy a pair separately (or use the ones you already have).



The only marked visible change is the new video camera and mic, which along with an invisible speaker, support the unit's new video recording and playback features. Despite the new camera hardware, the device remains about as thick in the middle as the tiny iPod shuffle.



The lens and mic are framed in a polished metal window in the nano's case.The camera appears on the dock connector end of the nano, making it tricky to hold the device without blocking either the screen or the lens with your hand. You'll either need to grasp the nano by its edges or pinch it on the left side between your thumb and finger.



A full review of the new 2009 iPod nano will appear tomorrow.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[souliisoul]

looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.

But I still love ya.

[DCJ001]

Originally Posted by souliisoul

looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.

But I still love ya.

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.

[Ireland]

Originally Posted by caliminius

That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.

It's for that extra-smudge effect!

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by caliminius

That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.

No, you were right the first time. It's not a "poor design decision". It was a design necessity.

[sandor]

you can simply hold the nano "upside down" and the accelerometers will orient the video image correctly.

[Jimzip]

Yo, Prince. Could you change the word 'coffin' to something else? It's really disconcerting for some reason... O_o

Jimzip

[SpamSandwich]

Looking forward to nano video test shots. Like to see how it stacks up against the Flip video (non-HD version).

[nofear1az]

looks nice, I like that color especially with the black wheel and all but just like the last design I was never crazy about the oval shape for usability and handling purposes. It's cool they added the camera but what I like most about this addition is the FM receiver to it. Why they took so long to add FM is anyone's guess, maybe it was just to milk us for what they could. hehe

I'm also curious to see in person if I like the new glossy look as I always liked the anodized matte finish from previous.

[gsteeno]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

Actually, it's iPod touch

But I agree with your statement!

[ZenTheory]

I am so looking forward to the iPod. I ordered it yesterday.

Yes, I was hoping for an iPod Touch with a decent camera and GPS, and was ready to really go nuts in the app store. but no go.

Is it for to differentiate it from the iphone ?

Hardware problems, as reported ?

But Apple does it their own way, and unlike the pundits who seem to only be able to hold one thought in their mind, Apple goes in many directions .

The iPod nano is not a "me too" device, it is not an answere to the zune.

It is an iPod. It makes the rules. I respect that !

[KingKuei]

So for those who have actually had a chance to see the new nanos in person, is there something new about the casing?

Apple is marketing the new nanos as having a POLISHED anodized aluminum casing, making it seem like something different from the usual anodized aluminum that has been seen on last year's model as well as the aluminum MacBooks and iMacs.

So am I missing something here? Are the new nanos sporting some slightly smoother or shinier metal? Or is it the same stuff just "re-marketed" as POLISHED anodized aluminum? I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.

And since Apple seems to have a tradition of standardizing on a few materials and colors for their various products, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually trot out new MacBooks and iMacs with polished finishes as well.

[TBell]

That really depends on if you are replicating Apple's Marketing/Trademark or trying to comply with the demands of proper grammar. Proper grammar dictates writing, iPod Touch because the name is a proper noun. Look at Wikipedia and other news sources.

Those sources write, "iPod Touch." That is generally what one should do when writing about the iPod Touch. Apple writes, "iPod touch" because that is how it markets/trademarked the name.

Originally Posted by gsteeno

Actually, it's iPod touch

But I agree with your statement!

[frugality]

Originally Posted by KingKuei

I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.

It'll be smoother.....and much more scratch-able. Same with the polished-stainless backs on the other iPods. It's designed to look great when you first buy it, and then look like crap after you've had it for a while, so that you have to 'upgrade' later.

My timing was really poor. I bought the 1st-gen Nano, which was uber-scratchable. I didn't replace it when they had the much more durable anodized finish on the 2nd-gen, because I just didn't need it then. Then came the 3rd-gen (fatty) with the memory capacity I wanted, and Apple went back to the stupid scratchable stainless backing again! I bought one anyway. Again I haven't upgraded to the 4th gen because I don't need it, but it has the better anodized finish. And now in the 5th gen they go back to uber-scratchable.

