or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › High-quality photos of Apple's second-gen iPod nano
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

High-quality photos of Apple's second-gen iPod nano

post #1 of 78
Thread Starter 
While Apple's updated fifth-gen video iPods are not as widely available as expected, the new second-gen iPod nanos began arriving in the United States in somewhat limited quantities on Wednesday.

Each new nano ships in a completely translucent, hard plastic container that elegantly showcases the player while neatly tucking away the few accessories it includes.

Along with the iPod, Apple packs a pair of headphones, an accessory adapter, USB cable and iPod nano Quick Start booklet. The player no longer ships with a protective sleeve.

Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock.

Similarly, users will also have to plunk down extra change for a new pair of iPod nano lanyard head phones -- the new nano's headphone jack is spaced further away from the dock connector.

We'll definitely have a lot more to say about the new nano after some thorough testing. In the meantime, please enjoy the following unboxing photos.









































































post #2 of 78
I expect you mean it comes with a USB cable NOT as stated in the story a 'Bluetooth' cable!

Ian
post #3 of 78
Love the pictures. Doesn't the plastic enclosing sorta look like a cassette tape case?
post #4 of 78
I only settle for 8 GB and green at the same time!
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #5 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rejuevie

Love the pictures. Doesn't the plastic enclosing sorta look like a cassette tape case?

Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.

The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.

Ian
post #6 of 78
Talk about a small area of focus. Back that camera up so 95% of it isn't all blur.
post #7 of 78
Why didn't you guys shoot the blue one
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #8 of 78
Very thorough photos... The only thing missing is the swimsuit shots.
post #9 of 78
It looks like a crime scene.
post #10 of 78
It looks like something I can engrave.
post #11 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky

Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.

The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.

Ian

since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.

though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
post #12 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky

Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.

The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.

Ian

Most plastics are recyclable. Look for the recycle symbol on the plastic.
post #13 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus

since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.

though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.

Also, plastics are one of the products that are made from crude oil. Whether that material is, I don't know but the plastics industry is where a lot of crude goes.
post #14 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus

since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.

though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.

That was a pretty questionable rationalization, but less unnecessary packaging is always better.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 78
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
post #16 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

Third parties should be making their docks compatible with the insert plate that's included with iPods. That was the entire point of the things, so they can design one product that will be compatible with most future iPods - though shuffle is still an exception with no dock connector. If they design it with the insert pocket, then it's just a matter of swapping out the insert plate.
post #17 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham

"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.

Just because the dock connnector is offset doesn't mean the new Nano won't work with ANY accessories... it just means it won't work with ALL accessories. I'm sure a lot of accessories made for multiple iPod models will continue to work just fine. Many the Nano won't fit exactly perfectly, but it should connect just fine and unless the accessory is being banged around a lot what's to make the Nano come out?

BTW... I think iPod accessories manufacturers need to make their accessories more... open to various iPod shapes and sizes since Apple often quite dramatically changes the size of the iPod (something with adjustible width and height, for example).
post #18 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham

"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.

If you own one of Apple's Universal docks, the dock adapter, included in the packaging, (look at the picture, far left) will allow the new Nano to fit the dock. That's why Apple went to the Universal dock with adapters for each model in the first place, in order to reduce the number of model-specific docks they'd have to make.

More customer-friendly, I'd say!
post #19 of 78
Manufacturers know, by now, that when Apple comes out with a brand new version of an iPod, the size, shape, and connector positions will be different. At least, Apple standardized the connector itself.

They don't really hate it, as it gives them even more sales, as people who buy the new product often buy a new accessory, even expensive speakers.

But, it's correct to say that this problem can be mostly taken care of with a new insert. But, this time, with the commectors moved apart somewhat, if companies use both (unusual), it won't fit, no matter what.

They would then have to make an extender to adapt it.
post #20 of 78
The good thing about having the dock cable and the headphone port further apart is that I'll be able to get a good grip on the dock cable when I'm removing it from the iPod without the headphone cable getting in the way.
post #21 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by crees!

Talk about a small area of focus. Back that camera up so 95% of it isn't all blur.

Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....

Best,

Kasper
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
post #22 of 78
I think i'm the only one who doesn't like the new Nano look. I MUCH preferred the sexier nano with the super-scratchable coating. I really don't like the colored aluminium... i never liked the old minis either. Oh well, good thing I'm not in the market for a nano.
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
post #23 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasper

Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....

Best,

Kasper

It doesn't have to be quite that bad, even without a tilt lens.

