or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Review: iPod nano (2012)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Review: iPod nano (2012) - Page 2

post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

I like the sixth gen iPod Nano.  Only because I use mine as a watch.  I like the 7th gen as well but you can't use it in the same manner.  I think they should have put an AM and FM radio in the iPod nano.  Many times I wanted to listen to talk radio on am.

 

Pretty sure you don't get AM because of how big the antenna would be, plus the fact that AM tends to be especially directional.  It's hard to get Apple-quality AM into something that small.  Even a dedicated portable radio often has trouble.  I feel your pain, though.  I'm going to an NFL game tomorrow, and would like to listen to the live radio broadcast on, you guessed it, AM.

 

The nano is a great pure iPod.  I enjoy having one for the car for podcasting and audiobooks.  I've had all but the 2nd and 4th gen nano, and I've got to say that this new design is pretty good.  I'm not sure you can beat the 5th gen.  The 5th gen had physical controls (you pause a lot while driving, and no look pausing is *very* important), camera, even decent games -- with the accelerometer or whatever it is, they had a neat ball tilting game that, though it ate battery like mad, was lots of fun.  That version of the nano has yet to be beat.

 

But this comes close to matching the 5th gen.  Has video and a dedicated pause button, so great pure iPod audio and video.  If I needed bluetooth, it'd be an improvement, obviously.  Otherwise, still a step backwards from the 5th gen for now, but if you can later sync/shop via bluetooth or they add WiFi, it'll finally start going places.

 

And for the guy suggesting a Zune...  Why not get a used 5th gen nano?  Sheesh.  ;)

post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

The watch thing last year was a gimmick, it was cool, but it made a lousy watch. 

 

I agree. I almost bought one last year to use as a watch, because I thought that some of the new watch faces looked cool and many armbands were available for it, but after some quick research, I found out that you couldn't actually have the screen on most of the time, so what's the point then? If I was going to buy an iPod nano to use as a watch, you'd better damn believe that I MUST have the display on all of the time whenever I would be wearing it.

 

I ended up just buying a regular watch.


Edited by Apple ][ - 10/14/12 at 12:03am
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by "Apple 
[" url="/t/153354/review-ipod-nano-2012/40#post_2211039"]
I agree. I almost bought one last year to use as a watch, because I thought that some of the new watch faces looked cool and many armbands were available for it, but after some quick research, I found out that you couldn't actually have the screen on most of the time, so what's the point then? If I was going to buy an iPod nano to use as a watch, you'd better damn believe that I MUST have the display on all of the time whenever I would be wearing it.

I ended up just buying a regular watch.


I'm the same way- except I already had watches. Really, there was no advantage at all- pure gimmick.

That being said- the day they have more capabilities- where the watch basically becomes a 2nd notification screen, and also gives the ability to have phone call options "remind me later and reply with a text"- then ill buy one immediately. That's my dream nano- saves you from pulling your phone out of your pocket Everytime is vibrates.

The trick is- battery life. Until they get an advanced kinetic charging system like other watches just on a much larger scale- it's pointless. It really only needs to last 20 hours or so- you can take it off and charge it at night, and during the day the kinetic just helps it stay charged longer.


I'm not an engineer- that's apples job. I'm sure once the technology is there, it's affordable to be profitable, and apple feels its marketable- They'll do it. Me- I can just hope.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #44 of 55
where is says "insanely precision engineering" it should instead say, "insanely *precise* engineering."

/nazi
post #45 of 55
Loved the clip in the back when I ran. Now I'll have to buy a case again.
post #46 of 55

The (design of the) new iPod touch is brilliant.

 

The iPhone looks like a tool.

 

The iPod Lumia looks like a rip off. Both the interface & the hardware look uninspired. Good enough for Nokia, but below the Apple Design standard. Jony Ive can do better. Let's forget this version of the nano.

post #47 of 55
Originally Posted by mr O View Post
The iPhone looks like a tool.

 

Under what definition?


The iPod Lumia looks like a rip off.

