Seriously? In the nearly two years the current design has been around, I've seen exactly 2 "in the wild". I actually see more iPod minis (yes, "mini") than the current nano design. The current nano is, in my opinion, 2nd only to the buttonless shuffle as the worst iPod designs. Sure, maybe it's cute and fashionable to some folks, but from a practicality and functionality standpoint they were both quite bad designs.
That doesn't mean Apple couldn't make a new nano design with physical buttons that have the same functionalities as the shuffle.
For me the shuffle must die with an evolution of that nano into a really great wrist gadget that could interact with the iPhone. And that little device in one or two years could push FaceTime to the places nobody has ever gone before.
It is the perfect device for a new Apple revolution.
Feature phones are not completely worthless. If you want your child to have a phone without the expensive data plan, you give him or her a feature phone. Data charges can get very expensive if no limits are placed on usage. Parents are always looking for a phone that they can give a child for making calls and sending messages (preferably through iMessage) but one that does not require a data plan. Furthermore, feature phones are big in many foreign countries because of their cost. That is why they comprise (as Robert Mark said) 62% of the worldwide market.
It's about time Apple introduced a feature phone. I am sure it will sell in the millions.
Man, one word for you: Restrictions.
The iPhone have a lot of restrictions for parent control. Have you ever had an iPhone in your hands???
That doesn't mean Apple couldn't make a new nano design with physical buttons that have the same functionalities as the shuffle.
For me the shuffle must die with an evolution of that nano into a really great wrist gadget that could interact with the iPhone. And that little device in one or two years could push FaceTime to the places nobody has ever gone before.
It is the perfect device for a new Apple revolution.
Quoting myself, there's a little detail behind that concept: Maybe the researches about that kind of wearable gadget aren't compelling at all. Probably people don't want to wear that kind of things… Who knows….
Yes, given that feature phones are completely worthless and you can get an iPhone free on contract (or for a few hundred with PAYG).
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
That doesn't mean Apple couldn't make a new nano design with physical buttons that have the same functionalities as the shuffle.
For me the shuffle must die with an evolution of that nano into a really great wrist gadget that could interact with the iPhone. And that little device in one or two years could push FaceTime to the places nobody has ever gone before.
It is the perfect device for a new Apple revolution.
Right after the quantum leap in battery technology to power such a device for the purposes your propose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
I must say there are times I need a phone for basic communication (calls, texts) where I wish I still had my old flip phone instead of my iPhone. More portable (smaller, lighter), less valuable (theft, loss, damage), etc. I know people seem to want a "convergence" of their devices, but I'd rather have an iPhone nano along with another device of my chosing (Touch, iPad mini, iPad, laptop, etc). Not the one-size-fits-all solution currently offered. Need the laptop, take that. Only need some basics, get a Touch. Need to travel light, leave them all at home and just take the iPhone nano. And it would be a perfect family of devices for something like Verizon's Share Everything plan.
game changing would be if this were the Apple iPhone for pre-paid / low end phone users. A smart phone for the masses. the drug^H^H^H^H^H phone that gets them hooked for the iPhone full on experience. So simple phone plus iPod Touch tech, no data, other than WiFi, ago GPS, no compass, no gyro, no accelerometer, etc. And subsidized price is free, under $100 for pre-paid providers ... Fixed 256Meg of memory and 4GB of storage, and maybe GSM technology only no CDMA... except CDMA opens China where this would sell better than iPhones already sell ...
game changing would be if this were the Apple iPhone for pre-paid / low end phone users. A smart phone for the masses. the drug^H^H^H^H^H phone that gets them hooked for the iPhone full on experience. So simple phone plus iPod Touch tech, no data, other than WiFi, ago GPS, no compass, no gyro, no accelerometer, etc. And subsidized price is free, under $100 for pre-paid providers ... Fixed 256Meg of memory and 4GB of storage, and maybe GSM technology only no CDMA... except CDMA opens China where this would sell better than iPhones already sell ...
Sounds exactly like what they're doing with the iPhone 3GS right now, but worse in every possible way.
