Not really the thread for this, but since you mention it, I absolutely love the new Nano. However, in your defense, I love it because it?s the iPod Shuffle I?ve been wanting for years.
Totally agree with you. I thought I would never have a need for a dedicated mp3 player, but this new refresh is fantastic. Best running iPod ever, I absolutely hated carrying my iPhone in an armband.
Wow! I don’t expect much from you in the way of critical thinking but not being able to comprehend that “Sept. quarter” refers to the quarter that ends in September and includes the two preceding months means that I’ve been given you too much credit. I’ll try not to do that ever again.
For future reference, when you read “December quarter”, “March quarter”, or "June quarter” try to remember that they are using the name of the month that closes out that quarter, not referring to 1/12 of the year as 1/4 of the year. Also keep in mind that the end of the quarter for many companies doesn’t end exactly at midnight on the last day of that month.
Wow! I don?t expect much from you in the way of critical thinking but not being able to comprehend that ?Sept. quarter? refers to the quarter that ends in September and includes the two preceding months means that I?ve been given you too much credit. I?ll try not to do that ever again.
For future reference, when you read ?December quarter?, ?March quarter?, or "June quarter? try to remember that they are using the name of the month that closes out that quarter, not referring to 1/12 of the year as 1/4 of the year. Also keep in mind that the end of the quarter for many companies doesn?t end exactly at midnight on the last day of that quarter.
That his AI account has been hacked and the wellspring of pure cool bitterness and cynicism is being poisoned with fanboism. Please stop the love before it's too late.
What?? If this was an insult I missed it. If it was a compliment I missed that too!
Not really the thread for this, but since you mention it, I absolutely love the new Nano. However, in your defense, I love it because it?s the iPod Shuffle I?ve been wanting for years.
Exactly -- it's what the shuffle should be (except that it costs too much). The nano is dead in all but name. If they sold an iPod Touch that cost $150 it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's currently a big hole in the product lineup.
Exactly -- it's what the shuffle should be (except that it costs too much). The nano is dead in all but name. If they sold an iPod Touch that cost $150 it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's currently a big hole in the product lineup.
That was argument prior to its official announcement when the rumours were spreading that this was the new Nano. I said it couldn? have a camera or be used for playing back video, which would put a huge hole in the line up if this was the only Nano. While I was wrong about the nomenclature I was correct about everything else.
I have to wonder if the 5G Nano wasn?t selling that well (though I bought 4 over the last year for family members) or if Apple really wants to push the Touch because of the increased capabilities and access to the App Store which will push iOS domination and App Store lock in. I have to think it?s the latter.
The beauty of the iPad is that it's a complimentary device, rather than an alternative. If anything, the iPad encourages people to go the route of an Apple chain of devices. I predicted at the beginning that the iPad would promote desktop sales and while this could, in the long run, have a negative impact on laptop sales, it's a net gain for Apple. There is more profit in selling a consumer a desktop plus an iPad instead of just a laptop. That way you get the best of both worlds at a modest additional cost. Either you can have more performance for not much more money or a cost effective combination that in some ways is superior.
If you opt for an iMac or Mac Pro to combine with an iPad, the cost can be greater (though not necessarily) but the increase in performance from the desktop side is enormous and the convenience on the iPad side is likewise significant compared to a laptop alone. Or, for the cost of an Apple laptop, you can opt for a Mac Mini plus an iPad plus a low-cost monitor. Here in Canada, a basic Mini is $749, a monitor can be had for around $250, and an iPad starts at $549. Add in keyboard+mouse and you're looking at roughly $1,700. A 15-inch MacBook Pro wit similar internals to the Mini would check in at $1,849. Boost the memory in the Mini up to the MacBook's 4GB and you're talking roughly the same money. A 17-inch MacBook Pro is $2349 but then you could have a system including a Cinema Display for around $2,500. If you go the iMac route, a 27-inch IMac plus an iPad would cost you roughly around the same as a 17" MacBook.
Instead of compromising with one product, i.e. the laptop, you can have a device that is designed specifically for portable use without having to offer desktop capabilities and compliment it with a desktop that doesn't have to make the compromises imposed by having to produce a device that can be portable.
Apple sellls a lot more devices and the consumer has a better solution. Win/Win.
Far better than the netbook approach which only serves to produce a diminished experience.
That said, laptops still have their place. If you need to do work the iPad isn't capable of doing well and you need or want to do that work away from a desktop, clearly a laptop makes sense. For the rest of us, desktop/iPad makes more sense. Still, even if the iPad leads to a reduction in laptop sales, if it is replaced with more desktops sold combined with millions of iPads, Apple is still way ahead.
