or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple unveils new iPod nano
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple unveils new iPod nano - Page 2

post #41 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

On a per-player basis, it's a few cents. But every penny counts when you're selling several million devices a quarter. I don't see any evidence that the lack of FM tuner is seriously damaging iPod sales, so why bother adding one to every player?

That's not the only way to look at it. If 1% of the potential buyers would have bought an iPod but didn't because of the lack of an FM tuner and that the add-on is too expensive, then putting it in at a few cents a player would pay back for itself vs. the lost sale in a hundred.
post #42 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

That's not the only way to look at it. If 1% of the potential buyers would have bought an iPod but didn't because of the lack of an FM tuner and that the add-on is too expensive, then putting it in at a few cents a player would pay back for itself vs. the lost sale in a hundred.

Touché.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

What do you mean? Elaborate.

O.K.

First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.

They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:

1.) Include an FM radio

The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?

The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.

2.) Available in colours.

3.) Put a screen on it.

Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.

4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39

This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #44 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

Mean too plenty of people like my girlfriend prefer the nano type form factor over the full size form factor. Same with a lot of my friends. Personally I'd take the video ipod, but each his own, both will sell like crazy.

I agree, they both fill different desires. I personally like the added durability, low weight and compact size of the nano. The capacity and video of the larger unit can be compelling though.

I personally don't need to have all my music with me all the time. I have a smart playlist that rotates fresh songs into my nano after a song has been played, so no song is left behind, all songs will get their time.
post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

O.K.

First off, I've got to say that the new shuffle is an amazing feat of engineering. I'm sure it will sell well. But getting rid of the old Shuffle rather than keeping it in the line up and removing its faults? Mistake.

They should have introduced the new iPod shuffle as an addition to the line up, and improved the old iPod shuffle thus:

1.) Include an FM radio

The reason that an FM radio is a not-much-wanted feature on an HDD iPod is that you are already carrying around your entire music collection, so why the hell would want to let some other idiot decide what music you're going to listen to, when you've got all the music in the world that you like right at your finger-tips?

The shuffle, on the other hand, has lower capacity and has a very different demographic of users. A much higher proportion of the shuffle's target market are teenagers, who don't have extensive music collections and like to listen to the radio to discover new artists, or when they've exhausted all the music on their low-capacity player.

2.) Available in colours.

3.) Put a screen on it.

Apple's contention that the old shuffle was too small for a screen is utter rubbish. All the shuffle's size-equals have screens.

4.) one-colour 256 MB version for $39

This is something Apple's never really seemed to catch on to. This end of the market is very price-sensitive, and capturing young people with not much money to spend now, will be great in the future when said young people are older, have greater spending power, and want an iPod and nothing else because that's what all their music is compatible with.

Wow, I aboslutely agree.

At the very least they cold have kept the old shuffle in at 512mb and made it 49. I will miss the thumb drive capability, I might just get one before they're gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #46 of 82
Flash vs HDD.

Nano can do 24hrs give or take, and won't suffer the "clicking" problem on most (yes still under warranty!)ipods.

video ipod has to do a lot more work, while able to put out more stuff.

different strokes for different folks.

The nano(before the new case) while scratchable, could avoid death like daredevil.

It can die from faulty problems, but from external problems, it was super tough. Look at Ars technica's review on the nano duriblity.

They ran a car over it, twice!, and it still refused to die.

The video ipod is no slouch, it has shock locking technology (drop your computer while the HDD is spinning vs dropping your ipod-guess which one dies). You know it's not cheap to do that.

