AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's shrunken 6th-gen iPod nano to retain 30-pin dock connector
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's shrunken 6th-gen iPod nano to retain 30-pin dock connector - Page 2

post #41 of 75
8/28/10 at 3:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

I'm with the people who think it's the new shuffle.

What's in a name?

If Apple effectively brings out a touchscreen shuffle and calls it the Nano, does it not smell as sweet?

If the replacement, in essence, for the current Nano is called a Touch, is it not a Nano replacement just the same?

And if a new top end iPod comes with more screen real estate, do we get a new name and the one more thing Jobs needs for his presentation on Wednesday?

There does appear to be a lot of repositioing going on and that suggests to me that something like a 5" Touch is about to see the light of day. One can always hope.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 75
8/28/10 at 4:17am
I think it is both the nano and the shuffle. I think it will look just like iPhone 4 except small and square. So the line up will be new nano, iPod touch, and maybe the classic.

I am more interested in a new version of iWeb. I love and use the current version of iWeb to maintain my simple business site and also a blog. However I am starting a new project that will need a few more features. I would also like an ios version of iWeb for updating my blog while on the road.

But the best thing they could introduce is iTunes cloud. (which I feel will be called iMedia). I want to be done with iTunes. Yes, it works but I want something that I never have to think about again. This means all my media safely stored offsite and available wherever I am. It is coming but I would be suppressed if it happens next week.

Andy Johnson

www.aljgraphics.com

Reply

Andy Johnson

www.aljgraphics.com

Reply
post #43 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:34am
Yawn...
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:35am
What has happened to Apple rumor mongerers? why you have all completely lost all forms of common sense?

1. there will be no 3G equipped iPod touch and anyone who even pretends to think so is a moron. you don't understand a damn thing about Apple or any of their product lines if you even slightly think this is is possible.
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

What's in a name?

If Apple effectively brings out a touchscreen shuffle and calls it the Nano, does it not smell as sweet?

If the replacement, in essence, for the current Nano is called a Touch, is it not a Nano replacement just the same?

And if a new top end iPod comes with more screen real estate, do we get a new name and the one more thing Jobs needs for his presentation on Wednesday?

There does appear to be a lot of repositioing going on and that suggests to me that something like a 5" Touch is about to see the light of day. One can always hope.

This is not how it works. They either refresh a product with something similar, or they replace it with something altogether new.

try to keep up.
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:50am
Now that I've seen that mockup, it seems to make way more sense. A tiny device with a small screen, the entire device is the screen, and you can navigate using gestures so that "Back" and "Menu" buttons don't take up extra space. Maybe it could even have some basic Apps, and play video too. I can't imagine having a browser in there though, or any other internet connected app. I doubt they could fit a WiFi chip in there, though anything is possible... We could have a timer, a clock, some simple games and anything the App store developers can come up with for this size though!
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

What has happened to Apple rumor mongerers? why you have all completely lost all forms of common sense?

1. there will be no 3G equipped iPod touch and anyone who even pretends to think so is a moron. you don't understand a damn thing about Apple or any of their product lines if you even slightly think this is is possible.

? - why not?

And if you are going to use the iphone cannibalization argument - I disagree. Most people thought that when the original ipod touch was released - all that did was drive sales of total ios devices, and in no way slowed down iphone sales.

Most teenagers & students, people on lower incomes etc can't afford the hugely costful 2 year iPhone contract, a 3G iPod touch would be perfect for a lot of people.

Apple doesn't care whether someone buys a ipod touch 3G equipped or an Phone, they are making a decent margin on both products. And if someone can't afford the iphone contract, then apple would rather they bought a 3G equipped iPod touch than a.device from Dell or samsung.

Look at it this way - final cut express has 95% of the features of final cut pro, yet apple sells it for a fraction of the cost, do you think that is hurting final cut pro sales? No, it's simply extending the market for the final cut product line - and a lot of people who use the express version eventually go on to buy the pro version when they can afford it. Lol - its like a gateway drug....

I think an ipod touch mini is more likely to be the surprise device on Wednesday though....
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 75
8/28/10 at 6:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Interesting stuff, but are we sure this isn't a replacement for the shuffle instead of the nano?

Certainly a possibility. On the other hand i don't think Apple ever found a firmula for the shuffle taht sold well. The shuffle could be dead.

