I like this new feature set, but I would have preferred keeping the nano as-is, small, but still with a real interface, unlike the shuffle. I still like my 2 gig 1st gen nano; the size and shape are unbeatable for what it offers. Bringing back the mini alongside the nano would have been my decision, but alas, I do not run Apple, as I lack the business acuity.
Otherwise, yeah the new shape is a lot less horrifying than it seemed earlier.
My only disappointment was that they only offer 4 and 8 GB models for the new nano. If they sold a 16 GB version of this new player for US$250 I'd buy one in no time flat!
My only disappointment was that they only offer 4 and 8 GB models for the new nano. If they sold a 16 GB version of this new player for US$250 I'd buy one in no time flat!
I guess I'm going to be one of the few nay-sayers. I think people who say they like it will soon have the novelty wear off, and practicality will set in. Folks who bought the nano didn't always buy it because they couldn't afford a full-size iPod. They bought it because it was all they needed and it was tiny, yet still allowed them to navigate their music collection.
I really don't think these same folks give a crap about being able to play back video or even fancy new Cover Flow graphics. The nano is what they took to the gym with them. It offered good capacity and a screen, the shuffle provides neither. I've NEVER seen anyone with a nano look at photos on it. And I really don't think it was because the screen was too small. It was because they didn't want or need to look at photos. They just wanted to play their music.
I predict that nano sales are going to drop with this revision. Shuffle sales will likely increase in response, but I think there will be a lot of people less-than-satisfied with that option due to it being limited to 1 GB and no navigation. The iPod touch and iPod classic will be overkill for their needs. And those who do buy a nano will do so not because it's what they want, but because they have no choice. They will get the new nano, and they will never watch a video on it, never load a picture, and the novelty of Cover Flow will quickly wear off. Then they will be stuck carrying around a fat nano with a uselessly big screen.
It won't be a failure, but it's definitely not going to live up to the success of the previous nano model...any bets as to when a nano classic is released?
I guess I'm going to be one of the few nay-sayers. I think people who say they like it will soon have the novelty wear off, and practicality will set in. Folks who bought the nano didn't always buy it because they couldn't afford a full-size iPod. They bought it because it was all they needed and it was tiny, yet still allowed them to navigate their music collection.
I really don't think these same folks give a crap about being able to play back video or even fancy new Cover Flow graphics. The nano is what they took to the gym with them. It offered good capacity and a screen, the shuffle provides neither. I've NEVER seen anyone with a nano look at photos on it. And I really don't think it was because the screen was too small. It was because they didn't want or need to look at photos. They just wanted to play their music.
I predict that nano sales are going to drop with this revision. Shuffle sales will likely increase in response, but I think there will be a lot of people less-than-satisfied with that option due to it being limited to 1 GB and no navigation. The iPod touch and iPod classic will be overkill for their needs. And those who do buy a nano will do so not because it's what they want, but because they have no choice. They will get the new nano, and they will never watch a video on it, never load a picture, and the novelty of Cover Flow will quickly wear off. Then they will be stuck carrying around a fat nano with a uselessly big screen.
It won't be a failure, but it's definitely not going to live up to the success of the previous nano model...any bets as to when a nano classic is released?
Buddy, please put the crack pipe down.
The old Nano was 6.5 mm x 40 mm x 90 mm.
The new Nano is 6.5 mm x 52.3 mm x 69.8 mm.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
Ok, ok, dude...I'll admit I over-reacted as long as you do the same. The photos look fugly. I didn't initially realize how much shorter the new nano is, which makes the proportions all the more wrong, from an aesthetic stand point (it looks like an old style blackberry). And it's not so much the extra width as it is the reason for the extra width. They are bloating it with features (video) that 99% of users will never use. (A poster on another forum said Apple is getting more and more like MS all the time.)
I still think, relative to overall iPod sales, nano sales will decline. There is now a gap in the lineup between the shuffle and the new nano. And it's my opinion that the sweet-spot is in the middle of that gap, formally occupied by the 2nd gen nano.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
No, wrong. We are not complaining about the 1.23 centimeters in gained width. We are complaining about the change in its aspect ratio which went from 9:4 to approx. 7:5 and that is what makes it APPEAR "fatter." I haven't seen one in person yet, but I still think the pictures of it are ugly. A device that size has no need to play video anyway.
Actually, there is one big issue about the new nano: when are we going to get the third-part protective cases? I don't want to wait forever for the likes of Belkin, DLO, Speck Products, etc. to come out with protective cases that properly fit the new nano (it took these companies months to come out with cases that properly fit the 2G nano).
That's just the reality of the tech, at the moment. To keep the Nano small as it is, Apple has to use flash memory. To keep the price points, they have to keep capacity about where it is.
This, of course, will change, and we can expect 16 and 32 GB Nanos when flash drive prices have dropped enough-- certainly by next summer, maybe sooner.
They would do better, IMO, to offer multi touch full screen with an HDD model. An 80GB HDD doesn't cost much more than a 16GB flash drive (might be less, depends on how fast flash memory is falling), so they could offer a much higher capacity iPod Touch for the same money, and just make it a little thicker.
I can just feel Jobs itching to get rid of HDD models altogether, the way he got rid of CRT monitors. You just know those, dirty, dirty moving parts keeps him awake at night.
