AmTech: Apple to double iPod nano storage capacity

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Analysts for American Technology Research on Monday said checks show Apple Computer to be planning a new iPod nano with twice the storage for its September quarter.



"Our most recent checks indicate the current 2GB and 4GB nano models will see their storage doubled to 4GB and 8GB capacities," analyst Shaw Wu told clients in a research note.



The analyst said he is also picking up indications that the players will gain basic video capabilities. "We anticipate these new nanos will become available in the September Quarter and become top sellers, particularly if Apple keeps the price points low at $199 and $249.



In the meantime, Wu says Apple is working hard on extending the battery life of its next-generation widescreen video iPod. He says Apple's current 5th-generation video iPods have a battery life of only 75 - 90 minutes when playing video.



Some of the ways to improve battery life that Apple is exploring are said to include: using a bigger battery, using both NAND flash and microdrives inside a single iPod, and building better software that makes Broadcom's AlphaMosaic multimedia co-processor operate more efficiently.



Also on Monday, Wu told clients he believes the "widely anticipated" 13-inch Intel consumer notebook from Apple is on track to ship in the June/July timeframe. "We view this as an important release as iBook is the second most important volume product in the Mac business," he wrote.



The analyst sees the risk-to-reward on shares of Apple Computer to be attractive, given they are trading at 27 times the firm's 2007 earnings-per-share estimate of $2.59. "We remain firm believers that the move to digital entertainment is a multi-year trend and that Apple is well-positioned to capitalize with its unique and defendable iPod + iTunes and Macintosh franchise," he wrote.



American Technology Research maintains a Buy rating on Apple shares with a price target of $101.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 39
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Does that mean they're not going to up the 1 gig nano?



    If not, what's the point of it then, the difference in price is small enough that most people will just jump to 4 gigs. Same with the shuffles, if they do up the $149 nano to 2 gigs, that makes the 1 gig shuffle at $99 look pretty overpriced for the size.



    Seems like if they're going to up some of the nanos, they really need to up all of them, plus the shuffles as well.
  • Reply 2 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by minderbinder

    Does that mean they're not going to up the 1 gig nano?





    ...blah
  • Reply 3 of 39
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JoeAlamaiz

    ...blah



    Is that a yes or a no?
  • Reply 4 of 39
    jschwagejschwage Posts: 2member
    Of course, right after I buy my 2GB nano. If I'd waited a few more months I could get twice the space and video capabilities.
  • Reply 5 of 39
    Quote:

    Originally posted by minderbinder

    Is that a yes or a no?



    It means there's not going to be a 1 or 2 gig version
  • Reply 6 of 39
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,410member
    75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...
  • Reply 7 of 39
    shady104shady104 Posts: 332member
    who said there putting video on the nano? that would be so rediculous.
  • Reply 8 of 39
    jschwagejschwage Posts: 2member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by shady104

    who said there putting video on the nano? that would be so rediculous.



    "The analyst said he is also picking up indications that the players will gain basic video capabilities."
  • Reply 9 of 39
    I think they should just sell 2, 4, and 8 gigabyte Nanos.
  • Reply 10 of 39
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SpamSandwich

    75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...



    Four AA batteries are about half the volume of the 4G.



    There is plenty of room for improvement. With the 5G, the hard drive is spinning a lot when it plays a video. Solid state storage on the nano might help. The video decoder chip probably isn't helping either, a new generation version might be better. There may be more efficient back lights now too. The fact that Apple tries to make every new generation thinner than the last doens't help, as that greatly reduces the available volume for batteries.



    I really don't see the value of video on a nano unless the screen gets larger and that it supports video out.
  • Reply 11 of 39
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JoeAlamaiz

    It means there's not going to be a 1 or 2 gig version



    What's so crazy about the idea of bigger shuffles? I don't think there's ANY question that we'll probably see them eventually, it's just a question of when.
  • Reply 12 of 39
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,015member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    I really don't see the value of video on a nano unless the screen gets larger and that it supports video out.



    I still don't understand this "video on a screen that can barely display enough text for a song title" craze (not just iPod, but cell phones as well). I mean, does anyone actually watch TV shows/movies on these screens? And if so, is the experience actually worthwhile?



    I'd imagine it's equivalent to listening to an orchestra on the built-in laptop speakers. Sure you can do it, but what's the point?



    I can understand video-out so that you can show your pictures and videos to friends/relatives on their TV, but as for actually watching them on the device itself, I just don't understand it.



    And yes, I actually own a Sony PSP (which has a fairly large screen for a small device), but I mostly use it to play video games on the go. I've never actually watched a movie on it. Nor would I ever purchase a PSP movie when I can buy a DVD for the same price which has much higher resolution and quality (and is fairly easy to rip and convert to PSP format).



    This whole market segment just doesn't make sense to me.
  • Reply 13 of 39
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    This is all just rumor and speculation..



    Shaw Wu has been "pro-Apple" for a long time, but just because he is an "analyst" does not mean he is privy to any inside information..



    He reads the rumor sites and guesses like the rest of us..
  • Reply 14 of 39
    minderbinderminderbinder Posts: 1,703member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by auxio

    I still don't understand this "video on a screen that can barely display enough text for a song title" craze (not just iPod, but cell phones as well). I mean, does anyone actually watch TV shows/movies on these screens? And if so, is the experience actually worthwhile?



    I was skeptical until I actually saw one of the video ipods in person. Surprisingly good picture. It's for watching on the go, certainly good enough picture to watch a sitcom riding on the subway. Next gen, a bigger screen will definitely be an improvement, but right now the battery life is a bigger problem than the small screen.
  • Reply 15 of 39
    josa92josa92 Posts: 193member
    The only part of Apple that I don't like anymore is the iPod division. iPod pricing and features are just so contrived and out there, and there is such a little price difference between the nano and the regular iPod that I shame anyone who buys a nano. And the nano is just too small. Another thing, I hate the small craze. I mean, wtf? I'd rather have a sturdy, useable, SEE-ABLE item that works a zillion times better than some exprensive piece of crap that is so small and ridicuolous. [spelling?]