[Tenchi211]

I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg

[Dr. X]

Originally Posted by Tenchi211

I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg

What about it? I didn't see anything out of place.

[John French]

Originally Posted by Tenchi211

I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg

Yeah, so it's a pixel shorter. The pink one is too.

[SGSStateStudent]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

+111111!!! IT'S DAMN IPOD TOUCH PEOPLE, NOT ITOUCH! iTouch is some kind of paedophile gadget..

[bobertoq]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No, you were right the first time. It's not a "poor design decision". It was a design necessity.

How is it a design necessity? Is it going to cost 900 dollars or something if they move the camera 3 inches north?

[Dueces]

Originally Posted by John French

Yeah, so it's a pixel shorter. The pink one is too.

Actually all of them are exactly the same except for the blue one which is ever so slightly taller.

[souliisoul]

Originally Posted by gsteeno

Actually, it's iPod touch

But I agree with your statement!

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

I make a simple mistake ON ONE PRODUCT, looks like we in kindergarden again, so that their contribution to this discussion.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by souliisoul

looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.

But I still love ya.

The previous rumor that the Touch didn’t get a camera due to technical issues appears to be true. The breakdown of the Touch shows a 6mm x 6mm x 3mm space in the touch that matches the camera dimensions of the Nano.

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

I don’t see the prob with using a truncated name in this type of setting. I will often refer to the entire iPod and iPhone line as iDevice and I don’t recall Apple ever having a product named as such and I’m sure it’s quite well known what is meant. Earlier I used the even simpler Touch.

Originally Posted by caliminius

That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.

Yeah, it’s far from ideal, but I’ve read, “the camera you have is better than the one you don’t.” I hate where the iPhone camera is, too, but i rarely use it so it’s not a big deal to me.

The display and battery dominate that end of the device so I don’t see any way Apple could add a camera to that end without (a) making the case longer, or (b) reducing the size of the battery. The whole camera thing doesn’t entice me but I am impressed at how much they added to the Nano despite keeping it the same, but I can’t imagine it would not have sold just as well if they made it slightly bigger and sold a better camera that can do stills and can is better placed. Of course, we don’t know what is in the pipeline. Perhaps that is for next year’s model.

Originally Posted by Dr. X

What about it? I didn't see anything out of place.

The green Nano is the old model. It’s the small display with the larger click wheel and less vibrant anodizing.

[Robert.Public]

Originally Posted by Ireland

It's for that extra-smudge effect!

It's probably because video will be shot in a wide screen format of some sort so your viewfinder - the screen - will be in proper orientation

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

How is it a design necessity? Is it going to cost 900 dollars or something if they move the camera 3 inches north?

"How is it a design necessity?" What? are you kidding?! They put the camera where it could fit. End of story! {"3 inches north"} Yeah, right!

[solipsism]

Check your Nano’s click wheel through the box before you open it. iLounge has reported that some have a noticeable gap between the click wheel and the case of some of their models. Apparently the new design means that the click wheel is connected from the front now through a twisting action and the connectors appear to not be as well as designed as they could be. iLounge has reported that some have a noticeable gap between the click wheel and the case.

[randythot]

Originally Posted by KingKuei

So for those who have actually had a chance to see the new nanos in person, is there something new about the casing?

Apple is marketing the new nanos as having a POLISHED anodized aluminum casing, making it seem like something different from the usual anodized aluminum that has been seen on last year's model as well as the aluminum MacBooks and iMacs.

So am I missing something here? Are the new nanos sporting some slightly smoother or shinier metal? Or is it the same stuff just "re-marketed" as POLISHED anodized aluminum? I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.

And since Apple seems to have a tradition of standardizing on a few materials and colors for their various products, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually trot out new MacBooks and iMacs with polished finishes as well.

