or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › AmTech: Apple to double iPod nano storage capacity
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AmTech: Apple to double iPod nano storage capacity

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
Analysts for American Technology Research on Monday said checks show Apple Computer to be planning a new iPod nano with twice the storage for its September quarter.

"Our most recent checks indicate the current 2GB and 4GB nano models will see their storage doubled to 4GB and 8GB capacities," analyst Shaw Wu told clients in a research note.

The analyst said he is also picking up indications that the players will gain basic video capabilities. "We anticipate these new nanos will become available in the September Quarter and become top sellers, particularly if Apple keeps the price points low at $199 and $249.

In the meantime, Wu says Apple is working hard on extending the battery life of its next-generation widescreen video iPod. He says Apple's current 5th-generation video iPods have a battery life of only 75 - 90 minutes when playing video.

Some of the ways to improve battery life that Apple is exploring are said to include: using a bigger battery, using both NAND flash and microdrives inside a single iPod, and building better software that makes Broadcom's AlphaMosaic multimedia co-processor operate more efficiently.

Also on Monday, Wu told clients he believes the "widely anticipated" 13-inch Intel consumer notebook from Apple is on track to ship in the June/July timeframe. "We view this as an important release as iBook is the second most important volume product in the Mac business," he wrote.

The analyst sees the risk-to-reward on shares of Apple Computer to be attractive, given they are trading at 27 times the firm's 2007 earnings-per-share estimate of $2.59. "We remain firm believers that the move to digital entertainment is a multi-year trend and that Apple is well-positioned to capitalize with its unique and defendable iPod + iTunes and Macintosh franchise," he wrote.

American Technology Research maintains a Buy rating on Apple shares with a price target of $101.
post #2 of 40
Does that mean they're not going to up the 1 gig nano?

If not, what's the point of it then, the difference in price is small enough that most people will just jump to 4 gigs. Same with the shuffles, if they do up the $149 nano to 2 gigs, that makes the 1 gig shuffle at $99 look pretty overpriced for the size.

Seems like if they're going to up some of the nanos, they really need to up all of them, plus the shuffles as well.
post #3 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Does that mean they're not going to up the 1 gig nano?

...blah
post #4 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by JoeAlamaiz
...blah

Is that a yes or a no?
post #5 of 40
Of course, right after I buy my 2GB nano. If I'd waited a few more months I could get twice the space and video capabilities.
post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by minderbinder
Is that a yes or a no?

It means there's not going to be a 1 or 2 gig version
post #7 of 40
75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 40
who said there putting video on the nano? that would be so rediculous.
post #9 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by shady104
who said there putting video on the nano? that would be so rediculous.

"The analyst said he is also picking up indications that the players will gain basic video capabilities."
post #10 of 40
I think they should just sell 2, 4, and 8 gigabyte Nanos.
post #11 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...

Four AA batteries are about half the volume of the 4G.

There is plenty of room for improvement. With the 5G, the hard drive is spinning a lot when it plays a video. Solid state storage on the nano might help. The video decoder chip probably isn't helping either, a new generation version might be better. There may be more efficient back lights now too. The fact that Apple tries to make every new generation thinner than the last doens't help, as that greatly reduces the available volume for batteries.

I really don't see the value of video on a nano unless the screen gets larger and that it supports video out.
post #12 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by JoeAlamaiz
It means there's not going to be a 1 or 2 gig version

What's so crazy about the idea of bigger shuffles? I don't think there's ANY question that we'll probably see them eventually, it's just a question of when.
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
I really don't see the value of video on a nano unless the screen gets larger and that it supports video out.

I still don't understand this "video on a screen that can barely display enough text for a song title" craze (not just iPod, but cell phones as well). I mean, does anyone actually watch TV shows/movies on these screens? And if so, is the experience actually worthwhile?

I'd imagine it's equivalent to listening to an orchestra on the built-in laptop speakers. Sure you can do it, but what's the point?