    Also, I was at the Apple store the other day and all of the friggen iPods looked like crap. All of them were really scratched and dingy-looking. No other generation of iPOds has looked like that in the stores. It's getting me pissed off that Apple took such a good product and decided, "oh, lets's make it better" and then the final product is worse than when they started.

    And wthf is wrong with them for taking out the Firewire support????????????????????????????????? USB is so terribly slow that I CAN'T MOTHER FRIGGEN USE IT



    Just wanted to rant and rave. I had a bad day. [the camera don't lie ]
  • Reply 16 of 39
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by josa92

    The only part of Apple that I don't like anymore is the iPod division. iPod pricing and features are just so contrived and out there, and there is such a little price difference between the nano and the regular iPod that I shame anyone who buys a nano. And the nano is just too small. Another thing, I hate the small craze. I mean, wtf? I'd rather have a sturdy, useable, SEE-ABLE item that works a zillion times better than some exprensive piece of crap that is so small and ridicuolous. [spelling?]

    Also, I was at the Apple store the other day and all of the friggen iPods looked like crap. All of them were really scratched and dingy-looking. No other



    And wthf is wrong with them for taking out the Firewire support????????????????????????????????? USB is so terribly slow that I CAN'T MOTHER FRIGGEN USE IT




    While I'd prefer they had Firewire, unless you only have USB 1 or have something wrong with your computer, the nano and 5G are fine using USB. USB 2.0 is very close in speed to Firewire that it's not an issue for most people with a portable media device. The exceptions are usually those people that bought computers from a certain fruit company that aren't sufficiently upgradable.



    The nano, aside from a minor scuffing issue, is likely the most durable iPod that was ever made, and the (hefty) premium paid for solid state storage is worth it for that and the compact size, for audio use.



    I like the nano because of its thin size and low weight, it is a lot easier to carry in my pocket, the full size unit is too large and heavy for me if all I am doing is playing audio. For video, I am willing to put up with a thicker and heavier unit, but I wouldn't be using it for that, I'd rather have a compact dedictated audio device and a larger video device than try to use the larger one for mostly audio use.
  • Reply 17 of 39
    josa92josa92 Posts: 193member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JeffDM

    While I'd prefer they had Firewire, unless you only have USB 1 or have something wrong with your computer, the nano and 5G are fine using USB. USB 2.0 is very close in speed to Firewire that it's not an issue for most people with a portable media device. The exceptions are usually those people that bought computers from a certain fruit company that aren't sufficiently upgradable.



    The nano, aside from a minor scuffing issue, is likely the most durable iPod that was ever made, and the (hefty) premium paid for solid state storage is worth it for that and the compact size, for audio use.



    I like the nano because of its thin size and low weight, it is a lot easier to carry in my pocket, the full size unit is too large and heavy for me if all I am doing is playing audio. For video, I am willing to put up with a thicker and heavier unit, but I wouldn't be using it for that, I'd rather have a compact dedictated audio device and a larger video device than try to use the larger one for mostly audio use.




    You make some very good points. But I still like my 4G.



    And your right about the samll pocket thing, but it doesn't hold enough music for me to pay 50 buks less for 26 GBs less.

    SO NONSENSICAL!!!!
  • Reply 18 of 39
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by josa92 And your right about the samll pocket thing, but it doesn't hold enough music for me to pay 50 buks less for 26 GBs less.

    SO NONSENSICAL!!!! [/B]



    With that reasoning, why not spend the extra $100 for another 30GB? Then you've graduated to a mini-brick in your pocket too.



    It's not about cost, but utility. I don't need a player to hold 30 or 60GB. I have iTunes automatically rotate played tracks, so it's refreshed on every docking, which is needed for charging anyway. I think I can manage pretty well with a 1GB unit, which is half the cost and still does the job. Some people use lossless audio, for that I can see that the standard iPod as being useful for a device primarily used for audio. But the full size unit isn't for everybody, and the mid-range unit isn't for everybody either.



    I try to be nice to what I have, but because of my job and a few accidental drops, I've had to have my 4G replaced because the hard drive endured too many bumps and dings. The nano still works fine and is a lot less obtrusive. For this device, I think it is worth paying a steeper per-gig price for "less", because that "less" is so much more durable for my day-to-day use and helps it fit that use better. I have to keep enough other things in my pocket that a small device is nice if it can do the job well, and it does.
  • Reply 19 of 39
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SpamSandwich

    75 to 90 minutes of video is totally unacceptable. Compared with a little portable Casio TV that runs off of 4 AA batteries, it's downright miserable. Perhaps when they switch to solid state memory they'll draw less power. I'll leave the engineering to those who know...



    A typical AA disposable alkaline cell has 2800mAh @ 1.5VDC (nominal). You can extrapolate this to be 4.2Wh per cell for 16.8Wh total. A top-end AA-sized LiIon cell has about 3.7Wh. And you can't even fit one in an iPod. The LiIon-polymer flat pack in the iPod most likely carries between 1200 and 1600mAh at 3.7VDC, hence yielding no more than 6Wh.



    So there it is. The Casio portable TV has a lot more juice, and it also has the advantage of not having to decode MPEG4 or whatever the iPod uses. Knocking out a Hilbert transform to decode analog TV is a lot less CPU/DSP intense than is MPEG.
  • Reply 20 of 39
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    The new Nano, Video, phone, camera! Not likely, but VERY COOL!



    http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/9424/
Sign In or Register to comment.