I don't know how you are shooting, but close the aperture down as far as you can, in manual. Let the shutter speed go to where it needs to, and make sure that you are using a good tripod. You will get more depth that way.
post #24 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhetWurm

I think i'm the only one who doesn't like the new Nano look. I MUCH preferred the sexier nano with the super-scratchable coating. I really don't like the colored aluminium... i never liked the old minis either. Oh well, good thing I'm not in the market for a nano.

If you were in the market, then now would be the time to keep an eye out for clearances of the old model.
post #25 of 78
Whoa. iPod porn.
post #26 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squirrel_Monkey

Whoa. iPod porn.

Well, where did you think iPod shuffles come from?

We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #27 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky

Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.

The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.

Ian

He didn't say anything about the environmentality of the packaging other than: "It's better for the environment because we save fossil fuels sending these things around the world."

It's about the transporation savings not the recycling savings.

That said, plastic can be recycled anyways.
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 #28 of 78
Scratch this one, beotch!!!
post #29 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham

"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.

Alot of ipod accessories (now even the newer ihome stuff) allow you use the unvisal dock connector that came with it. It'll still fit in the iH5 anyways, it just might not have back support.
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 #30 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasper

Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....

Best,

Kasper

You need to use as much light as possible and manually set the aperture to the smallest setting (i.e. the largest possible aperture number) in order to extend the depth of field. Sometimes you can only do this with a tripod b/c you have to set the exposure to a slow setting (hence the advice to boost the lighting).

edit - sorry missed Melgross' comments earlier.

The pics look great though aside from teh macro issues, many thanks for that and kudos to AI for being the only Mac rumours website to (finally) come out and call an Apple TV set top box before the announcement.

I'm sure Ryan Meader is saying "I told you so" now except that he told us so about once every month or two for the past 10 years ...
Registered Dec. 1898
Reply
Registered Dec. 1898
Reply
post #31 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by parky

Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.

The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cactus

since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.

though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Most plastics are recyclable. Look for the recycle symbol on the plastic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Also, plastics are one of the products that are made from crude oil. Whether that material is, I don't know but the plastics industry is where a lot of crude goes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

That was a pretty questionable rationalization, but less unnecessary packaging is always better.

http://www.apple.com/environment/materials/

http://www.apple.com/environment/design/

Note how the Design page has been updated with a 2nd Gen nano.
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
"Picasso had a saying, 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we've always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
Reply
post #32 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtdunham

"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "

Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?

IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.

You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.
post #33 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57

You clearly haven't yet entered the mind realm of design-ninja Jonathan Ive. If you look at the bases of the two Nano models its clear that from a design point of view the connectors HAVE to go exactly where they are and nowhere else. On the new body they are in the precise centre of the edge radius. Designer-of-the-year Jonathan would DIE rather than accept a compromise to suit 3rd Party manufacturers.

That's good. I didn't spot that.
post #34 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by shetline

Well, where did you think iPod shuffles come from?




I'd say it looks like they're DOING the ipod shuffle.
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
"Knowledge is no more measured by post count than the size of the universe is governed by the stars within it."
Reply
post #35 of 78
What I'm curious about is how the new headphones feel/sound. Has anyone heard anything about this?
post #36 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

Manufacturers know, by now, that when Apple comes out with a brand new version of an iPod, the size, shape, and connector positions will be different. At least, Apple standardized the connector itself.

They don't really hate it, as it gives them even more sales, as people who buy the new product often buy a new accessory, even expensive speakers.

But, it's correct to say that this problem can be mostly taken care of with a new insert. But, this time, with the commectors moved apart somewhat, if companies use both (unusual), it won't fit, no matter what.

They would then have to make an extender to adapt it.

They'll only need a new connection if they are not using the specs for Apple's Universal dock. That's another reason Apple made those specs available to all accessory makers that ponied up to be iPod partners, or whatever they called it. Most accessories do not use the headphone jack and the connector for the dock, just the dock connector.

There may be some, but as far as Apple is concerned, they should be using the Universal dock, so customers can use the dock adapter for their specific model.
post #37 of 78
Anyone get the 60/80g 5th Gen iPod yet? I called the apple store here and they said they do not know when they will get it (San Diego).
post #38 of 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhetWurm



I'd say it looks like they're DOING the ipod shuffle.

In the "mp3 position."
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #39 of 78
Unfortunately, all iPod Nanos, first and second gen, are female. Though that might just make the pictures more exciting for some, they are definitely not making babies.
post #40 of 78
Not digging the white click wheels. I wish they matched the body color, like the black one. Que sera, sera.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › High-quality photos of Apple's second-gen iPod nano