How many people do you know who watch movies on their iPod? In my case no-one. Everyone uses them strictly for music except one guy who plays the games. A bigger screen is u s e l e s s.
I use iPod for video probably more than music, although the vast majority of that is on a TV screen through the output cable.
I'd love to upgrade my shuffle to a mini with that configuration, even though I wouldn't watch much video on that screen, I'd still much prefer the bigger one over the current nano size.
Get rid of the clickwheel. It was an advance in it's day. Touchscreen is now the state of the art.
Interesting idea, but not the best for everything. Newest isn't always best.
For working out or in the car, I'd much rather keep the clickwheel than a touchscreen. Not to mention I'd hate to try and do touchscreen on a tiny nano screen, not to mention the shuffle. I'd bet touchscreen is a fair amount more expensive as well, and on a cheaper model the low price means more to me than a touchscreen. And if the #2 model had touchscreen/widescreen, why even bother having those two models?
Both interfaces have advantages on different models and in different situations. I don't think clickwheel will go away completely for years, if ever.
Best Buy and Target retailers across the US have all but run out of the flash-based player on shelves and in warehouses.
If the new ones look like that, my guess is they'll have the opposite problem for the next few months.
Between the iMac, the Mac Pro, the Leopard interface and this if it comes out to be true, Apple's design team have really just lost it over the past few years IMO. I agree that design shouldn't take precedence over function but with Apple it does and if they screw up the design then what do they have left?
What I could see though is that Apple are doing to their ipod lineup what they do to their desktop lineup. Cripple the low end models with low spec or ugly appearance in order to push sales of the more expensive model.
If that is indeed the new ipod video, then it's yet another lame update from the lazy buggers in Cupertino. 'We have an iMac, how do we update the lineup. Oh just change the colors and change the GPU for one that's the same price and maybe take some money off'. 'We have an ipod, how do we update it. Oh just make it a little bit shorter.'
We should have a little discussion about the Golden Ratio.
Exactly, but the given example does not fit the golden ratio that I can tell. If you go by the outer dimensions, it's too square, too wide for its height or too short for its width. The current nano needs to be .6" / 15mm wider to make it fit the golden ratio. A hypothetical golden ratio nano would make it about halfway between the current nano and the mock-up. There are other ways to fit it in, a 16:10 display would qualify, but that would look pretty weird unless you rotate the screen.
We should have a little discussion about the Golden Ratio.
O/T, but the Golden Ratio in great art is a myth--a cool myth I'd love to believe, but a myth with only pseudoscientific support: none of the great artists actually used it, and you can find a Golden Ratio (or ANY random proportion pulled from a hat) in ANY piece of art, if you decide to find it and aren't too picky about exactness. Read this excellent book:
Interesting idea, but not the best for everything. Newest isn't always best.
For working out or in the car, I'd much rather keep the clickwheel than a touchscreen. Not to mention I'd hate to try and do touchscreen on a tiny nano screen, not to mention the shuffle. I'd bet touchscreen is a fair amount more expensive as well, and on a cheaper model the low price means more to me than a touchscreen. And if the #2 model had touchscreen/widescreen, why even bother having those two models?
Both interfaces have advantages on different models and in different situations. I don't think clickwheel will go away completely for years, if ever.
For a nano and shuffle I would keep the clickwheel. For a video iPod, I think the touch screen interface is the way to go. Get rid of the buttons and use the entire screen.
O/T, but the Golden Ratio in great art is a myth--a cool myth I'd love to believe, but a myth with only pseudoscientific support: none of the great artists actually used it, and you can find a Golden Ratio (or ANY random proportion pulled from a hat) in ANY piece of art, if you decide to find it and aren't too picky about exactness. Read this excellent book:
Now, the Golden Ratio in NATURE is not a myth. And pretty cool to read about. But that's nothing to do with rectangles.
Of course you can find anything anywhere. But that doesn't invalidate that a golden rectangle is prettier. Incidentally, I just happened to find that the iPod mini is pretty close to it...