Or because the current design has horrible sales figures which, based on what I see on the street, could very likely be the case.
That could be very true. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen anyone out on the street with the current iPod Nano but I still see lots of people with the previous "long" design model.
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
I had my network operator block internet access on my phone because I don't want to pay for an expensive data plan.
I like the PDA features & app's on my phone but I don't need the internet in my pocket on a tiny little screen.
This is a total fail from the get go. The way to improve the Nano is to make it a watch and give it both GPS and bluetooth. Other than that most people will just use their phones for media.
I wonder if the existing design (or something like it) will become the new iPod Shuffle.
My thoughts exactly. The shuffle has little place left to go, although I think the current model is ideal for exercise use—particularly the lack of screen—to keep you focused on your workout. The ability to purchase music on the go would innovate the nano but this would be a little awkward on the current nano.
This is a total fail from the get go. The way to improve the Nano is to make it a watch and give it both GPS and bluetooth. Other than that most people will just use their phones for media.
I use a LunaTik and I would love, as some on this thread have suggested, to have a new clipless watch-sized Nano that can serve as an iPhone iPod or iPad remote.
I would also love to have the old Nano back, or an iPod Touch Mini (or iPhone Mini) in the same form factor as the rectangular nano.
This raises some interesting questions. Will the nano continue to run the iPod OS, or bump up to a legitimate iOS device? Are apps a consideration for the nano? Keyboard text input? Wifi connectivity? AirPlay? Apple TV controller capability?
I doubt they'd waste much real estate on the front of the device as in the mockup. It would probably have a bigger display.
Although this could cause some minor software fragmentation, it could also feasibly become a key part of the iOS ecosystem. More of a "iPod Touch Nano" I wonder if that is the strategy here.
It seems more likely to me that they will introduce this device as a new ipod mini with ios. A home button would suggest it will be app enabled. Wifi would be great, if the battery can support it, as that would enable airplay and apple tv remote.
The nano will remain a small square, keep it's ipod os (for now) and maybe even shrink in size so that it can replace the shuffle. That would keep the future ipod lineup to only 3 distinctive products and all with a graphical touch interface.
They already got the design spot on when they introduced the iPod Nano 6G:
[VIDEO]
Right at the start, they chop the bottom off and that's it. They don't need a home button because it's small enough to reach a button on the side no matter how you hold it just like the square one. It would look like the following:
The size means you can fit the iPhone's portrait keyboard in landscape with one less row. Kids can contact each other with iMessage with a simple data contract using a mini-sim or just wifi, maybe even call each other with VOIP apps and save running up parents' bills.
Kids can contact each other with iMessage with a simple data contract using a mini-sim or just wifi, maybe even call each other with VOIP apps and save running up parents' bills.
Anything using cellular telephony is going to make the battery unusable.
So i will have to buy another company's device that doesn't integrate as well with iTunes? I think the simplicity of the shuffle is very in sync with Apple. It's stripped down to the absolute basics. That doesn't make it a POS. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
<div class="quote-container">
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Wiggin</strong> <a href="/t/151194/apples-next-ipod-nano-may-resemble-tiny-iphone-feature-dedicated-itunes-service#post_2144053"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<p>
</p>
<p>
Seriously? In the nearly two years the current design has been around, I've seen exactly 2 "in the wild". I actually see more iPod minis (yes, "mini") than the current nano design. The current nano is, in my opinion, 2nd only to the buttonless shuffle as the worst iPod designs. Sure, maybe it's cute and fashionable to some folks, but from a practicality and functionality standpoint they were both quite bad designs.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Yes, seriously. You see few in the wild not because the design sucks, but because almost nobody buys vanilla music devices anymore. Where are they supposed to go with MP3 players now? You've got the Classic to fill the increasingly irrelevant traditional screen + tactile controls + tons of storage niche, the iPod touch is basically an iPhone, and the shuffle is for the no-nonsense, tiny, out of the way, audio-only, good for exercise crowd. Where does the nano fit in? Back when music players were all the rage it made sense to have a fashionable "mini" version of the classic but now most people have smartphones and tablets that do the same and much more. The nano can't continue to exist as just a svelte MP3 player. So I liked where they were (or seemed to be) going with the current design: a wearable, iOS-like touch device. They obviously recognized in the second revision that people liked to use it as a watch, too. What they need to do now is make it (and promote it as) a true companion to your iPhone, delivering notifications, Siri controls, perhaps even low resolution video/facetime over Bluetooth. And cut the cord, use wireless earbuds to make it even more wearable. That would make it distinct and tie it to the products people actually buy nowadays; this new design will basically send it back to 2007.</p>
Comments
That doesn't mean Apple couldn't make a new nano design with physical buttons that have the same functionalities as the shuffle.