But HDD can't be flash there.
post #47 of 82
I think the 8gb and 4gb are overpriced. I'll be able to get a Wii for less than that!
post #48 of 82
[BEGIN EXTREME GLOATING] Well bitches, guess who was right on the money with the mockups... ME..!!!! You may remember my mockups from *quite a while ago* .... wOOOOOT !!!!111!!!one!!one!!! .... muah ah haah a hah ah ah ah haah h aah h ahhaah h h aha ha ha h a ! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH





post #49 of 82
Look familiar now? [suuper evil laughter]ahah hah a ha hha ha h aha ha ha h ha[/super evil laughter]

post #50 of 82
The official apple graphics of the ipod nanos above looks *so cheap* muah hah ahaha h aah
post #51 of 82
you were right but still .25" thin it is not. jobs claims it's thinner!
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #52 of 82
i've been waiting for a higher capacity nano for a while, its finally time to upgrade my mini 4gb to a sexy metal clad black 8gb just ordered, estimated delivery is 22 sept. i like the new itunes album display thingie, its cool, would look good on top of a jukebox ? and for the first time i'm even tempted to also buy the shuffle, it's small enough to handle any workout
ur the man Jobs!
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecking

you were right but still .25" thin it is not. jobs claims it's thinner!

It's fatter:

Size and weight

* Height: 3.5 inches
* Width: 1.6 inches
* Depth: 0.26 inch
* Weight: 1.41 ounces
post #54 of 82
Meh... Close enough for me
post #55 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

It's fatter:

Size and weight

* Height: 3.5 inches
* Width: 1.6 inches
* Depth: 0.26 inch
* Weight: 1.41 ounces

It is thicker than what you predicted, but it is thinner than the previous nano, which they said was .27, though only marginally so. The difference is about the thickness of three sheets of standard copier paper.
post #56 of 82
Cool. I am not interested in the new Nanos though, I already have my nice rock-solid super scratch-proof 1st Gen classic aluminium Silver iPod mini. Battery has gone totally off so I can't play music but it's nice as a 4GB FW hard drive. And it looks cool. And it's the original father/mother of these new iPod nanos.
post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H

FM tuners need external antennas, and the vast majority of portable FM tuners use the headphone cable as an antenna. Apple could put the chip in the iPod and use the headphone cable as an antenna. The reason they have an external solution is that most people don't want an FM radio so why add the expense to the standard iPod when you can charge extra for the feature for the few who want it?


+1 I don't care about stupid fm radio since all it is is a commercial festival. You hear more car ads than music and the music is the same crap over and over. No thanks. Keep the ipods smaller and radio free.
post #58 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Is there a capacity-based copyright levy for music players in the UK?

I think both situations are odd. I'm surprised that the prices of any model line overlap in any region. At least in the last five years or so, Apple didn't let product lines overlap in price that I remember.

Miniaturization always costs more. The memory modules are expensive.
post #59 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

how expensive is an FM tunner, if they chose to include inside very ipod? just curious. shitty players like the zen micro have it. it doesn't add too much bulk, but yeah they are smart in selling it separately. \

First of all, almost nobody cares. Jobs answered that question over a year ago. He said that such a small number of customers wanted one, that it didn't pay to put it in.

He then said that once a feature is in, it's impossible to remove later.

One problem is that most FM tuners in mp3 players are simply bad. If Apple put one in and it was bad, that would be a problem. If they made sure it was good, it might cost too much. even if it cost Apple $5 in parts and design, it would add $15 to $20 to the selling price. Too much for something few care about.
post #60 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

Look familiar now? [suuper evil laughter]ahah hah a ha hha ha h aha ha ha h ha[/super evil laughter]


You da man!
post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

[BEGIN EXTREME GLOATING] Well bitches, guess who was right on the money with the mockups... ME..!!!! You may remember my mockups from *quite a while ago* .... wOOOOOT !!!!111!!!one!!one!!! .... muah ah haah a hah ah ah ah haah h aah h ahhaah h h aha ha ha h a ! YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH






Hey Sunilraman, is that your thumb in the mock up
Shiny Side Up
Reply
Shiny Side Up
Reply
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdude

Hey Sunilraman, is that your thumb in the mock up

He doesn't have a thumb.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

He doesn't have a thumb.