In any event a 3 x 3 cm screen is very small, if the device is only marginally larger than the screen it can't have a lot of capability. So maybe the shuffle is alive. I tendcto agree this isn't a Nano replacement.
Quote:
Also, why the heck would anyone want to buy a "case" for something that small? What a total waste of plastic.

Because they are influenced by marketing or like the pretty colors or they are a woman. Not to be sexist but woman seem to like dressing up their cell phones.

In any event i don't see enough capability going into this small device to replace the Nano. Rather i could see Apple taking the Nano in a different direction. For example keep the same general outling but super charge the video section. In other words it would become a MP3 player with a respectable video camera
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 75
8/28/10 at 6:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Yup. I think HP is doing this now so you can tell where your HP and grab directions pretty accurately, without the need for wifi. All you need is offline maps.

Cool. I had no idea anyone was doing this yet. Its something I expect to eventually be standard (as well as removing of optical drives from notebooks). But with the GPS I figured Apple would be first because they have plenty of knowledge of integrating GPS with the OS and supplying a service to go along wit it.

Obicules Undercover offers a solution but I think their business mode is less effective than it could be. They charge a flat rate for the app and service, which means the user has to be proactive by spending money upfront for it and think they could be victim. I think Orbicule could increase knowledge of the app, its install base and its revenue and profit per search by allowing users to pay after the fact for the service. How many people dont have this app installed because they think it cant happen to them? How many people dont think its worth it until after it happens? Hell, if Orbicle doesnt want to do it then a crafty developer could use that business model themselves.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #50 of 75
8/28/10 at 6:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by alectheking View Post

To the first paragraph, no. They are not going to be changing the screen size of any ipod touch. Bet on it.

The Touch itself no. A smaller touch based device however could be huge. Especislly if it was a hybrid with a click wheel.

That is without the midsize iPad everyone is talking about. If that comes Apple could shrink the Touch itself some.
Quote:
To the second paragraph, if the iPhone 4 storage gives us any clue, the capacity is going to stay the same maxed out a 64gig. I'm betting on 128gig next year.

IPhone 4 isn't a clue to anything. The flash makers announced new higher density chips about a month and a half ago that would go into production in September. The amount of Flash to be found in the devices could go up. I say could because Apple could try to save space for a bigger battery. Or they could use the space for additional features. Technology wise though they could expand flash storage by double easy.

I'm actually wondering where the Classic is going. 1.8" SSDs are available now that could make for a vastly improved Classic with 128GB of reliable storage right now. Yeah a little expensive but it is the last magnetic iPod on the market.


Dave
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 75
8/28/10 at 7:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_beezy View Post

Why the hell would apple put a 3G radio chip in the iPod touch!?

Streaming music. Think about it, and why they're sinking a billion into that North Carolina server farm. Listen to your choice of practically any music on the planet, anytime and almost anywhere you want. Unless you can transfer your iPad SIM card, though, another wireless connection fee will be part of the equation. Maybe a comprehensive subscription plan - 3G and X amount of music streaming, paid monthly.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #52 of 75
8/28/10 at 9:00am
I'm still calling that mystery app to be a HTML-5 content creator.
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 75
8/28/10 at 10:57am
but wouldn't this mean a lot regarding weight and battery usage? The iPhone 4 weighs 20% more than the iPod Touch. Can't be celluar all of it, or? The reason why I would prefer a iPod Touch over an iPhone is pure size. The lighter and thinner the better, and I consider i iPhone 4 pretty clunky.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 75
8/28/10 at 11:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rune66 View Post

but wouldn't this mean a lot regarding weight and battery usage? The iPhone 4 weighs 20% more than the iPod Touch. Can't be celluar all of it, or? The reason why I would prefer a iPod Touch over an iPhone is pure size. The lighter and thinner the better, and I consider i iPhone 4 pretty clunky.

Check out iFixits break down of the iPhone 3GS and G3 iPod Touch. All the additional weight and sizes comes from what is needed to include the cellular hardware, which includes the larger and heavier battery.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #55 of 75
8/28/10 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

So will the shrunken nano still have a camera?

