I think your image showcases what I think is wrong with assuming this is the next iPod to replace the current Nano. If it was to replace the current Nano, why not make it rectangular with a rectangular display so it can offer the same or better image size for video playback. If the goal is to make the display a touchscreen then why make it square?
That was sort of the point... seeing the actual 1:1 comparison (I printed it out, too), the Nano just doesn't seem to evolve to that tiny thing... Although the size of the screen isn't the problem, but trying to use it as the main input method (touchscreen) just won't work.
but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.
So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods
Key to the supposed NEW NANO shown is the WI-FI ! This has the potential to give the nano many features albeit with limited capacity due to the Small Battery in the Nano.
Have to wait till Wed to see if the rumors are true.
Key to the supposed NEW NANO shown is the WI-FI ! This has the potential to give the nano many features albeit with limited capacity due to the Small Battery in the Nano.
Have to wait till Wed to see if the rumors are true.
Why? Can you name even ONE reason to give this thing Wi-Fi?
but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.
So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods
They did remove physical buttons from the last Shuffle, but how well did that model sell? It seems to me that it’s the most unloved of the Shuffle designs, though I’m a fan of using my headphone controls on my iPhone and prefer this method when running.
They also made the device more complex by adding a playlist option to the device and a higher capacity which song sizes really aren’t increasing at the same rate from when the 512MB Shuffle was first introduced so it’s possible that they felt they needed to take a step back in order to take two steps forward with a Shuffle with a display for basic navigation.
As for the Dock Connector, that is another good point, but notice the Shuffle also has a clip, which seems to be indicated by the rubber casing. It’s possible the 3.5mm headphone jack data stream is simply too slow for fast data transfers or too low power to charge what would be a larger battery. Also, maybe they needed some sort of on-screen display for built-in Nike+ receiver, something I’ve been wanting for a couple years now, though SpamSandwich had a similar yet different wireless protocol theory, that it might be a larger Shuffle for bluetooth components and subsequent battery for BT headphones.
Of the two, I’d think going for a larger SuperShuffle makes more sense than a smaller Nano. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically only do it when they can at least keep the current usability and features in tacked. This “NinnyNano” doesn’t maintain the display size for viewing or the ability to use it as a video camera.
I can see this being a *new* iPod in the line up with hybrid-features, but not a merger of the two lines, but I favor it being on the Shuffle side of things.
Well, if Apple releases an ARM based AppleTV, and says it runs iOS, then that's what it runs, even if it doesn't support a touch interface. Basically, iOS is whatever they say it is. (And there's no requirement that touch and access to the app store go together. Nor any requirement that a particular device that uses the app store be able to run all app store apps -- e.g., an iPhone doesn't run iPad apps.)
Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?
Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.
So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.
To stream your audio content from the cloud. Definite lack of imagination in the posts today.
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?
Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.
So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.
Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?
To stream your audio content from the cloud. Definite lack of imagination in the posts today.
Authenticating Wi-Fi on a 1.5" screen doesn't sound like my idea of fun. Less so with an alleged 1.5" touch screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
Wouldn't it still have a ton of music on the device? The music you have now wouldn't go away with WiFi streaming, so I don't understand the comment.
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
The cloud is not a replacement for your hard drive it is in addition to the hard drive. Do try and keep up.
... So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. ...
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?
Well, if what you mean by "imagination" is defined by the sprouting of complete nonsense that you display here, I take that as a compliment, thank you very much.
What I find it "so hard" to understand, is that Apple never does the shitty design flaw that you are advocating here, namely, to support an "almost but not quite the same" OS in a different UI, supporting third party apps that will work "almost like but not quite the same as in" the iPad or the iPhone. So yes, I do have a hard time when I try to think as absurdly as you are doing, while pontificating about one's intelligence. It's simply incompatible.
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
There would be no redevelopment required from ipad to iTV. Similar ratio and resolution. Apple are not about to add a third developer route. It's osx or iOS. And, eventually, these two will integrate.
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
What a stupid thing to say. The iPad is "just a giant iPod Touch". Your failure to grasp this simple concept and how this completely differentiates the iTV from the other "iDevices" just renders you completely incompetent to continue this discussion.
Comments
I think your image showcases what I think is wrong with assuming this is the next iPod to replace the current Nano. If it was to replace the current Nano, why not make it rectangular with a rectangular display so it can offer the same or better image size for video playback. If the goal is to make the display a touchscreen then why make it square?
That was sort of the point... seeing the actual 1:1 comparison (I printed it out, too), the Nano just doesn't seem to evolve to that tiny thing... Although the size of the screen isn't the problem, but trying to use it as the main input method (touchscreen) just won't work.
but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.
So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods
Have to wait till Wed to see if the rumors are true.
So they're going to kill the camera
Won't happen.
i bet they don't have a touch screen
Except this 1.5" screen IS a touchscreen...
Key to the supposed NEW NANO shown is the WI-FI ! This has the potential to give the nano many features albeit with limited capacity due to the Small Battery in the Nano.
Have to wait till Wed to see if the rumors are true.
Why? Can you name even ONE reason to give this thing Wi-Fi?
but the argument is, when did the shuffle ever have a screen? They've been removing buttons (see Shuffle 3rd Gen), and have never included the 30-pin port.
So, its looking like some hybrid, and could potentially merge the two lines of iPods
They did remove physical buttons from the last Shuffle, but how well did that model sell? It seems to me that it’s the most unloved of the Shuffle designs, though I’m a fan of using my headphone controls on my iPhone and prefer this method when running.
