The nano looks impressive and I've wanted an iPod mini with photo capabilities for a long time, but the capacities are too small. I'll wait until there's, hopefully, a 6GB or even 8GB model available although it may very well be a long time.
My point is that this the first Apple product with a Dock connector that does not support FireWire 400. And it makes no sense why it doesn't.
You did notice how thin it is, right? They probably sacrificed the FW 400 capability to cut down on size. If they had to pick one or the other, FW 400 was the right one to go.
I'd also point out that the iPod shuffle has never had FW 400 capability.
I think it's a very cool design. I can't believe that it is so freakin small, yet still has a color screen. My only really qualm is the price. 2 GB for 200 bucks?? When you were offering a larger size for the same ammount, then drop the storage just for a color screen but expect the same price, thats a little ridiculous. It's cute tho.
When the iPod mini was first introduced it was 4GB and cost $249.00 so the iPod nano is starting out at the same price, and when the price of flash memory comes down so will the price of the iPod nano.
Skipping ahead, what if the iPod nano's ultimate purpose is to get remote control capabilities? If this is true then here is what I see in the future:
1 - AirPort Express is updated so it can can stream audio and video from computers to TVs and projectors.
2 - New app in the iLife suite acts as a front-end to the content of the other apps. This app would get displayed on the TV screen and be the menu to your iLife content. This app would also replace the DVD Player when there is a DVD disk in the drive.
3 - When iPods can play video (full length movies, iMovie/iDVD projects) a new dock is introduced that can handle getting the content from the iPod to the screen.
The iPod nano will be able to control the computers and iPods no matter how they connect to their output device (screen/TV/projector).
I will say the thing looks slick as hell but there are definetly some flaws. The mini held a nice place in the iPod family. The shuffles maxed at 1GB and the iPods stated at 20Gb, the Mini covered 4 and 6. Now for those prices the capacity it too close to the shuffle. Aside from that I hate headphones on the bottom. And how the hell are you supposed to wear that hoola hoop of a headphone cord?
This Marketwatch article actually has video from the keynote. They have the unveiling of the nano and the ROKR phone. It's a single camera thing, but they managed to get direct audio from the sound system.
You did notice how thin it is, right? They probably sacrificed the FW 400 capability to cut down on size. If they had to pick one or the other, FW 400 was the right one to go.
I'd also point out that the iPod shuffle has never had FW 400 capability.
maybe dropping firewire has something to do with their new partnership with Intel?
maybe dropping firewire has something to do with their new partnership with Intel?
Not at all. Apple's been migrating the iPods toward USB for a while now. Although we Mac users love and use our firewire ports, PC users have not embraced it nearly as much. Go to your local computer store sometime and look at the choices of external hard drives. Few, if any, will have firewire. They've mostly gone to USB 2.
As far as the iPod goes, transfering via USB 2 will be slower on the first transfer of all your songs to the iPod. After that, syncing pretty much matches up when transfering contacts, podcasts, or a few songs at a time.
This looks like a beautiful product and I am definitely feeling urges to get one.
However, I am disappointed that there is no direct USB connection. I would like to be able to mount it on the desktop of any Mac I need to work on and transfer files to. I don't want to lug around a dock connector with me, install software, etc.
I have one of the early iPods with a direct FireWire cable. I think it's great, and one of the reasons I am not buying a newer model is because I would lose the direct FireWire capability. I also have an iPod Shuffle with a direct USB connection.
Not at all. Apple's been migrating the iPods toward USB for a while now. Although we Mac users love and use our firewire ports, PC users have not embraced it nearly as much. Go to your local computer store sometime and look at the choices of external hard drives. Few, if any, will have firewire. They've mostly gone to USB 2.
I wonder if firewire will slowly be removed from Macs.
Quote:
There is still no reason for them to drop firewire support completely. it's not like they can't offer both.
There is still no reason for them to drop firewire support completely. it's not like they can't offer both.
They still do on the regular iPods. That makes sense since they have so much more capacity and it would take much longer to fill them. Remember that a lot of people use the iPod both as a digital music player and external hard drive. You still want the highest data transfer available for something like that.
Comments
I get usb only with the Shuffle.. but this makes no sense to me..
Originally posted by LGnome
This would have been my first iPod.. but I will *not* add a butt ugly USB2 Cardbus adapter to my perfectly fine TiBook.
I get usb only with the Shuffle.. but this makes no sense to me..
USB 2.0 is only recommended not required.