You are hitting the nail on the head, this is exactly the point, Apple would not downgrade the current nano and lose the camera. If only, they would want to add some wi-fi in a potential Nano in order to allow for some FaceTime. My $ is on a new shuffle with a touch screen...
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 75
8/28/10 at 11:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

I'm still calling that mystery app to be a HTML-5 content creator.

I think it's something like that also. Either that or an iAd tool, or tools that combine both.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 75
8/28/10 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cubert View Post

I'm still calling that mystery app to be a HTML-5 content creator.

That would be an update to iWeb. Html5 isn't a new technology, it's a language for developing web sites, the next standard in line to be ratified, after html4.

If you want to create html5 open text edit and type away...
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 75
8/28/10 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

I think it's something like that also. Either that or an iAd tool, or tools that combine both.

Nope. IAds are created by professional studios, iLife is a consumer level suite of software. Joe public don't want to create iAds, nor do they have the budget to place them.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 75
8/28/10 at 5:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

This is not how it works. They either refresh a product with something similar, or they replace it with something altogether new.

try to keep up.

It works any way Apple wants it to work. They can use whatever naming hiearchy they please. They can put whatever features they want into a product, sell whatever products they feel like selling etc.

To think there is a way how it works is ridiculous. Apple trhives on innovation on being hard to figure out in advance. Whatever Apple unveils Wednesday, it will not be telegraphed.

I do know one thing, though. Whatever Apple does, if it doesn't seem to make sense immediately, it will in time. Apple has been very good at laying the groundwork for future success, releasing product with impeccable timing.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 75
8/28/10 at 7:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

God I hope so. Did Apple learn nothing with the "stubby" nano in the past? Everyone hated it.
( as you can see by how quickly it was replaced )

if that's a new shuffle, that would be awesome.

a new Nano simply must keep the candybar formfactor. It's just too darn small if it doesn't.

I personally will miss the clickwheel... I can't stand having to look at my screen ever time i want to go to the next song... now if we had haptic feed back that might be different!

I love the fat-boy nanos. I didn't at first, but when I held it in my hand, it fit perfectly. I have 3 of them - I just wish Apple had made some with more storage than 8GB.

I'm hoping now for a 240GB Classic - I could put it on album shuffle, hook it up to my car stereo, and drive forever. Perfect for car trips. (I use a 160GB Classic now, lossless music).
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 75
8/28/10 at 9:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_beezy View Post

Um yeah they did..back in 2007 it's called the iPhone duh

Why the hell would apple put a 3G radio chip in the iPod touch!?

Get a iPad

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

Skype.

I've got an iPad and I'd buy a 3G Touch, especially if I could use the same SIM card in each. There are times when the iPad is too big.

I don't need a cell phone any more so a 3G touch would be perfect.

But that 3G module would half the Touch's capacity. I'd rather have a 128 GB iPod Touch. But I carry all 3 iPod Touch, iPhone 4 & iPad 3G with me all the time. So I'm not you.

Oct 3.2GHz 08 MP, 32GB, 512SSD, 15TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5, 64 ATT iPad 4, 64 Touch3G, 16 Nano6G

Reply

Oct 3.2GHz 08 MP, 32GB, 512SSD, 15TB HDs
2.6GHz 6GB 17"HD LED MBP, Sony 52XBR6 HDTV
EyeTV 500, Hybrid 2G, EyeTV 3 HDTV Recorder
64 ATT iPhone 5, 64 ATT iPad 4, 64 Touch3G, 16 Nano6G

Reply
post #62 of 75
8/28/10 at 10:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_beezy View Post

Um yeah they did..back in 2007 it's called the iPhone duh

Why the hell would apple put a 3G radio chip in the iPod touch!?

Get a iPad

Because voice is just an app, not an overpriced, monopolistic service that arose due to historical accident. The 3G iPod touch, if it is a reality, could be a crucial step toward more rationally priced voice service. More like $15 per month, free text messaging, innovative new communication options created by third parties with no long term commitment rather than $100 per month. Of course if you prefer to prop up anachronistic but politically connected companies, feel free.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 75
8/29/10 at 7:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nkhm View Post

That would be an update to iWeb. Html5 isn't a new technology, it's a language for developing web sites, the next standard in line to be ratified, after html4.

If you want to create html5 open text edit and type away...

