First look: iPod nano 09 unboxed

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple's new iPod Nano sports a larger screen, video recording, a built-in Nike+ pedometer, VoiceOver, and an FM radio with a Tivo-like live pause feature in last year's slim package. Here's what's in the box.



You might not guess much has changed just by looking at the outside, which remains largely identical apart from being offered in a new palette of nine colors.



The device also still ships in the now familiar, small glass coffin packaging, in a choice of 8GB ($149) or 16GB ($179) versions.







Inside the small box, Apple includes a dock adapter, USB cable, and stereo headphones, although the included earbuds lack both integrated playback controls and an integrated mic. The nano still works with iPhone-style integrated mic headphones, but you'll need to buy a pair separately (or use the ones you already have).







The only marked visible change is the new video camera and mic, which along with an invisible speaker, support the unit's new video recording and playback features. Despite the new camera hardware, the device remains about as thick in the middle as the tiny iPod shuffle.







The lens and mic are framed in a polished metal window in the nano's case.The camera appears on the dock connector end of the nano, making it tricky to hold the device without blocking either the screen or the lens with your hand. You'll either need to grasp the nano by its edges or pinch it on the left side between your thumb and finger.







A full review of the new 2009 iPod nano will appear tomorrow.



«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 46
    looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.



    But I still love ya.
  • Reply 2 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by souliisoul View Post


    looks nice, but nothing special probably because i wanted the iTouch to have a camera and undertake video recording. damn you APPLE.



    But I still love ya.



    You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:



    iPod Touch.
  • Reply 3 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post


    You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:



    iPod Touch.



    That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.
  • Reply 4 of 46
    irelandireland Posts: 16,899member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.



    It's for that extra-smudge effect!
  • Reply 5 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    That looks like a very bad place to put the camera. It's positioned where someone would naturally be holding the device. I suppose they couldn't fit it at the top where it should be because of the screen, but it really seems like a poor design decision.



    No, you were right the first time. It's not a "poor design decision". It was a design necessity.
  • Reply 6 of 46
    you can simply hold the nano "upside down" and the accelerometers will orient the video image correctly.
  • Reply 7 of 46
    Yo, Prince. Could you change the word 'coffin' to something else? It's really disconcerting for some reason... O_o



    Jimzip
  • Reply 8 of 46
    Looking forward to nano video test shots. Like to see how it stacks up against the Flip video (non-HD version).
  • Reply 9 of 46
    looks nice, I like that color especially with the black wheel and all but just like the last design I was never crazy about the oval shape for usability and handling purposes. It's cool they added the camera but what I like most about this addition is the FM receiver to it. Why they took so long to add FM is anyone's guess, maybe it was just to milk us for what they could. hehe



    I'm also curious to see in person if I like the new glossy look as I always liked the anodized matte finish from previous.
  • Reply 10 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post


    You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:



    iPod Touch.





    Actually, it's iPod touch



    But I agree with your statement!
  • Reply 11 of 46
    I am so looking forward to the iPod. I ordered it yesterday.



    Yes, I was hoping for an iPod Touch with a decent camera and GPS, and was ready to really go nuts in the app store. but no go.



    Is it for to differentiate it from the iphone ?



    Hardware problems, as reported ?



    But Apple does it their own way, and unlike the pundits who seem to only be able to hold one thought in their mind, Apple goes in many directions .



    The iPod nano is not a "me too" device, it is not an answere to the zune.



    It is an iPod. It makes the rules. I respect that !
  • Reply 12 of 46
    So for those who have actually had a chance to see the new nanos in person, is there something new about the casing?



    Apple is marketing the new nanos as having a POLISHED anodized aluminum casing, making it seem like something different from the usual anodized aluminum that has been seen on last year's model as well as the aluminum MacBooks and iMacs.



    So am I missing something here? Are the new nanos sporting some slightly smoother or shinier metal? Or is it the same stuff just "re-marketed" as POLISHED anodized aluminum? I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.



    And since Apple seems to have a tradition of standardizing on a few materials and colors for their various products, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually trot out new MacBooks and iMacs with polished finishes as well.
  • Reply 13 of 46
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    That really depends on if you are replicating Apple's Marketing/Trademark or trying to comply with the demands of proper grammar. Proper grammar dictates writing, iPod Touch because the name is a proper noun. Look at Wikipedia and other news sources.



    Those sources write, "iPod Touch." That is generally what one should do when writing about the iPod Touch. Apple writes, "iPod touch" because that is how it markets/trademarked the name.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gsteeno View Post


    Actually, it's iPod touch



    But I agree with your statement!



  • Reply 14 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KingKuei View Post


    I actually quite like the matte feeling of Apple's anodzied aluminum products and I wonder what difference, if any, polishing makes to that feeling.



    It'll be smoother.....and much more scratch-able. Same with the polished-stainless backs on the other iPods. It's designed to look great when you first buy it, and then look like crap after you've had it for a while, so that you have to 'upgrade' later.



    My timing was really poor. I bought the 1st-gen Nano, which was uber-scratchable. I didn't replace it when they had the much more durable anodized finish on the 2nd-gen, because I just didn't need it then. Then came the 3rd-gen (fatty) with the memory capacity I wanted, and Apple went back to the stupid scratchable stainless backing again! I bought one anyway. Again I haven't upgraded to the 4th gen because I don't need it, but it has the better anodized finish. And now in the 5th gen they go back to uber-scratchable.
  • Reply 15 of 46
    I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.



    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg
  • Reply 16 of 46
    dr. xdr. x Posts: 140member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tenchi211 View Post


    I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.



    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg



    What about it? I didn't see anything out of place.
  • Reply 17 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tenchi211 View Post


    I was just checking the Apple sight and somebody goofed. Take a look at the green Nano.



    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...mco=Nzk2MDUyMg



    Yeah, so it's a pixel shorter. The pink one is too.
  • Reply 18 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DCJ001 View Post


    You should learn the names of the Apple products that you discuss:



    iPod Touch.



    +111111!!! IT'S DAMN IPOD TOUCH PEOPLE, NOT ITOUCH! iTouch is some kind of paedophile gadget..
  • Reply 19 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by isaidso View Post


    No, you were right the first time. It's not a "poor design decision". It was a design necessity.



    How is it a design necessity? Is it going to cost 900 dollars or something if they move the camera 3 inches north?
  • Reply 20 of 46
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John French View Post


    Yeah, so it's a pixel shorter. The pink one is too.



    Actually all of them are exactly the same except for the blue one which is ever so slightly taller.
Sign In or Register to comment.