They also made the device more complex by adding a playlist option to the device and a higher capacity which song sizes really aren’t increasing at the same rate from when the 512MB Shuffle was first introduced so it’s possible that they felt they needed to take a step back in order to take two steps forward with a Shuffle with a display for basic navigation.
As for the Dock Connector, that is another good point, but notice the Shuffle also has a clip, which seems to be indicated by the rubber casing. It’s possible the 3.5mm headphone jack data stream is simply too slow for fast data transfers or too low power to charge what would be a larger battery. Also, maybe they needed some sort of on-screen display for built-in Nike+ receiver, something I’ve been wanting for a couple years now, though SpamSandwich had a similar yet different wireless protocol theory, that it might be a larger Shuffle for bluetooth components and subsequent battery for BT headphones.
Of the two, I’d think going for a larger SuperShuffle makes more sense than a smaller Nano. Apple likes to go smaller, but they typically only do it when they can at least keep the current usability and features in tacked. This “NinnyNano” doesn’t maintain the display size for viewing or the ability to use it as a video camera.
I can see this being a *new* iPod in the line up with hybrid-features, but not a merger of the two lines, but I favor it being on the Shuffle side of things.
but no Shuffle has also had a clip, which seems to be indicated by the rubber casing.
iPod Shuffle 3rd Gen
iPod Shuffle 2nd Gen
The Nano has never had a clip. Shuffle always has (AFAIK).
The Nano has been in desperate need for a clip since the 2nd Gen
edit: i saw the change in your post.
iPod Shuffle 3rd Gen
iPod Shuffle 2nd Gen
The Nano has never had a clip. Shuffle always has (AFAIK).
The Nano has been in desperate need for a clip since the 2nd Gen
That is what I was saying. Fixed my post.
What about the price? Only hours left now to speculate. All will soon be revealed.
Well, if Apple releases an ARM based AppleTV, and says it runs iOS, then that's what it runs, even if it doesn't support a touch interface. Basically, iOS is whatever they say it is. (And there's no requirement that touch and access to the app store go together. Nor any requirement that a particular device that uses the app store be able to run all app store apps -- e.g., an iPhone doesn't run iPad apps.)
Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?
Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.
So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.
Won't happen.
Except this 1.5" screen IS a touchscreen...
Why? Can you name even ONE reason to give this thing Wi-Fi?
To stream your audio content from the cloud. Definite lack of imagination in the posts today.
To stream your audio content from the cloud. Definite lack of imagination in the posts today.
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
Yeah, sure, and if they ship an iPod shuffle and call it an "iPhone" I guess they are entitled to do so too, since it's their company... I mean wtf?
Then you say something irrelevant about the store and touch. Well, sure, they can expand the app store to include "iTV apps". Why not. But when I wrote what I wrote, I was speaking about the apps that already exist, and all of them run on the same UI, despite some fragmentation due to hardware differences. Mostly all of the apps run in the iPad, for example, except the ones where you need a mic or a camera. None of the 200k + apps could run in the iTV.
So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. So whatever, dude, call it "iOS", because you like to confuse these things. I will call it "iTV OS" until further notice.
Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?
To stream your audio content from the cloud. Definite lack of imagination in the posts today.
Authenticating Wi-Fi on a 1.5" screen doesn't sound like my idea of fun. Less so with an alleged 1.5" touch screen.
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
Wouldn't it still have a ton of music on the device? The music you have now wouldn't go away with WiFi streaming, so I don't understand the comment.
Not really. I just don't care for a device designed to make my music not mine. And then what happens when you're out of Wi-Fi range? Worthless 2" square in your pocket.
The cloud is not a replacement for your hard drive it is in addition to the hard drive. Do try and keep up.
... So it would be a completely different device with a completely separate developer's effort, with a completely different UI, with a completely different strategy. ...
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
Authenticating Wi-Fi on a 1.5" screen doesn't sound like my idea of fun. Less so with an alleged 1.5" touch screen.
I don't see a nano with wi-fi happening within a nano style price-point, but if it does, there will be a simple way to authenticate.
A shuffle will never have a screen, let alone a touch screen. The clue is in the name. Shuffle, not full control.
Complete lack of vision and imagination. iTV will run iOS at 1024 x 768 and the remote will be a mix of wii controller and touch. Use your iPhone/ipad/ipod touch or a separately available remote. It will run all apps and stream media from your network and the internet. Why do people find it so hard to understand this very basic set up?
Well, if what you mean by "imagination" is defined by the sprouting of complete nonsense that you display here, I take that as a compliment, thank you very much.
What I find it "so hard" to understand, is that Apple never does the shitty design flaw that you are advocating here, namely, to support an "almost but not quite the same" OS in a different UI, supporting third party apps that will work "almost like but not quite the same as in" the iPad or the iPhone. So yes, I do have a hard time when I try to think as absurdly as you are doing, while pontificating about one's intelligence. It's simply incompatible.
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
There would be no redevelopment required from ipad to iTV. Similar ratio and resolution. Apple are not about to add a third developer route. It's osx or iOS. And, eventually, these two will integrate.
Yeah, just like the iPad. For apps likely to run on AppleTV, especially media apps, it really wouldn't be a big deal to adapt the UI
What a stupid thing to say. The iPad is "just a giant iPod Touch". Your failure to grasp this simple concept and how this completely differentiates the iTV from the other "iDevices" just renders you completely incompetent to continue this discussion.