For a nano and shuffle I would keep the clickwheel. For a video iPod, I think the touch screen interface is the way to go. Get rid of the buttons and use the entire screen.
It would be nice to have a clickwheel on the Shuffle for sure and a tiny screen to at least view basic song info. I like Sony's comparable product with screen.
Of course you can find anything anywhere. But that doesn't invalidate that a golden rectangle is prettier. Incidentally, I just happened to find that the iPod mini is pretty close to it...
If they must use the old iPod 5 screen, it means they're making it game and video compatible. But they should've tilted the screen in standing position with just 2-3 mm wider iPod nano form factor.. would kind of work. Perhaps a little cramped finger position for the rotation finger..
While pictures can give an idea of what this iPod might be I think you'll need to hold the final version in your hand before making a final decision on how good a design it is. In this area I'll trust Jonathan I & Steve J to deliver something that a lot of people will buy.
The other side of the coin is the potential of using OS X in this and other iPods and how that will impact the overall design. That means you not only have to hold it in your hands, but play with it a bit.
I'm not going with a first reaction from the picture - I'll wait and see what is released and what it does. Then I might actually reach for my credit card.
And what if this is actually new, 6G, iPod, and there won't be a touchscreen version (or the t-screen version will be a new member of the family and be called video iPod or sth)
But change comes anyway--and brings benefits with it.
If you think 'ugly' just really means 'different' and change always brings benefits, then take a gander at this and tell me with a straight face this car is not ugly: http://www.humans.com/pages/ugliestcar.shtml
Comments
How many people do you know who watch movies on their iPod? In my case no-one. Everyone uses them strictly for music except one guy who plays the games. A bigger screen is u s e l e s s.
I use iPod for video probably more than music, although the vast majority of that is on a TV screen through the output cable.
I'd love to upgrade my shuffle to a mini with that configuration, even though I wouldn't watch much video on that screen, I'd still much prefer the bigger one over the current nano size.
All NOTHING more than words for "different."
But change comes anyway--and brings benefits with it.
If people were using a wide nano NOW, and a tall, thin one were rumored, the press would be sobbing "ugly, skinny, spindly, and out of proportion."
Rumor or real, it's laughable to call a certain rectangle "out of proportion" as though it's some law of nature all can agree on.
People said the same about the current video iPod. (Which ironically shares the same dimensions as the "better proportioned" previous one.)
How many times do I need to say this - IT IS NOT THE NEW iPod nano!!
Well, I guess it's settled then.
Personally, I want the biggest screen in the smallest form factor. This seems to be the best way to do it on a model that still has a clickwheel.
Get rid of the clickwheel. It was an advance in it's day. Touchscreen is now the state of the art.
Get rid of the clickwheel. It was an advance in it's day. Touchscreen is now the state of the art.
Interesting idea, but not the best for everything. Newest isn't always best.
For working out or in the car, I'd much rather keep the clickwheel than a touchscreen. Not to mention I'd hate to try and do touchscreen on a tiny nano screen, not to mention the shuffle. I'd bet touchscreen is a fair amount more expensive as well, and on a cheaper model the low price means more to me than a touchscreen. And if the #2 model had touchscreen/widescreen, why even bother having those two models?
Both interfaces have advantages on different models and in different situations. I don't think clickwheel will go away completely for years, if ever.
"squat, out-of-proportion look" etc. etc.
All NOTHING more than words for "different."
But change comes anyway--and brings benefits with it.
If people were using a wide nano NOW, and a tall, thin one were rumored, the press would be sobbing "ugly, skinny, spindly, and out of proportion."
Rumor or real, it's laughable to call a certain rectangle "out of proportion" as though it's some law of nature all can agree on.
People said the same about the current video iPod. (Which ironically shares the same dimensions as the "better proportioned" previous one.)
We should have a little discussion about the Golden Ratio.
Best Buy and Target retailers across the US have all but run out of the flash-based player on shelves and in warehouses.
If the new ones look like that, my guess is they'll have the opposite problem for the next few months.