 

That's because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #48 of 55

Compare the iPhone 5 to the new iPod Touch. It's tool (read: no magic crossover between the visual arts & technology) versus lifestyle. The Touch looks very inviting with rounded edges, like the original iPhone.

 

The nano is a different story. It looks like it has been designed by Apple's marketing department: "… youngsters, kids blablabla [spreadsheet] … colors blablabla [trendbook] … Nokia blablabla, et cetera et cetera." I am surprised they didn't rebrand the name to iPod Lumia?

post #49 of 55
Originally Posted by mr O View Post
Compare the iPhone 5 to the new iPod Touch. It's tool (read: no magic crossover between the visual arts & technology) versus lifestyle. The Touch looks very inviting with rounded edges, like the original iPhone.

 

And what would this mean to you? What would the iPhone have to do to fit this bill?


I am surprised they didn't rebrand the name to iPod Lumia?

 

Go back and look at the timeline. Apple had these designs in 2006. Released that design in 2007. And then Nokia came in. And now Apple's just doing what they've always been doing.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

The thing I find most surprising about the new nano is that they didn't re purpose and keep selling the old one as the new shuffle. I don't get that.

The watch form factor is pretty darn cool, and they knew people liked it. This new one affords video and Bluetooth, so that's nice, too. Eventually I imagine it would be physically possible to put Bluetooth directly into the old size and do with that some of what came to this one (and more).
Only problem about making the watch nano the new shuffle would be price. I don't think you could make a profit if you sold the watch nano at shuffle prices.

I agree the watch nano should be the new shuffle, but it needs more tactile buttons for eyes-free playback, the current nano included. Most people who use the shuffle need it for working out or some task that doesn't allow the user to look at a screen. They basically need forward, back and volume controls.

I think the new nano is in the same boat, but is that kind of device that is a bridge between the classic and the shuffle. It still makes a great workout/car audio device, but also has the advantage of a larger screen. I think apple will prolly add a camera in the next iteration, hope it does still photos too.

My only real issue with the current nano is the lack of more tactile buttons. People have mentioned the click wheel, but I disagree, I think the only great thing about the click wheel was the scroll feature. But if you have a touch screen for scroll there's no need for a click wheel. However you could add a more secondary directional wheel...like the current Apple TV remote or the current shuffle for the current nano...I believe it might be a better pairing of functionality with eyes-free and touchscreen. THis might be more advantageous over a wider range of users without much redundancy. The touch screen for scroll and selection, but the directional button and center home button for quick, on-the-go navigation.

Personally that could also work for the iPod classic as well, should they ever update it. For something hat needs to sometimes be eyes free but also be useful as a touchscreen device, I think this proposed change to the nano and possibly a new classic would be a ver welcomed update and hit a broader range of users.
Edited by antkm1 - 10/15/12 at 7:17pm
post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
Go back and look at the timeline. Apple had these designs in 2006. Released that design in 2007. And then Nokia came in. And now Apple's just doing what they've always been doing.

Might be a testament to how much publicity the Lumia has gained, and the forgetfulness of people to Apple's previous iterations of the Nano...Probably because the Nano has gone through so many design it's easy to forget one existed.  I forgot the eliptical one had two iterations myself until I saw this article.

post #52 of 55

It's not the body, but the white face I am talking about. It's a blatant copy from Nokia's Lumia.

post #53 of 55
Bull. The white face is a continuation of the original iPod design, the design that started it all. I had a 5GB original iPod, and I have a 7th generation Nano, and it's clear where the design inspiration came from.

Now go away back to Looney Lumia Land.
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr O View Post

It's not the body, but the white face I am talking about. It's a blatant copy from Nokia's Lumia.

I felt Nokia mostly took design elements from various nano generations.

The current nano face looks like a combination of a stretched 6th generation with Apple's home button added.
post #55 of 55
Originally Posted by mr O View Post
It's not the body, but the white face I am talking about. It's a blatant copy from Nokia's Lumia.

 

Except no. We've been over this.


Originally Posted by tonton View Post
Now go away back to Looney Lumia Land.
 

Now I have the "Merrie Melodies" tune in my head. Great. lol.gif

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Review: iPod nano (2012)