So if you still need the shoe fob then it means they added the proprietary wireless tech built off of 802.11 to the new Nano. That, the new SW, and a price drop sound pretty good but not good enough for me to give up using Nike+GPS on my iPhone. I love that app!
Okay, according to Apple's website, you no longer need the transmitter or receiver to have the full Nike+ feature set. This is absolutely different than before. I don't know if it's software only, or if there's a difference between the accelerometer in the old Nano and the new one that enables this feature. I'll have to test mine out to be sure.
But if it really is software only, then that's great, since my old transmitter appears to be completely dead (out of battery, i suppose).
And the problem I have with the one button per screen feature is the inertial scrolling. One swipe should move you one icon, so that you can swipe without looking, assuming you've memorized your custom icon order.
I gotta admit, that watch band that tonton linked to looks pretty cool with the nano. I can see many people using these iPod Nanos as watches, especially with all of the new faces that Apple added.
I looked at all 18 faces and there are 5-6 of them which I like which I can see myself using if I were to use the nano as a watch.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this one caught my eye. I don't like the orange band and the yellow nano, but give me both in black, and I'd be happy
Update on the fitness feature. It appears that the new features are only for the new Nano with updated internals. I do not have the "run" option in my Fitness menu unless I plug in the Nike+ receiver. The new Nano has this built in. So I guess it really is a "new" Nano, hardware-wise.
One comment: Not familiar with the Nike thing, but even with an accelerometer in the Nano and no matter the software, it seems apparent to me that having an accelerometer hanging from a belt or even on a wrist can't work the same as having an accelerometer on your foot.
One question: Can anyone who has used the Nano as a wrist watch comment on how long the battery lasts if you use it just as a watch and don't play music? I assume that it must be possible to configure it so that the screensaver will not cause the screen to blank out, but when configured this way, with the LED constantly burning and the screen pixels being updated every second (or every minute perhaps), how long does the battery last then?
One comment: Not familiar with the Nike thing, but even with an accelerometer in the Nano and no matter the software, it seems apparent to me that having an accelerometer hanging from a belt or even on a wrist can't work the same as having an accelerometer on your foot.
One question: Can anyone who has used the Nano as a wrist watch comment on how long the battery lasts if you use it just as a watch and don't play music? I assume that it must be possible to configure it so that the screensaver will not cause the screen to blank out, but when configured this way, with the LED constantly burning and the screen pixels being updated every second (or every minute perhaps), how long does the battery last then?
On your question: unfortunately, you have no option for screen dimming. The default and only option is dim after 15 seconds and off after 45 more (60 seconds total). Using it extensively for watch plus music on a year-old nano, the battery lasts about 3 days. If I'm using it more as a watch and not turning it on much, it's more like 5-7.
Update on the fitness feature. It appears that the new features are only for the new Nano with updated internals. I do not have the "run" option in my Fitness menu unless I plug in the Nike+ receiver. The new Nano has this built in. So I guess it really is a "new" Nano, hardware-wise.
I have the run feature and no receiver or transmitter...
If you intend to wear your Nano as a watch exclusively, I absolutely recommend the LunaTik, which I have and I love, and never cease getting compliments about, and I especially love the look of the brand new LunaTik Lynk.
If you want to remove your Nano often and use it without the watch band, I would recommend the TikTok, from the same site.
I have the TikTok and find it fantastic. It's very stylish and I've gotten a many compliments on the pairing. I also find it better for active living than the chain link versions.
I still don't understand why Apple doesn't open these things up to the App Store and developers, or at least build in 240x240 versions of some of their more practical apps, like calculator and address book. Casio's been doing it since the early 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator_watch), and those buttons are smaller than they would be on the nano screen. There's actually a lot you can do in 240x240. Some developers are very clever at finding solutions for small screens.
There, proof of concept. Apple's calculator at 240x240. Why is that so hard?
Especially with people wearing these as watches. I'd consider wearing one as a watch if they open it up to third party apps. Then maybe I would't need to carry around my iPod touch. That would be awesome.
Because that's not at all what it would look like in reality. 240x240 depends on your monitor. On my 27" Cinema Display, that's huge.
You have to design it by physical size. And there's no way that interface there is going to ever be usable on a screen 1.08" x 1.08".
Yes, I understand pixel density and that perceptually that 240x240 image would be constrained to 1"x1", but I disagree that it wouldn't be usable.
Not only was that example put together quickly, and could've used the space more efficiently (no space between buttons), but as I pointed out in my previous post, Casio has been doing it in the same or less space than that for years.
At four buttons wide, if they were edge-to-edge, each button would be at lest .25" wide. The buttons on the Casio wristwatch calculators range from >.125" to .25". So, how is it not possible? Casio has sold millions of those watches over the past 30 years, it must've worked for someone.
I still don't understand why Apple doesn't open these things up to the App Store and developers, or at least build in 240x240 versions of some of their more practical apps, like calculator and address book. Casio's been doing it since the early 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator_watch), and those buttons are smaller than they would be on the nano screen. There's actually a lot you can do in 240x240. Some developers are very clever at finding solutions for small screens.
There, proof of concept. Apple's calculator at 240x240. Why is that so hard?
Especially with people wearing these as watches. I'd consider wearing one as a watch if they open it up to third party apps. Then maybe I would't need to carry around my iPod touch. That would be awesome.