For me the shuffle must die with an evolution of that nano into a really great wrist gadget that could interact with the iPhone. And that little device in one or two years could push FaceTime to the places nobody has ever gone before.
It is the perfect device for a new Apple revolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaun, UK
The only reason I can think of that they would change the Nano...
Or because the current design has horrible sales figures which, based on what I see on the street, could very likely be the case.
Man, one word for you: Restrictions.
The iPhone have a lot of restrictions for parent control. Have you ever had an iPhone in your hands???
Quoting myself, there's a little detail behind that concept: Maybe the researches about that kind of wearable gadget aren't compelling at all. Probably people don't want to wear that kind of things… Who knows….
As have yours and everyone else's, so I fail to see the point of this post at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, given that feature phones are completely worthless and you can get an iPhone free on contract (or for a few hundred with PAYG).
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvidal
That doesn't mean Apple couldn't make a new nano design with physical buttons that have the same functionalities as the shuffle.
For me the shuffle must die with an evolution of that nano into a really great wrist gadget that could interact with the iPhone. And that little device in one or two years could push FaceTime to the places nobody has ever gone before.
It is the perfect device for a new Apple revolution.
Right after the quantum leap in battery technology to power such a device for the purposes your propose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
I must say there are times I need a phone for basic communication (calls, texts) where I wish I still had my old flip phone instead of my iPhone. More portable (smaller, lighter), less valuable (theft, loss, damage), etc. I know people seem to want a "convergence" of their devices, but I'd rather have an iPhone nano along with another device of my chosing (Touch, iPad mini, iPad, laptop, etc). Not the one-size-fits-all solution currently offered. Need the laptop, take that. Only need some basics, get a Touch. Need to travel light, leave them all at home and just take the iPhone nano. And it would be a perfect family of devices for something like Verizon's Share Everything plan.
game changing would be if this were the Apple iPhone for pre-paid / low end phone users. A smart phone for the masses. the drug^H^H^H^H^H phone that gets them hooked for the iPhone full on experience. So simple phone plus iPod Touch tech, no data, other than WiFi, ago GPS, no compass, no gyro, no accelerometer, etc. And subsidized price is free, under $100 for pre-paid providers ... Fixed 256Meg of memory and 4GB of storage, and maybe GSM technology only no CDMA... except CDMA opens China where this would sell better than iPhones already sell ...
Sounds exactly like what they're doing with the iPhone 3GS right now, but worse in every possible way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
Or because the current design has horrible sales figures which, based on what I see on the street, could very likely be the case.
That could be very true. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen anyone out on the street with the current iPod Nano but I still see lots of people with the previous "long" design model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Not everyone needs or wants the internet in their pocket.
I know a very talented and successful iOS developer who doesn't own any mobile device (phone or tablet). He likes being able to get away from it all.
My wife and I have cell phones for emergencies. They're 7 year old flip phones that are so primitive I wouldn't even call them "feature phones", but they send & receive calls and texts just fine.
I had my network operator block internet access on my phone because I don't want to pay for an expensive data plan.
I like the PDA features & app's on my phone but I don't need the internet in my pocket on a tiny little screen.
No nano has been as good as the old "fat boy" nano - it's been all downhill from there.
This is a total fail from the get go. The way to improve the Nano is to make it a watch and give it both GPS and bluetooth. Other than that most people will just use their phones for media.