I can understand video-out so that you can show your pictures and videos to friends/relatives on their TV, but as for actually watching them on the device itself, I just don't understand it.

And yes, I actually own a Sony PSP (which has a fairly large screen for a small device), but I mostly use it to play video games on the go. I've never actually watched a movie on it. Nor would I ever purchase a PSP movie when I can buy a DVD for the same price which has much higher resolution and quality (and is fairly easy to rip and convert to PSP format).

This whole market segment just doesn't make sense to me.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #14 of 40
This is all just rumor and speculation..

Shaw Wu has been "pro-Apple" for a long time, but just because he is an "analyst" does not mean he is privy to any inside information..

He reads the rumor sites and guesses like the rest of us..
post #15 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by auxio
I still don't understand this "video on a screen that can barely display enough text for a song title" craze (not just iPod, but cell phones as well). I mean, does anyone actually watch TV shows/movies on these screens? And if so, is the experience actually worthwhile?

I was skeptical until I actually saw one of the video ipods in person. Surprisingly good picture. It's for watching on the go, certainly good enough picture to watch a sitcom riding on the subway. Next gen, a bigger screen will definitely be an improvement, but right now the battery life is a bigger problem than the small screen.
post #16 of 40
The only part of Apple that I don't like anymore is the iPod division. iPod pricing and features are just so contrived and out there, and there is such a little price difference between the nano and the regular iPod that I shame anyone who buys a nano. And the nano is just too small. Another thing, I hate the small craze. I mean, wtf? I'd rather have a sturdy, useable, SEE-ABLE item that works a zillion times better than some exprensive piece of crap that is so small and ridicuolous. [spelling?]
Also, I was at the Apple store the other day and all of the friggen iPods looked like crap. All of them were really scratched and dingy-looking. No other generation of iPOds has looked like that in the stores. It's getting me pissed off that Apple took such a good product and decided, "oh, lets's make it better" and then the final product is worse than when they started.
And wthf is wrong with them for taking out the Firewire support????????????????????????????????? USB is so terribly slow that I CAN'T MOTHER FRIGGEN USE IT

Just wanted to rant and rave. I had a bad day. [the camera don't lie ]
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by josa92
The only part of Apple that I don't like anymore is the iPod division. iPod pricing and features are just so contrived and out there, and there is such a little price difference between the nano and the regular iPod that I shame anyone who buys a nano. And the nano is just too small. Another thing, I hate the small craze. I mean, wtf? I'd rather have a sturdy, useable, SEE-ABLE item that works a zillion times better than some exprensive piece of crap that is so small and ridicuolous. [spelling?]
Also, I was at the Apple store the other day and all of the friggen iPods looked like crap. All of them were really scratched and dingy-looking. No other

And wthf is wrong with them for taking out the Firewire support????????????????????????????????? USB is so terribly slow that I CAN'T MOTHER FRIGGEN USE IT

While I'd prefer they had Firewire, unless you only have USB 1 or have something wrong with your computer, the nano and 5G are fine using USB. USB 2.0 is very close in speed to Firewire that it's not an issue for most people with a portable media device. The exceptions are usually those people that bought computers from a certain fruit company that aren't sufficiently upgradable.

The nano, aside from a minor scuffing issue, is likely the most durable iPod that was ever made, and the (hefty) premium paid for solid state storage is worth it for that and the compact size, for audio use.

I like the nano because of its thin size and low weight, it is a lot easier to carry in my pocket, the full size unit is too large and heavy for me if all I am doing is playing audio. For video, I am willing to put up with a thicker and heavier unit, but I wouldn't be using it for that, I'd rather have a compact dedictated audio device and a larger video device than try to use the larger one for mostly audio use.
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
While I'd prefer they had Firewire, unless you only have USB 1 or have something wrong with your computer, the nano and 5G are fine using USB. USB 2.0 is very close in speed to Firewire that it's not an issue for most people with a portable media device. The exceptions are usually those people that bought computers from a certain fruit company that aren't sufficiently upgradable.