Most standard anodized products in my experience are brushed. Polished anodized aluminum is pretty rare. When I worked at a bike shop, the only polished anodized aluminum came from Chris King. Chris King supposedly had a patented super-thick anodization process that was also polished. It gave the aluminum an extra hard coat while simultaneously adding a gloss sheen. I wonder if Apple licensed that from them? Or came up with their own method? (more likely)

Based on the angles of the Nano, I don't think glare would be an issue, and if the gloss adds hardness, it should be more scratch resistant than traditional aluminum (a relatively soft metal), while adding aesthetic flare. Often the brushed metal on traditional anodized aluminum hides scratches, and anodization is easily scratched off.

Hope this helps.

I think this gives interesting potential (as you mentioned) to the desktop and laptop lineup! (Can you say, revised MacBook lineup with colors?)

[randythot]

Originally Posted by frugality

It'll be smoother.....and much more scratch-able. Same with the polished-stainless backs on the other iPods. It's designed to look great when you first buy it, and then look like crap after you've had it for a while, so that you have to 'upgrade' later.

My timing was really poor. I bought the 1st-gen Nano, which was uber-scratchable. I didn't replace it when they had the much more durable anodized finish on the 2nd-gen, because I just didn't need it then. Then came the 3rd-gen (fatty) with the memory capacity I wanted, and Apple went back to the stupid scratchable stainless backing again! I bought one anyway. Again I haven't upgraded to the 4th gen because I don't need it, but it has the better anodized finish. And now in the 5th gen they go back to uber-scratchable.

Gloss anodized may actually be more scratch resistant.

[randythot]

Originally Posted by bobertoq

How is it a design necessity? Is it going to cost 900 dollars or something if they move the camera 3 inches north?

Others have mentioned your answer.
1. The screen thickness prohibits the camera being behind it.
2. You may reorient the camera, and the screen view will rotate also.
3. (Not mentioned, I believe) The camera more distal than the microphone is preferable. Blocking the camera gives visual feedback. If the microphone were more distal than the camera, a finger could block the sound without blocking the camera and ruining the video recording.

My main point in the third point is that Apple has thought through the design and worked with the limitations.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by souliisoul

looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.

But I still love ya.

I'm with you. Apple will eventually give the Touch a camera. But I have to thank Apple for giving me the video camera on my iPhone- I got to capture Derek Jeter's history making hit last night and 3 minute standing ovation . Myself and 2 buds with iPhones captured it. An amazing night.
THe video capture on this Nano is just too low quality and too difficult to use (awkward camera location, storage capacity, and monitor size) to make it worthwhile for me. I hope the kiddies enjoy it. A missed opportunity for the Touch IMHO.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by KingKuei

So for those who have actually had a chance to see the new nanos in person, is there something new about the casing?

Apple is marketing the new nanos as having a POLISHED anodized aluminum casing, making it seem like something different from the usual anodized aluminum that has been seen on last year's model as well as the aluminum MacBooks and iMacs.

So am I missing something here? Are the new nanos sporting some slightly smoother or shinier metal? Or is it the same stuff just "re-marketed" as POLISHED anodized aluminum? I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.

And since Apple seems to have a tradition of standardizing on a few materials and colors for their various products, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually trot out new MacBooks and iMacs with polished finishes as well.

I saw them and preferred the prior matte ones. I've never liked shiny.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by caliminius

That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.

It is. I saw videos that people had made in the store of their fingers. I tried making one and also captured my finger. It's awkward and requires you to use 2 hands or extend all your fingers outward.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

Why- are they hallowed? You had no problem understanding what he meant. Besides most refer to it as a Touch anyway.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by TBell

That really depends on if you are replicating Apple's Marketing/Trademark or trying to comply with the demands of proper grammar. Proper grammar dictates writing, iPod Touch because the name is a proper noun. Look at Wikipedia and other news sources.

Those sources write, "iPod Touch." That is generally what one should do when writing about the iPod Touch. Apple writes, "iPod touch" because that is how it markets/trademarked the name.

This argument is incredibly lame but I can't resist.

Being an English-born English-speaker and a writer educated in England in the English language I can tell you that you are wrong, and the wiki is wrong. Well, perhaps not so much "wrong" as trying to apply 19th and 20th century rules to a modern English language and a global culture that's changed significantly since those rules were written.