I think what most people mean when they say Html5 editor they mean canvas editor, or motion svg editor. That is something that is very difficult to do in iWeb and would need a new interface.
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 75
8/29/10 at 7:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdbryan View Post

Because voice is just an app, not an overpriced, monopolistic service that arose due to historical accident. The 3G iPod touch, if it is a reality, could be a crucial step toward more rationally priced voice service. More like $15 per month, free text messaging, innovative new communication options created by third parties with no long term commitment rather than $100 per month. Of course if you prefer to prop up anachronistic but politically connected companies, feel free.

I agree, Voice-Facetime over 3g would be the end of voice service, if rolled out right.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 75
8/29/10 at 7:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpcg View Post

I think what most people mean when they say Html5 editor they mean canvas editor, or motion svg editor. That is something that is very difficult to do in iWeb and would need a new interface.

Canvas editor hmm. I think this would be a professional app, not something to be found in iWeb or the iLife suite.

Is Canvas even HW accelerated in any browser yet, stable releases or nightlies?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #66 of 75
8/29/10 at 7:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

IPhone 4 isn't a clue to anything. The flash makers announced new higher density chips about a month and a half ago that would go into production in September. The amount of Flash to be found in the devices could go up. I say could because Apple could try to save space for a bigger battery. Or they could use the space for additional features. Technology wise though they could expand flash storage by double easy.

I'm actually wondering where the Classic is going. 1.8" SSDs are available now that could make for a vastly improved Classic with 128GB of reliable storage right now. Yeah a little expensive but it is the last magnetic iPod on the market.

Dave

I think you are underestimating the price of 2x64GB flash modules, especially compared to 2x32GB that they have now. I think they will skip til next year when they will be way cheaper.

A 128GB 1,8" SSD? That alone would be $300, If you want a $400 iPod classic, you are welcome! If you want, you can always hack your old one with one of those..
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 75
8/29/10 at 7:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

This is not how it works. They either refresh a product with something similar, or they replace it with something altogether new.

try to keep up.


You seem to have all the bases covered there, Sport.

And your point is?
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 75
8/29/10 at 10:40am
Funny how these rumors start: http://www.ankleskater.com/pagemaker...20100829132700
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 75
8/29/10 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Is Canvas even HW accelerated in any browser yet, stable releases or nightlies?

It is, in Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 4 (read IEBlog announcement). Feels surreal, but Microsoft has leapfrogged others on this one (not a stable release, though).
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 75
8/29/10 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by yakovlev View Post

It is, in Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview 4 (read IEBlog announcement). Feels surreal, but Microsoft has leapfrogged others on this one (not a stable release, though).

Thanks. I posted about this almost 2 months ago. They say the mind is the first to go or do they, I cant remember.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...28#post1668028 I find it funny that a single accolade toward MS for being ahead of the browser curve, for once, ended up with the reply I received about my IE victory and the defense of the other browsers on the market. LOL
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #71 of 75
8/30/10 at 2:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

Apple doesn't care whether someone buys a ipod touch 3G equipped or an Phone, they are making a decent margin on both products.

The unlocked 32 GB iPhone 4 sells for $900, the 32 GB iPod touch sells for $400. With the iPad the 3G markup is $150. Assuming a $150 margin on the iPod touch and a $50 margin on the 3G add-on, an assumed iPod touch 3G would cost $550 and have a margin of thus $200 or 36%. With the iPhone they would make a margin of $550 or 61%.
Yes, both are decent margins, but the iPhone one is much more decent and almost three times as high in absolute terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

And if someone can't afford the iphone contract, then apple would rather they bought a 3G equipped iPod touch than a.device from Dell or samsung.

If someone cannot afford an iPhone contract, they just get an unlocked phone with a cheap data-only contract (and cheap voice contract with a separate cheap phone).

What you really mean is that Apple could sell a lot more devices if it reduced the price of the iPhone (as in true price = price of the unlocked phone) by a substantial margin because more people could then afford it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

Look at it this way - final cut express has 95% of the features of final cut pro, yet apple sells it for a fraction of the cost, do you think that is hurting final cut pro sales? .