The nano, aside from a minor scuffing issue, is likely the most durable iPod that was ever made, and the (hefty) premium paid for solid state storage is worth it for that and the compact size, for audio use.

I like the nano because of its thin size and low weight, it is a lot easier to carry in my pocket, the full size unit is too large and heavy for me if all I am doing is playing audio. For video, I am willing to put up with a thicker and heavier unit, but I wouldn't be using it for that, I'd rather have a compact dedictated audio device and a larger video device than try to use the larger one for mostly audio use.

You make some very good points. But I still like my 4G.

And your right about the samll pocket thing, but it doesn't hold enough music for me to pay 50 buks less for 26 GBs less.
SO NONSENSICAL!!!!
post #19 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by josa92 And your right about the samll pocket thing, but it doesn't hold enough music for me to pay 50 buks less for 26 GBs less.
SO NONSENSICAL!!!! [/B]

With that reasoning, why not spend the extra $100 for another 30GB? Then you've graduated to a mini-brick in your pocket too.

It's not about cost, but utility. I don't need a player to hold 30 or 60GB. I have iTunes automatically rotate played tracks, so it's refreshed on every docking, which is needed for charging anyway. I think I can manage pretty well with a 1GB unit, which is half the cost and still does the job. Some people use lossless audio, for that I can see that the standard iPod as being useful for a device primarily used for audio. But the full size unit isn't for everybody, and the mid-range unit isn't for everybody either.

I try to be nice to what I have, but because of my job and a few accidental drops, I've had to have my 4G replaced because the hard drive endured too many bumps and dings. The nano still works fine and is a lot less obtrusive. For this device, I think it is worth paying a steeper per-gig price for "less", because that "less" is so much more durable for my day-to-day use and helps it fit that use better. I have to keep enough other things in my pocket that a small device is nice if it can do the job well, and it does.
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...

A typical AA disposable alkaline cell has 2800mAh @ 1.5VDC (nominal). You can extrapolate this to be 4.2Wh per cell for 16.8Wh total. A top-end AA-sized LiIon cell has about 3.7Wh. And you can't even fit one in an iPod. The LiIon-polymer flat pack in the iPod most likely carries between 1200 and 1600mAh at 3.7VDC, hence yielding no more than 6Wh.

So there it is. The Casio portable TV has a lot more juice, and it also has the advantage of not having to decode MPEG4 or whatever the iPod uses. Knocking out a Hilbert transform to decode analog TV is a lot less CPU/DSP intense than is MPEG.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #21 of 40
The new Nano, Video, phone, camera! Not likely, but VERY COOL!

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9424/
post #22 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
A typical AA disposable alkaline cell has 2800mAh @ 1.5VDC (nominal). You can extrapolate this to be 4.2Wh per cell for 16.8Wh total. A top-end AA-sized LiIon cell has about 3.7Wh. And you can't even fit one in an iPod. The LiIon-polymer flat pack in the iPod most likely carries between 1200 and 1600mAh at 3.7VDC, hence yielding no more than 6Wh.

So there it is. The Casio portable TV has a lot more juice, and it also has the advantage of not having to decode MPEG4 or whatever the iPod uses. Knocking out a Hilbert transform to decode analog TV is a lot less CPU/DSP intense than is MPEG.

If I knew what you were talking about, that would be great


I envy your knowledge of things.........................
post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
The new Nano, Video, phone, camera! Not likely, but VERY COOL!

http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9424/

That commercial is SO AWESOME
post #24 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by josa92
If I knew what you were talking about, that would be great


I envy your knowledge of things.........................