My thoughts exactly. The shuffle has little place left to go, although I think the current model is ideal for exercise use—particularly the lack of screen—to keep you focused on your workout. The ability to purchase music on the go would innovate the nano but this would be a little awkward on the current nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by halhiker
This is a total fail from the get go. The way to improve the Nano is to make it a watch and give it both GPS and bluetooth. Other than that most people will just use their phones for media.
I use a LunaTik and I would love, as some on this thread have suggested, to have a new clipless watch-sized Nano that can serve as an iPhone iPod or iPad remote.
I would also love to have the old Nano back, or an iPod Touch Mini (or iPhone Mini) in the same form factor as the rectangular nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filmantopia
This raises some interesting questions. Will the nano continue to run the iPod OS, or bump up to a legitimate iOS device? Are apps a consideration for the nano? Keyboard text input? Wifi connectivity? AirPlay? Apple TV controller capability?
I doubt they'd waste much real estate on the front of the device as in the mockup. It would probably have a bigger display.
Although this could cause some minor software fragmentation, it could also feasibly become a key part of the iOS ecosystem. More of a "iPod Touch Nano" I wonder if that is the strategy here.
It seems more likely to me that they will introduce this device as a new ipod mini with ios. A home button would suggest it will be app enabled. Wifi would be great, if the battery can support it, as that would enable airplay and apple tv remote.
The nano will remain a small square, keep it's ipod os (for now) and maybe even shrink in size so that it can replace the shuffle. That would keep the future ipod lineup to only 3 distinctive products and all with a graphical touch interface.
[VIDEO]
Right at the start, they chop the bottom off and that's it. They don't need a home button because it's small enough to reach a button on the side no matter how you hold it just like the square one. It would look like the following:
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/171580/width/600/height/310][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/171580/width/600/height/310[/IMG][/URL]
The size means you can fit the iPhone's portrait keyboard in landscape with one less row. Kids can contact each other with iMessage with a simple data contract using a mini-sim or just wifi, maybe even call each other with VOIP apps and save running up parents' bills.
Anything using cellular telephony is going to make the battery unusable.
So i will have to buy another company's device that doesn't integrate as well with iTunes? I think the simplicity of the shuffle is very in sync with Apple. It's stripped down to the absolute basics. That doesn't make it a POS. We may have to agree to disagree on this one.
<span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">
Originally Posted by <strong>Wiggin</strong> <a href="/t/151194/apples-next-ipod-nano-may-resemble-tiny-iphone-feature-dedicated-itunes-service#post_2144053"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
<p>
</p>
<p>
Seriously? In the nearly two years the current design has been around, I've seen exactly 2 "in the wild". I actually see more iPod minis (yes, "mini") than the current nano design. The current nano is, in my opinion, 2nd only to the buttonless shuffle as the worst iPod designs. Sure, maybe it's cute and fashionable to some folks, but from a practicality and functionality standpoint they were both quite bad designs.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Yes, seriously. You see few in the wild not because the design sucks, but because almost nobody buys vanilla music devices anymore. Where are they supposed to go with MP3 players now? You've got the Classic to fill the increasingly irrelevant traditional screen + tactile controls + tons of storage niche, the iPod touch is basically an iPhone, and the shuffle is for the no-nonsense, tiny, out of the way, audio-only, good for exercise crowd. Where does the nano fit in? Back when music players were all the rage it made sense to have a fashionable "mini" version of the classic but now most people have smartphones and tablets that do the same and much more. The nano can't continue to exist as just a svelte MP3 player. So I liked where they were (or seemed to be) going with the current design: a wearable, iOS-like touch device. They obviously recognized in the second revision that people liked to use it as a watch, too. What they need to do now is make it (and promote it as) a true companion to your iPhone, delivering notifications, Siri controls, perhaps even low resolution video/facetime over Bluetooth. And cut the cord, use wireless earbuds to make it even more wearable. That would make it distinct and tie it to the products people actually buy nowadays; this new design will basically send it back to 2007.</p>