Quote:
Mac system requirements
Macintosh computer with USB port (USB 2.0 recommended)
Mac OS X v10.3.4 or later
USB 2.0 is only recommended not required.
Yes, I understand USB2 is backwards compatible with USB in this case--USB would be incredilbly slow to move 2 or 4GB around.
My point is that this the first Apple product with a Dock connector that does not support FireWire 400. And it makes no sense why it doesn't.
Originally posted by LGnome
My point is that this the first Apple product with a Dock connector that does not support FireWire 400. And it makes no sense why it doesn't.
You did notice how thin it is, right? They probably sacrificed the FW 400 capability to cut down on size. If they had to pick one or the other, FW 400 was the right one to go.
I'd also point out that the iPod shuffle has never had FW 400 capability.
Originally posted by Dr. J
I think it's a very cool design. I can't believe that it is so freakin small, yet still has a color screen. My only really qualm is the price. 2 GB for 200 bucks?? When you were offering a larger size for the same ammount, then drop the storage just for a color screen but expect the same price, thats a little ridiculous. It's cute tho.
When the iPod mini was first introduced it was 4GB and cost $249.00 so the iPod nano is starting out at the same price, and when the price of flash memory comes down so will the price of the iPod nano.
Skipping ahead, what if the iPod nano's ultimate purpose is to get remote control capabilities? If this is true then here is what I see in the future:
1 - AirPort Express is updated so it can can stream audio and video from computers to TVs and projectors.
2 - New app in the iLife suite acts as a front-end to the content of the other apps. This app would get displayed on the TV screen and be the menu to your iLife content. This app would also replace the DVD Player when there is a DVD disk in the drive.
3 - When iPods can play video (full length movies, iMovie/iDVD projects) a new dock is introduced that can handle getting the content from the iPod to the screen.
The iPod nano will be able to control the computers and iPods no matter how they connect to their output device (screen/TV/projector).
Originally posted by john.outwater
And how the hell are you supposed to wear that hoola hoop of a headphone cord?
Watch the video of the event.
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
Originally posted by CosmoNut
You did notice how thin it is, right? They probably sacrificed the FW 400 capability to cut down on size. If they had to pick one or the other, FW 400 was the right one to go.
I'd also point out that the iPod shuffle has never had FW 400 capability.
maybe dropping firewire has something to do with their new partnership with Intel?
Originally posted by the cool gut
maybe dropping firewire has something to do with their new partnership with Intel?
Not at all. Apple's been migrating the iPods toward USB for a while now. Although we Mac users love and use our firewire ports, PC users have not embraced it nearly as much. Go to your local computer store sometime and look at the choices of external hard drives. Few, if any, will have firewire. They've mostly gone to USB 2.
As far as the iPod goes, transfering via USB 2 will be slower on the first transfer of all your songs to the iPod. After that, syncing pretty much matches up when transfering contacts, podcasts, or a few songs at a time.
However, I am disappointed that there is no direct USB connection. I would like to be able to mount it on the desktop of any Mac I need to work on and transfer files to. I don't want to lug around a dock connector with me, install software, etc.
I have one of the early iPods with a direct FireWire cable. I think it's great, and one of the reasons I am not buying a newer model is because I would lose the direct FireWire capability. I also have an iPod Shuffle with a direct USB connection.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Not at all. Apple's been migrating the iPods toward USB for a while now.
There is still no reason for them to drop firewire support completely. it's not like they can't offer both.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Not at all. Apple's been migrating the iPods toward USB for a while now. Although we Mac users love and use our firewire ports, PC users have not embraced it nearly as much. Go to your local computer store sometime and look at the choices of external hard drives. Few, if any, will have firewire. They've mostly gone to USB 2.
I wonder if firewire will slowly be removed from Macs.
There is still no reason for them to drop firewire support completely. it's not like they can't offer both.
Sure there is, manufacturing costs.
Originally posted by ThinkingDifferent
I wonder if firewire will slowly be removed from Macs.
No ....camcorders still need firewire. However Firewire as a storage connect has been dead the minute SATA went external.
Originally posted by the cool gut
There is still no reason for them to drop firewire support completely. it's not like they can't offer both.
They still do on the regular iPods. That makes sense since they have so much more capacity and it would take much longer to fill them. Remember that a lot of people use the iPod both as a digital music player and external hard drive. You still want the highest data transfer available for something like that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
No ....camcorders still need firewire. However Firewire as a storage connect has been dead the minute SATA went external.
I hope Apple's SATA support includes booting from external devices.