Four years of electrical engineering in college and three years of electronic product design will do that to a person. . . at least when the topic is electronic products.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #25 of 40
Perhaps a foolish question/speculation. Video encoding has been all about reducing the size of the files, at the expense of higher processing/computation requirements. Is there some sort of size, quality, and CPU usage/power - pick two balance? Nowadays, memory is much cheaper. Is it time to start using larger files with lower CPU/power requirements?

Maybe if Apple used a less sophisticated video encoding, with larger file sizes, they could coax longer battery life out of the iPods?

- Jasen.
post #26 of 40
iPod nano?

Needs more storage? Yes, why not. Same price points, now 2GB, 4GB, and 8GB. I'll take one.

Needs video? No, but if it doesn't cost anything to add the functionality, OK. One small reconfiguration could see the screen get taller, that way you turn the nano sideways when playing video.

What it really needs is a good FM tuner, this is always useful, and a built in microphone that records a decent quality file. The nano is about the perfect size and shape for a voice recorder. Add-ons are clumsy, it's time to build these two features in to the device.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #27 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by jasenj1
Perhaps a foolish question/speculation. Video encoding has been all about reducing the size of the files, at the expense of higher processing/computation requirements. Is there some sort of size, quality, and CPU usage/power - pick two balance? Nowadays, memory is much cheaper. Is it time to start using larger files with lower CPU/power requirements?

Maybe if Apple used a less sophisticated video encoding, with larger file sizes, they could coax longer battery life out of the iPods?

- Jasen.

The other concern is that memory usage requires a fair amount of power, so in some respects reducing the amount of memory used is the best way to reduce power. MPEG in general requires a fair amount of processing, but MPEG2 is very mature and there are some very low power MPEG2 decoders out there. It would be interesting to evaluate MPEG2 vs. MPEG4 decoders for power dissipation.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #28 of 40
This is not surprising.

I read a how-to and at least 3 testimonials as to how to upgrade your existing 4GB nano to 8GB by just buying another 4gb chip and soldering it into an empty location on the nano's circuit board. That's right, it was already setup to do it.

The other 4GB chip cost ~$80 IIRC, however, I think the reason Apple didn't do this to begin with was that it would create a massive shortage. That's not to mention the small profit margins already with the nanos.

Apple needed to make 4GB chips so samsung could get the capital to build several new factories, lower their prices, and increase their profit margins.

I love supply-chain management
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
What it really needs is a good FM tuner, this is always useful, and a built in microphone that records a decent quality file. The nano is about the perfect size and shape for a voice recorder. Add-ons are clumsy, it's time to build these two features in to the device.

FM tuners and microphones are too large for the form-factor. I think the most amazing thing is the fact that it outputs audio at all.. Remarkable.

That being said, there's no reason why the regular iPod doesn't have an FM tuner/mic. I'd love a directional microphone to record lectures at school--may have even brought my 79% in Anatomy I up to a B. ARG! still fuming over that.

I'd trade video functionality for that. In fact, until they start including mics with iPods, I won't be replacing my 3G (??) 40GB which I got a month after they came out. Yeah uh... the battery lasts 20 minutes these days.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #30 of 40
Easy enough to replace even on a 3g. I was all freaked out about replacing the battery on my 4g after all the hype about how they aren't replacable. It took 10 minutes when I finally worked myself up to doing it. It was very easy, as long as you have the use of both hands (...and I guess your brain )
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by jonathonc1
Easy enough to replace even on a 3g. I was all freaked out about replacing the battery on my 4g after all the hype about how they aren't replacable. It took 10 minutes when I finally worked myself up to doing it. It was very easy, as long as you have the use of both hands (...and I guess your brain )

Hahah, funny you should mention that.. shortly after posting I ordered a replacement battery online.

