High-quality photos of Apple's second-gen iPod nano
While Apple's updated fifth-gen video iPods are not as widely available as expected, the new second-gen iPod nanos began arriving in the United States in somewhat limited quantities on Wednesday.
Each new nano ships in a completely translucent, hard plastic container that elegantly showcases the player while neatly tucking away the few accessories it includes.
Along with the iPod, Apple packs a pair of headphones, an accessory adapter, USB cable and iPod nano Quick Start booklet. The player no longer ships with a protective sleeve.
Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock.
Similarly, users will also have to plunk down extra change for a new pair of iPod nano lanyard head phones -- the new nano's headphone jack is spaced further away from the dock connector.
We'll definitely have a lot more to say about the new nano after some thorough testing. In the meantime, please enjoy the following unboxing photos.
Each new nano ships in a completely translucent, hard plastic container that elegantly showcases the player while neatly tucking away the few accessories it includes.
Along with the iPod, Apple packs a pair of headphones, an accessory adapter, USB cable and iPod nano Quick Start booklet. The player no longer ships with a protective sleeve.
Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock.
Similarly, users will also have to plunk down extra change for a new pair of iPod nano lanyard head phones -- the new nano's headphone jack is spaced further away from the dock connector.
We'll definitely have a lot more to say about the new nano after some thorough testing. In the meantime, please enjoy the following unboxing photos.
Comments
Ian
Love the pictures. Doesn't the plastic enclosing sorta look like a cassette tape case?
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Ian
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Ian
since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.
though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
Steve said the packaging was more environmentally friendly than the old Nano packaging.
I can't really see that being the case as this new case is plastic and the old one was cardboard.
While it may be smaller and therefore cheaper to ship (and save some fuel in the process), it must be not as environmentally easy to make or more importantly dispose of.
The old box was biodegradable (cardboard), this is plastic and will never degrade I suspect. Well not for many, many years. Seems a backward environmental step to me.
Ian
Most plastics are recyclable. Look for the recycle symbol on the plastic.
since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.
though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
Also, plastics are one of the products that are made from crude oil. Whether that material is, I don't know but the plastics industry is where a lot of crude goes.
since the packaging is half the size of the original nano, they can fit twice as many on a container ship, and hence burn half as much fuel. thats what steve explained.
though if the new materials are twice as caustic i would say it is net draw.
That was a pretty questionable rationalization, but less unnecessary packaging is always better.
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
Third parties should be making their docks compatible with the insert plate that's included with iPods. That was the entire point of the things, so they can design one product that will be compatible with most future iPods - though shuffle is still an exception with no dock connector. If they design it with the insert pocket, then it's just a matter of swapping out the insert plate.
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
Just because the dock connnector is offset doesn't mean the new Nano won't work with ANY accessories... it just means it won't work with ALL accessories. I'm sure a lot of accessories made for multiple iPod models will continue to work just fine. Many the Nano won't fit exactly perfectly, but it should connect just fine and unless the accessory is being banged around a lot what's to make the Nano come out?
BTW... I think iPod accessories manufacturers need to make their accessories more... open to various iPod shapes and sizes since Apple often quite dramatically changes the size of the iPod (something with adjustible width and height, for example).
"Although the new nano is precisely the same height and width of its predecessor, Apple has conveniently (for its margins) offset the dock connector by about a millimeter, making the new nano completely incompatible with the first-generation iPod nano dock. "
Although i own a considerable number of shares of apple and am sympathetic to the company's profit motive, this strikes me as customer abuse. Doesn't it mean all the second-party devices that dock the 'pod, such as the many different speaker products (I own several iHome units, for example) won't function with the new nanos until the devices' manufacturers produce new dock adapters--if at all?
IF this is the case, it's just bad business. If it were any company but apple, i'd say they deserved a punishing customer response--a reluctance to buy, for example, because of the consequences of the changes. No, wait: even if it's apple, that'd be deserved. I look forward to learning more about the consequences of the changes. Say it ain't so.
If you own one of Apple's Universal docks, the dock adapter, included in the packaging, (look at the picture, far left) will allow the new Nano to fit the dock. That's why Apple went to the Universal dock with adapters for each model in the first place, in order to reduce the number of model-specific docks they'd have to make.
More customer-friendly, I'd say!
They don't really hate it, as it gives them even more sales, as people who buy the new product often buy a new accessory, even expensive speakers.
But, it's correct to say that this problem can be mostly taken care of with a new insert. But, this time, with the commectors moved apart somewhat, if companies use both (unusual), it won't fit, no matter what.
They would then have to make an extender to adapt it.
Talk about a small area of focus. Back that camera up so 95% of it isn't all blur.
Those photos are macro shots... that's how macro focus is....
Best,
Kasper