The calculators in your link look very obviously bigger than the Nano, and it wouldn't be as big as your 240x240 picture either. We're talking about a 1 inch across screen here, its not just pixels.
Comments
Yes, we've been running along to the "oldies" so to speak, for a while now.
Literally Sol, the only change was being able to change it to one button per screen...
No, you haven't. You've been using the pedometer, not the full Nike+ features.
So if you still need the shoe fob then it means they added the proprietary wireless tech built off of 802.11 to the new Nano. That, the new SW, and a price drop sound pretty good but not good enough for me to give up using Nike+GPS on my iPhone. I love that app!
Okay, according to Apple's website, you no longer need the transmitter or receiver to have the full Nike+ feature set. This is absolutely different than before. I don't know if it's software only, or if there's a difference between the accelerometer in the old Nano and the new one that enables this feature. I'll have to test mine out to be sure.
But if it really is software only, then that's great, since my old transmitter appears to be completely dead (out of battery, i suppose).
I looked at all 18 faces and there are 5-6 of them which I like which I can see myself using if I were to use the nano as a watch.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but this one caught my eye. I don't like the orange band and the yellow nano, but give me both in black, and I'd be happy
Nice.
J.
Very cool photo!
One question: Can anyone who has used the Nano as a wrist watch comment on how long the battery lasts if you use it just as a watch and don't play music? I assume that it must be possible to configure it so that the screensaver will not cause the screen to blank out, but when configured this way, with the LED constantly burning and the screen pixels being updated every second (or every minute perhaps), how long does the battery last then?
One comment: Not familiar with the Nike thing, but even with an accelerometer in the Nano and no matter the software, it seems apparent to me that having an accelerometer hanging from a belt or even on a wrist can't work the same as having an accelerometer on your foot.
One question: Can anyone who has used the Nano as a wrist watch comment on how long the battery lasts if you use it just as a watch and don't play music? I assume that it must be possible to configure it so that the screensaver will not cause the screen to blank out, but when configured this way, with the LED constantly burning and the screen pixels being updated every second (or every minute perhaps), how long does the battery last then?
On your question: unfortunately, you have no option for screen dimming. The default and only option is dim after 15 seconds and off after 45 more (60 seconds total). Using it extensively for watch plus music on a year-old nano, the battery lasts about 3 days. If I'm using it more as a watch and not turning it on much, it's more like 5-7.
Update on the fitness feature. It appears that the new features are only for the new Nano with updated internals. I do not have the "run" option in my Fitness menu unless I plug in the Nike+ receiver. The new Nano has this built in. So I guess it really is a "new" Nano, hardware-wise.
I have the run feature and no receiver or transmitter...
Can anyone recommend a watchband for this?
If you intend to wear your Nano as a watch exclusively, I absolutely recommend the LunaTik, which I have and I love, and never cease getting compliments about, and I especially love the look of the brand new LunaTik Lynk.
If you want to remove your Nano often and use it without the watch band, I would recommend the TikTok, from the same site.
I have the TikTok and find it fantastic. It's very stylish and I've gotten a many compliments on the pairing. I also find it better for active living than the chain link versions.
There, proof of concept. Apple's calculator at 240x240. Why is that so hard?
Especially with people wearing these as watches. I'd consider wearing one as a watch if they open it up to third party apps. Then maybe I would't need to carry around my iPod touch. That would be awesome.
The iPhone 4s has it and it would have been cool if the iPhone would talk to the nano so you could see alerts and maybe even use siri.
If they did that they would have sold millions of these.
There, proof of concept. Apple's calculator at 240x240. Why is that so hard?
Because that's not at all what it would look like in reality. 240x240 depends on your monitor. On my 27" Cinema Display, that's huge.
You have to design it by physical size. And there's no way that interface there is going to ever be usable on a screen 1.08" x 1.08".
Because that's not at all what it would look like in reality. 240x240 depends on your monitor. On my 27" Cinema Display, that's huge.
You have to design it by physical size. And there's no way that interface there is going to ever be usable on a screen 1.08" x 1.08".
Yes, I understand pixel density and that perceptually that 240x240 image would be constrained to 1"x1", but I disagree that it wouldn't be usable.
Not only was that example put together quickly, and could've used the space more efficiently (no space between buttons), but as I pointed out in my previous post, Casio has been doing it in the same or less space than that for years.
At four buttons wide, if they were edge-to-edge, each button would be at lest .25" wide. The buttons on the Casio wristwatch calculators range from >.125" to .25". So, how is it not possible? Casio has sold millions of those watches over the past 30 years, it must've worked for someone.
I still don't understand why Apple doesn't open these things up to the App Store and developers, or at least build in 240x240 versions of some of their more practical apps, like calculator and address book. Casio's been doing it since the early 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculator_watch), and those buttons are smaller than they would be on the nano screen. There's actually a lot you can do in 240x240. Some developers are very clever at finding solutions for small screens.
There, proof of concept. Apple's calculator at 240x240. Why is that so hard?
Especially with people wearing these as watches. I'd consider wearing one as a watch if they open it up to third party apps. Then maybe I would't need to carry around my iPod touch. That would be awesome.
The calculators in your link look very obviously bigger than the Nano, and it wouldn't be as big as your 240x240 picture either. We're talking about a 1 inch across screen here, its not just pixels.
So, how is it not possible?
You don't think that that not being a touchscreen might have something to do with it?
You don't think that that not being a touchscreen might have something to do with it?
No, I don't.