Say goodbye to the custom battery pack (94 hrs of extra battery life):


Yes, that's a telephone cord. Think Different
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #32 of 40
You should patent that design. I am sure the patent office would do it. "Unique use of a phone cord, in extending the battery life of an iPod" YOU COULD MAKE MILLIONS... can I borrow a couple of bucks?
post #33 of 40
FM tuner is NOT too big. The smallest IC FM tuner is 5x5x1mm and requires no other support hardware, iPod has an amp and digital display built-in. Antenna can be wired through headphone cord, problem solved. Sanyo has a version of the IC tcoming that can receive AM as well...
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
FM tuner is NOT too big. The smallest IC FM tuner is 5x5x1mm and requires no other support hardware, iPod has an amp and digital display built-in. Antenna can be wired through headphone cord, problem solved. Sanyo has a version of the IC tcoming that can receive AM as well...

More of it is finding room for the antenna. It's possible, I suppose, that Apple would try to integrate it into the headphone wires. But then you'd have to use the Apple headphones to listen to the radio.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
More of it is finding room for the antenna. It's possible, I suppose, that Apple would try to integrate it into the headphone wires. But then you'd have to use the Apple headphones to listen to the radio.

Radio is so far outside of the accoustic spectrum that the ground wires on standard heaphones might work fine. Mind you, I've never tried this, nor am I an RF or audio engineer. I can imagine that it has been tried before, but I haven't heard of it.

Someone mentioned a voice recorder. The 5G is supposed to support voice recording by add-on, there aren't any adapters available! If they hadn't junked the remote connector on the top, any one of a number of existing products would have worked.
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffDM
Radio is so far outside of the accoustic spectrum that the ground wires on standard heaphones might work fine. Mind you, I've never tried this, nor am I an RF or audio engineer. I can imagine that it has been tried before, but I haven't heard of it.

That sounds iffy (no pun intended). Wouldn't EMR from the audio interfere with the signal (which is also EMR)?

You ever see those TV RF things that hook into your house's power? They're HUGE and heavy. Maybe technology has changed, but I'd imagine filters would be necessary.

Edit: I should point out that I didn't realize FM tuners had gotten so small, and that's a very good point, Matsu. Last I remembered, the smallest FM tuner was 125mm^3 (provided 5^3 still = 125.. that could've changed too \).

The antenna issue still remains.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #37 of 40
If so, filters could be built into the headphone jack, or a small inline adaptor provided for third party 'phones. Something like the clip on remote that came with my 3G iPod that would house the antenna, and regular ear bud go into that...

With the popularity of iPod I would be surprised if a whole host iPod compatible headphones didn't come out as well. Just make sure that regular phones work well (if not with radio)

Then again, fittiment of a tuner just can't be that much of an issue -- it's in too many other players for it to be technically difficult in any way.
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #38 of 40
I just want a mic. Nano or not. I'm in utter shock every time the iPod is udpated and it's not added. I mean wow. Aren't these things for COLLEGE KIDS! LOL Wouldn't it be funny if Steve decided to add a mic and the next Academic year, grades rose nationally. 8)
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by jonathonc1
You should patent that design. I am sure the patent office would do it. "Unique use of a phone cord, in extending the battery life of an iPod" YOU COULD MAKE MILLIONS... can I borrow a couple of bucks?

If I ever make ANY money from that, I'll send you some. Don't hold your breath.
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
Mac user since before you were born.
Reply
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally posted by slughead
That sounds iffy (no pun intended). Wouldn't EMR from the audio interfere with the signal (which is also EMR)?

You ever see those TV RF things that hook into your house's power? They're HUGE and heavy. Maybe technology has changed, but I'd imagine filters would be necessary.

The antenna issue still remains.

I don't think that is the reason.

Audio goes up to 20kHz. Radio starts at 570kHz. You won't be able hear interference in the radio signal directly through the headphones, and radio tuners are designed to ignore everything that's not within a very tight frequency, meaning that the audio doesn't interfere. Radio tuners use filters for this already.

My clock radio sounds very nice for radio and its antenna is only a signle wire, about half a meter long.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › AmTech: Apple to double iPod nano storage capacity