Surely he must have a thumb but perhaps not an opposable one
Shiny Side Up
Reply
Shiny Side Up
Reply
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdude

Surely he must have a thumb but perhaps not an opposable one

Some people are all thumbs, but Sunil...well.
post #65 of 82
In an interlude to this wonderful commentary on Sunil's entry to the human race:

Apple's biggest competitor, Sony (they wish), has news about their latest Walkman (almost) about to hit the streets:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2014861,00.asp

It's been a bad month for them, hasn't it?
post #66 of 82
I'm looking forward to replace my sony 1gig-mp3 player (still unbeaten battery-life of 72h!) with a ipod nano because it doesn't work under osx but I haven't seen any non-apple photos of the new nanos. Are there any at all?
post #67 of 82
Hmm, before these new ipod-nanos, Apple's nano was losing big time against Samsung's "Z5-player". It had equal if not better sound, had a scratch-secure-metal case and most important its rechargeable battery could keep going for 35 hours. The only downside was that it was slightly less comfortable in selecting the tracks, but otherwise it was the big winner and less expensive.

Now the new nanos are about equal in price, have also a scratch-secure case and the batteries can go for 24 hours, compared to the previous 12 hours a real improvement, although not quite on the level of the samsung z5-player.

So, thumbs up for getting the nano competitive again, but thumbs-down for the lack of recording-capabilities and thumbsdown for the very gayish colours in the middle-model.

Nonetheless nothing beats my favourite player/recorder, the Sony Hi-Minidisc MZ-RH 10. It's simply brilliant to have a portable recording-machine that has an openended capacity! Every disc offers 1 GB, and 7$/per disc is cheap enough, and I can edit every track on the discs without a computer, can erase tracks, combine tracks, rename tracks... and the sound in Hi-SP-mode is better than the sound of the nano, not to speak of the sound in full PCM-mode(ie. completely uncompressed)! Of course to really appreciate the sound I had to ditch the accompanying ear-speakers and use really good hifi-stereo-headphones, it is a difference of night and day (compared to the use of the accompanying ear-phones, not compared to the nano).

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #68 of 82
What's this about my thumbs? You know what they say about the size of your thumb....
post #69 of 82
My SonyEricsson T630 took a little soak in the washing machine. 10 minutes was enough to kill it. DAMN FUCKING BLOODY SHITE if they had released the frickin' iPodPhone it would be just nice for me to get a new superb iPodPhone.

But no.... Damn you Apple!!!!! ARGHGHGHGHG
post #70 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bikerdude

Surely he must have a thumb but perhaps not an opposable one

Can you all guess the finger that's working fine right now? ..I.. <- get it?
post #71 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyastronaut

Apple has always had a white ipod on their large hard drive players line.

Yes but if the next iPod is going to be all screen that won't matter anymore.

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #72 of 82
They look dated. Far too much like the old Mini. What a shame.
post #73 of 82
I like the new nanos better:

Here's a side by side comparision:


Backside:


The Display really is brighter:
post #74 of 82
That looks really awesome. The old iPod nano looks tacky plastic cheapy in comparison. Teh sexayyy. The iPod nano got it's sexyback.
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORTHERNLiGHTS

The Display really is brighter:

Is there a brightness control?

I think the iPods (old nano, 5.0G) are way too bright when used in the dark.
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Is there a brightness control?

I think the iPods (old nano, 5.0G) are way too bright when used in the dark.

Yes, that's what I've read on the official swiss apple-site.
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORTHERNLiGHTS

Yes, that's what I've read on the official swiss apple-site.

Can you provide a link? I can't find that info \
post #78 of 82
Quote:
Passen Sie den integrierten Equalizer für Ihre Songs an oder begrenzen Sie die maximale Lautstärke. Alles, was Sie brauchen von Hintergrundbeleuchtung bis zur Wiedergabegeschwindigkeit von Hörbüchern ist im Menü "Einstellungen" zu finden.

As mentioned before, this quote is from the swiss site, under the section "Einstellungen" (Preferences). It says "Everything you need, from display-backlight, to the playback-speed [...] can be found and set up here.
post #79 of 82
Display-backlight is talking about "timer" - How long before the screen dims after you choose a song. AFAIK it is this, not that you can adjust the brightness of the screen...
post #80 of 82
I wish they had other options besides black for the 8 gig.
Oh well, I'll just wait another year until they have a 16 gig nano to replace my 3G
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple unveils new iPod nano