Now, what would be the difference between an iPhone and an iPod touch 3G? The built-in microphone and the Phone app. Does this sound like 95% or not rather like 99%? And if Apple wants to enable FaceTime on the iPod touch, the microphone will be there already.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 75
8/30/10 at 6:18am
I remember getting totally jumped on a few months back for even suggesting that the iPhone was overpriced (comparing it to the Touch). Bigger battery+microphone+3G+GPS+camera costs money, but an extra $500 at retail? I don't think so, and I don't think Apple gets anywhere near that price from AT&T.

If (really big if) Apple decided to circumvent the cell carriers with a 3G Touch, they could make a very nice margin at $500. Will it happen? Not likely this year, but if anyone could unstrangle us from the cell companies it would be Apple.

I totally agree with sdbryan. Voice is just an app, and to me it's the least important feature of an iPhone. Most of the cell phone universe of users rely on text messaging at least as much as voice.

5" iPod Touch 3G 32GB for $399 with an iPad-style data plan on your choice of any major carrier - I can dream can't I?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 75
8/30/10 at 7:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

Now, what would be the difference between an iPhone and an iPod touch 3G? The built-in microphone and the Phone app. Does this sound like 95% or not rather like 99%? And if Apple wants to enable FaceTime on the iPod touch, the microphone will be there already.

I don't think the average user would agree with you. First of all 3g coverage definetely isn't the same as full normal mobile phone coverage. A 3g iPod touch wouldn't have near the same coverage the same way cell's do. Also you would have to use Skype or the equivalent which all things equal ain't nearly as user friendly as the iPhone phone app.

So in the end a lot of people would still be buying the iPhone even though there were to be such a thing as an 3g iPod Touch.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 75
8/30/10 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntercr View Post

God I hope so. Did Apple learn nothing with the "stubby" nano in the past? Everyone hated it.
( as you can see by how quickly it was replaced )

if that's a new shuffle, that would be awesome.

a new Nano simply must keep the candybar formfactor. It's just too darn small if it doesn't.

I personally will miss the clickwheel... I can't stand having to look at my screen ever time i want to go to the next song... now if we had haptic feed back that might be different!

I'm with you on this.
It would be way to small for the Nano (in my opinion).

The trend to making all devices tinier is not necessarily a good one.
To paraphrase the Einstein quotation, things should be as small as practical, but no smaller.

As it is, I have never found the Shuffle 3Gen compelling and it even seems a step backwards in usability from my matchbook size Shuffle 2Gen with click wheel.

I am not sure where the Apple usability team has disappeared to - used to be that Apple considered that more. Now shinyness and tinyness seem, unfortunately, to be king.
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
The Universe is Intelligent and Friendly
Reply
post #75 of 75
8/31/10 at 5:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

The unlocked 32 GB iPhone 4 sells for $900, the 32 GB iPod touch sells for $400. With the iPad the 3G markup is $150. Assuming a $150 margin on the iPod touch and a $50 margin on the 3G add-on, an assumed iPod touch 3G would cost $550 and have a margin of thus $200 or 36%. With the iPhone they would make a margin of $550 or 61%.
Yes, both are decent margins, but the iPhone one is much more decent and almost three times as high in absolute terms.

If someone cannot afford an iPhone contract, they just get an unlocked phone with a cheap data-only contract (and cheap voice contract with a separate cheap phone).

What you really mean is that Apple could sell a lot more devices if it reduced the price of the iPhone (as in true price = price of the unlocked phone) by a substantial margin because more people could then afford it.


Now, what would be the difference between an iPhone and an iPod touch 3G? The built-in microphone and the Phone app. Does this sound like 95% or not rather like 99%? And if Apple wants to enable FaceTime on the iPod touch, the microphone will be there already.

$900? Nah, sucker money right there, there is no way thats what AT&T pays apple - it'll be closer to the 2007 launch unsubsidized prices. The iPhone goes for as low as $650 USD unlocked in some countries, so AT&T would be paying less than that.

Edit: checked the apple financials - they confirm the iPhone average selling price (ASP) is $620 - so that's probably $499 for 8gb and 599/699 for 16/32 gb models, with the average pushed up slightly by some consumers buying the much higher priced unlocked phones.

On another note, if lower income people can't afford a iphone plan - I doubt they are are going to pay the absurdly high unlocked price and then still pay for a data only plan.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple's shrunken 6th-gen iPod nano to retain 30-pin dock connector