The other advantage of the iPad is that if you get a customer who is working with a PC initially, if the iPad makes a favourable impression, it opens the door to the customer considering an all-Apple set-up over the long haul.
You've got to love a product that rather than cannibalize sales overall, results in a dramatic increase.
... I have to wonder if the 5G Nano wasn?t selling that well (though I bought 4 over the last year for family members) or if Apple really wants to push the Touch because of the increased capabilities and access to the App Store which will push iOS domination and App Store lock in. I have to think it?s the latter.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Notice that the Nano and Shuffle are clip on devices: devices people are likely to use for for "active" listening: running, working out, etc. The "hole" in the lineup is not really that big: $149 for a Nano, $229 for a touch, and the Touch gives you so much more capability than a Nano. What exactly would they price in between there? A big Nano without a touch screen?
With your hands free, and not engaged in some activity that makes use awkward, the Touch is so much more capable and functional and useful than anything they could have put in the "hole". For everything else, there's the Nano and Shuffle. I think it's a very smart, forward thinking division of the product line.
Notice that the Nano and Shuffle are clip on devices: devices people are likely to use for for "active" listening: running, working out, etc. The "hole" in the lineup is not really that big: $149 for a Nano, $229 for a touch, and the Touch gives you so much more capability than a Nano. What exactly would they price in between there? A big Nano without a touch screen?
With your hands free, and not engaged in some activity that makes use awkward, the Touch is so much more capable and functional and useful than anything they could have put in the "hole". For everything else, there's the Nano and Shuffle. I think it's a very smart, forward thinking division of the product line.
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
It does has the headset controls and voice feedback that my iPhone 4 still doesn?t have. I had debating buying the Marware SportShell Convertible for the iPhone 4 as I loved it for my 3GS, but I opted for the iPod Nano at 3x the cost because it suited my exercise needs more.
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
It actually is very easy to use while running (I've been using it for a week). Volume control, if you have the better Apple headsets you can change it there as well.
Normally when working out I use a playlist, but to change songs, all you have to do is hit the wake button and click on the right side of the screen. Very simple.
Comments
Not really the thread for this, but since you mention it, I absolutely love the new Nano. However, in your defense, I love it because it?s the iPod Shuffle I?ve been wanting for years.
Totally agree with you. I thought I would never have a need for a dedicated mp3 player, but this new refresh is fantastic. Best running iPod ever, I absolutely hated carrying my iPhone in an armband.
Just Saying...
September is a month... NOT a quarter.
Just Saying...
Wow! I don’t expect much from you in the way of critical thinking but not being able to comprehend that “Sept. quarter” refers to the quarter that ends in September and includes the two preceding months means that I’ve been given you too much credit. I’ll try not to do that ever again.
For future reference, when you read “December quarter”, “March quarter”, or "June quarter” try to remember that they are using the name of the month that closes out that quarter, not referring to 1/12 of the year as 1/4 of the year. Also keep in mind that the end of the quarter for many companies doesn’t end exactly at midnight on the last day of that month.
Wow! I don?t expect much from you in the way of critical thinking but not being able to comprehend that ?Sept. quarter? refers to the quarter that ends in September and includes the two preceding months means that I?ve been given you too much credit. I?ll try not to do that ever again.
For future reference, when you read ?December quarter?, ?March quarter?, or "June quarter? try to remember that they are using the name of the month that closes out that quarter, not referring to 1/12 of the year as 1/4 of the year. Also keep in mind that the end of the quarter for many companies doesn?t end exactly at midnight on the last day of that quarter.
Ouch.
Nice.
but the iPod nano is a huge step backwards.
The new Nano is a statement of fashion. It will sell well.
That his AI account has been hacked and the wellspring of pure cool bitterness and cynicism is being poisoned with fanboism. Please stop the love before it's too late.
What?? If this was an insult I missed it. If it was a compliment I missed that too!
What?? If this was an insult I missed it. If it was a compliment I missed that too!
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Not really the thread for this, but since you mention it, I absolutely love the new Nano. However, in your defense, I love it because it?s the iPod Shuffle I?ve been wanting for years.
Exactly -- it's what the shuffle should be (except that it costs too much). The nano is dead in all but name. If they sold an iPod Touch that cost $150 it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's currently a big hole in the product lineup.