Between the iMac, the Mac Pro, the Leopard interface and this if it comes out to be true, Apple's design team have really just lost it over the past few years IMO. I agree that design shouldn't take precedence over function but with Apple it does and if they screw up the design then what do they have left?
What I could see though is that Apple are doing to their ipod lineup what they do to their desktop lineup. Cripple the low end models with low spec or ugly appearance in order to push sales of the more expensive model.
If that is indeed the new ipod video, then it's yet another lame update from the lazy buggers in Cupertino. 'We have an iMac, how do we update the lineup. Oh just change the colors and change the GPU for one that's the same price and maybe take some money off'. 'We have an ipod, how do we update it. Oh just make it a little bit shorter.'
We should have a little discussion about the Golden Ratio.
Exactly, but the given example does not fit the golden ratio that I can tell. If you go by the outer dimensions, it's too square, too wide for its height or too short for its width. The current nano needs to be .6" / 15mm wider to make it fit the golden ratio. A hypothetical golden ratio nano would make it about halfway between the current nano and the mock-up. There are other ways to fit it in, a 16:10 display would qualify, but that would look pretty weird unless you rotate the screen.
We should have a little discussion about the Golden Ratio.
O/T, but the Golden Ratio in great art is a myth--a cool myth I'd love to believe, but a myth with only pseudoscientific support: none of the great artists actually used it, and you can find a Golden Ratio (or ANY random proportion pulled from a hat) in ANY piece of art, if you decide to find it and aren't too picky about exactness. Read this excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Ratio-W.../dp/0767908163
Now, the Golden Ratio in NATURE is not a myth. And pretty cool to read about. But that's nothing to do with rectangles.
Interesting idea, but not the best for everything. Newest isn't always best.
For working out or in the car, I'd much rather keep the clickwheel than a touchscreen. Not to mention I'd hate to try and do touchscreen on a tiny nano screen, not to mention the shuffle. I'd bet touchscreen is a fair amount more expensive as well, and on a cheaper model the low price means more to me than a touchscreen. And if the #2 model had touchscreen/widescreen, why even bother having those two models?
Both interfaces have advantages on different models and in different situations. I don't think clickwheel will go away completely for years, if ever.
For a nano and shuffle I would keep the clickwheel. For a video iPod, I think the touch screen interface is the way to go. Get rid of the buttons and use the entire screen.
O/T, but the Golden Ratio in great art is a myth--a cool myth I'd love to believe, but a myth with only pseudoscientific support: none of the great artists actually used it, and you can find a Golden Ratio (or ANY random proportion pulled from a hat) in ANY piece of art, if you decide to find it and aren't too picky about exactness. Read this excellent book:
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Ratio-W.../dp/0767908163
Now, the Golden Ratio in NATURE is not a myth. And pretty cool to read about. But that's nothing to do with rectangles.
Of course you can find anything anywhere. But that doesn't invalidate that a golden rectangle is prettier. Incidentally, I just happened to find that the iPod mini is pretty close to it...
/Adrian
For a nano and shuffle I would keep the clickwheel. For a video iPod, I think the touch screen interface is the way to go. Get rid of the buttons and use the entire screen.
It would be nice to have a clickwheel on the Shuffle for sure and a tiny screen to at least view basic song info. I like Sony's comparable product with screen.
Of course you can find anything anywhere. But that doesn't invalidate that a golden rectangle is prettier. Incidentally, I just happened to find that the iPod mini is pretty close to it...
/Adrian
Or at least closer than the Fatboy.
The other side of the coin is the potential of using OS X in this and other iPods and how that will impact the overall design. That means you not only have to hold it in your hands, but play with it a bit.
I'm not going with a first reaction from the picture - I'll wait and see what is released and what it does. Then I might actually reach for my credit card.
"squat, out-of-proportion look" etc. etc.
All NOTHING more than words for "different."
But change comes anyway--and brings benefits with it.
If you think 'ugly' just really means 'different' and change always brings benefits, then take a gander at this and tell me with a straight face this car is not ugly: http://www.humans.com/pages/ugliestcar.shtml