First off, even if you were right, *both* "iPod Touch" and "iPod touch" would be correct, because it's completely correct to not capitalise if you actually consider the entire product name to be "iPod touch" vs. it being an "iPod" with the variant "touch." A name is a name, and is spelled the way the holder or originator of the name wants it to be spelled including capitalisation.

Secondly, the idea that because it's a proper noun you need to capitalise the start of each word is as mentioned, something that doesn't really have any relevance in today's world of acronyms-as-names, inter-capitalised names, all lower-case names, and names purposely beginning with lower-case.

Finally, it's just bad form old chap.

If Apple says it's "iPod touch" and that's the full name of the product, it's plain old bloody rude to change it because of some century old stick-up-the-bum rule that really shouldn't apply. Rules change, and the holder of the name is always the best source on authenticity and spelling.

What if I spelled my name "Throat Warbler Mangrove" for instance, but wanted to pronounce it "Luxury Yacht?"

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

First off, even if you were right, *both* "iPod Touch" and "iPod touch" would be correct, because it's completely correct to not capitalise if you actually consider the entire product name to be "iPod touch" vs. it being an "iPod" with the variant "touch." A name is a name, and is spelled the way the holder or originator of the name wants it to be spelled including capitalisation.

I agree with second part of your comment —the part I bolded— but not the first pat. To me it reads as if you are contradicting yourself.

The product name is iPod Touch because that is what was chosen by Apple as the product. The show NOVA is spelled with all letters capitalized because that is what was chosen by creators. The same goes for WiMAX which has the letter ‘i’ lowercase and the remaining letter than spell ‘max’ capitalized.

None of that means that we can’t make my own shorten versions of the names to speed up writing and reading. The whole point of this forum is to make a point that is clearly understood and no variation of spelling I’ve seen has lessened that ability.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I agree with second part of your comment —the part I bolded— but not the first pat. To me it reads as if you are contradicting yourself.

The product name is iPod Touch because that is what was chosen by Apple as the product. The show NOVA is spelled with all letters capitalized because that is what was chosen by creators. The same goes for WiMAX which has the letter ‘i’ lowercase and the remaining letter than spell ‘max’ capitalized.

None of that means that we can’t make my own shorten versions of the names to speed up writing and reading. The whole point of this forum is to make a point that is clearly understood and no variation of spelling I’ve seen has lessened that ability.

Hey, you're back! I hope you're well. It's not the same here without your in-depth posts.

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by DCJ001

You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:

iPod Touch.

sorry, iTouch is what everybody outside of apple parlance calls it...cant tell you the number of times someone has said to me, or I have over heard something like "I cant get an iphone because (reason here) but I want an iTouch"...


keeping things short is acceptable, it is no different than someone saying "my pc runs vista premium" rather than "my pc runs Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium edition"

[kresh]

Originally Posted by souliisoul

I make a simple mistake ON ONE PRODUCT, looks like we in kindergarden again, so that their contribution to this discussion.

souliisoul, ignore the forum Nazis! I support your right to call it the iTouch, iPod Touch, iPod touch or iButt Scratcher!

iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, hehe this is fun, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by kresh

souliisoul, ignore the forum Nazis! I support your right to call it the iTouch, iPod Touch, iPod touch or iButt Scratcher!

iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, hehe this is fun, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch, iTouch

lets get the nazis really pissed by talking about cool keyboard shortcuts using the clover key in "OS EX" on my new powerbook pro...

I can do this all day, how long till someones head explodes?

[bobertoq]

Originally Posted by randythot

Others have mentioned your answer.
1. The screen thickness prohibits the camera being behind it.
2. You may reorient the camera, and the screen view will rotate also.
3. (Not mentioned, I believe) The camera more distal than the microphone is preferable. Blocking the camera gives visual feedback. If the microphone were more distal than the camera, a finger could block the sound without blocking the camera and ruining the video recording.

My main point in the third point is that Apple has thought through the design and worked with the limitations.

Funny my phone has a camera behind its screen, and its thin, too.