Exactly -- it's what the shuffle should be (except that it costs too much). The nano is dead in all but name. If they sold an iPod Touch that cost $150 it wouldn't be a big deal, but there's currently a big hole in the product lineup.
That was argument prior to its official announcement when the rumours were spreading that this was the new Nano. I said it couldn? have a camera or be used for playing back video, which would put a huge hole in the line up if this was the only Nano. While I was wrong about the nomenclature I was correct about everything else.
I have to wonder if the 5G Nano wasn?t selling that well (though I bought 4 over the last year for family members) or if Apple really wants to push the Touch because of the increased capabilities and access to the App Store which will push iOS domination and App Store lock in. I have to think it?s the latter.
If you opt for an iMac or Mac Pro to combine with an iPad, the cost can be greater (though not necessarily) but the increase in performance from the desktop side is enormous and the convenience on the iPad side is likewise significant compared to a laptop alone. Or, for the cost of an Apple laptop, you can opt for a Mac Mini plus an iPad plus a low-cost monitor. Here in Canada, a basic Mini is $749, a monitor can be had for around $250, and an iPad starts at $549. Add in keyboard+mouse and you're looking at roughly $1,700. A 15-inch MacBook Pro wit similar internals to the Mini would check in at $1,849. Boost the memory in the Mini up to the MacBook's 4GB and you're talking roughly the same money. A 17-inch MacBook Pro is $2349 but then you could have a system including a Cinema Display for around $2,500. If you go the iMac route, a 27-inch IMac plus an iPad would cost you roughly around the same as a 17" MacBook.
Instead of compromising with one product, i.e. the laptop, you can have a device that is designed specifically for portable use without having to offer desktop capabilities and compliment it with a desktop that doesn't have to make the compromises imposed by having to produce a device that can be portable.
Apple sellls a lot more devices and the consumer has a better solution. Win/Win.
Far better than the netbook approach which only serves to produce a diminished experience.
That said, laptops still have their place. If you need to do work the iPad isn't capable of doing well and you need or want to do that work away from a desktop, clearly a laptop makes sense. For the rest of us, desktop/iPad makes more sense. Still, even if the iPad leads to a reduction in laptop sales, if it is replaced with more desktops sold combined with millions of iPads, Apple is still way ahead.
The other advantage of the iPad is that if you get a customer who is working with a PC initially, if the iPad makes a favourable impression, it opens the door to the customer considering an all-Apple set-up over the long haul.
You've got to love a product that rather than cannibalize sales overall, results in a dramatic increase.
What?? If this was an insult I missed it. If it was a compliment I missed that too!
You miss a lot.
... I have to wonder if the 5G Nano wasn?t selling that well (though I bought 4 over the last year for family members) or if Apple really wants to push the Touch because of the increased capabilities and access to the App Store which will push iOS domination and App Store lock in. I have to think it?s the latter.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Notice that the Nano and Shuffle are clip on devices: devices people are likely to use for for "active" listening: running, working out, etc. The "hole" in the lineup is not really that big: $149 for a Nano, $229 for a touch, and the Touch gives you so much more capability than a Nano. What exactly would they price in between there? A big Nano without a touch screen?
With your hands free, and not engaged in some activity that makes use awkward, the Touch is so much more capable and functional and useful than anything they could have put in the "hole". For everything else, there's the Nano and Shuffle. I think it's a very smart, forward thinking division of the product line.
I think it's a combination of the two.
Notice that the Nano and Shuffle are clip on devices: devices people are likely to use for for "active" listening: running, working out, etc. The "hole" in the lineup is not really that big: $149 for a Nano, $229 for a touch, and the Touch gives you so much more capability than a Nano. What exactly would they price in between there? A big Nano without a touch screen?
With your hands free, and not engaged in some activity that makes use awkward, the Touch is so much more capable and functional and useful than anything they could have put in the "hole". For everything else, there's the Nano and Shuffle. I think it's a very smart, forward thinking division of the product line.
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
It does has the headset controls and voice feedback that my iPhone 4 still doesn?t have. I had debating buying the Marware SportShell Convertible for the iPhone 4 as I loved it for my 3GS, but I opted for the iPod Nano at 3x the cost because it suited my exercise needs more.
If Nano is for "active" listening, then it misses the point. The touch screen makes it extremely hard to use when doing anything "active".
It actually is very easy to use while running (I've been using it for a week). Volume control, if you have the better Apple headsets you can change it there as well.
Normally when working out I use a playlist, but to change songs, all you have to do is hit the wake button and click on the right side of the screen. Very simple.