Yes, battery life, cost, and size played a role in the iPod touch/iPhone storage decision. But in the bigger picture, wiFi everywhere will reduce the need for huge amounts of local storage. We don't have wifi everywhere yet but Apple is going to drive its growth by making it incredibly desirable, so you'd be willing to pay something for it, thus, giving companies incentive to install it everywhere.
Why would you want it? To access your own content (music, video, podcast library) from anywhere once Leopard and a new .Mac arrives, and if the rumors come true, to access your rented content from your .Mac virtual locker.
Ok, ok, dude...I'll admit I over-reacted as long as you do the same. The photos look fugly. I didn't initially realize how much shorter the new nano is, which makes the proportions all the more wrong, from an aesthetic stand point (it looks like an old style blackberry). And it's not so much the extra width as it is the reason for the extra width. They are bloating it with features (video) that 99% of users will never use. (A poster on another forum said Apple is getting more and more like MS all the time.)
I still think, relative to overall iPod sales, nano sales will decline. There is now a gap in the lineup between the shuffle and the new nano. And it's my opinion that the sweet-spot is in the middle of that gap, formally occupied by the 2nd gen nano.
I over reacted too.
And I think you're wrong, this will be very popular and lots of people that didn't dabble in video will now.
Like someone else said in this thread the entry point for video just lowered a hundred bucks.
Comments
Otherwise, yeah the new shape is a lot less horrifying than it seemed earlier.
except for the classic! looks so bulky and antiquated...
the fatty actually looks decent, slightly disappointed there's only solid state memory in the touch, understandable due to power consumption tho.
the whole new lineup is very sexy....
except for the classic! looks so bulky and antiquated...
the fatty actually looks decent, slightly disappointed there's only solid state memory in the touch, understandable due to power consumption tho.
I think the "bulky and antiquated" bit has something to do with the flash only touch, as well.
My only disappointment was that they only offer 4 and 8 GB models for the new nano. If they sold a 16 GB version of this new player for US$250 I'd buy one in no time flat!
I think you mean 'no time phat'.
I think you mean 'no time phat'.
it's fugly. Or maybe... phugly. the big screen looks top heavy. the shape is uncomfortably squarish. the old nano was sexy.
big screen is nice tho'.
I really don't think these same folks give a crap about being able to play back video or even fancy new Cover Flow graphics. The nano is what they took to the gym with them. It offered good capacity and a screen, the shuffle provides neither. I've NEVER seen anyone with a nano look at photos on it. And I really don't think it was because the screen was too small. It was because they didn't want or need to look at photos. They just wanted to play their music.
I predict that nano sales are going to drop with this revision. Shuffle sales will likely increase in response, but I think there will be a lot of people less-than-satisfied with that option due to it being limited to 1 GB and no navigation. The iPod touch and iPod classic will be overkill for their needs. And those who do buy a nano will do so not because it's what they want, but because they have no choice. They will get the new nano, and they will never watch a video on it, never load a picture, and the novelty of Cover Flow will quickly wear off. Then they will be stuck carrying around a fat nano with a uselessly big screen.
It won't be a failure, but it's definitely not going to live up to the success of the previous nano model...any bets as to when a nano classic is released?
I guess I'm going to be one of the few nay-sayers. I think people who say they like it will soon have the novelty wear off, and practicality will set in. Folks who bought the nano didn't always buy it because they couldn't afford a full-size iPod. They bought it because it was all they needed and it was tiny, yet still allowed them to navigate their music collection.
I really don't think these same folks give a crap about being able to play back video or even fancy new Cover Flow graphics. The nano is what they took to the gym with them. It offered good capacity and a screen, the shuffle provides neither. I've NEVER seen anyone with a nano look at photos on it. And I really don't think it was because the screen was too small. It was because they didn't want or need to look at photos. They just wanted to play their music.
I predict that nano sales are going to drop with this revision. Shuffle sales will likely increase in response, but I think there will be a lot of people less-than-satisfied with that option due to it being limited to 1 GB and no navigation. The iPod touch and iPod classic will be overkill for their needs. And those who do buy a nano will do so not because it's what they want, but because they have no choice. They will get the new nano, and they will never watch a video on it, never load a picture, and the novelty of Cover Flow will quickly wear off. Then they will be stuck carrying around a fat nano with a uselessly big screen.
It won't be a failure, but it's definitely not going to live up to the success of the previous nano model...any bets as to when a nano classic is released?
Buddy, please put the crack pipe down.
The old Nano was 6.5 mm x 40 mm x 90 mm.
The new Nano is 6.5 mm x 52.3 mm x 69.8 mm.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatso_the_Fat-Arsed_Wombat
How do you find stuff like that?
Buddy, please put the crack pipe down.
The old Nano was 6.5 mm x 40 mm x 90 mm.
The new Nano is 6.5 mm x 52.3 mm x 69.8 mm.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
Ok, ok, dude...I'll admit I over-reacted as long as you do the same. The photos look fugly. I didn't initially realize how much shorter the new nano is, which makes the proportions all the more wrong, from an aesthetic stand point (it looks like an old style blackberry). And it's not so much the extra width as it is the reason for the extra width. They are bloating it with features (video) that 99% of users will never use. (A poster on another forum said Apple is getting more and more like MS all the time.)
I still think, relative to overall iPod sales, nano sales will decline. There is now a gap in the lineup between the shuffle and the new nano. And it's my opinion that the sweet-spot is in the middle of that gap, formally occupied by the 2nd gen nano.
Buddy, please put the crack pipe down.
The old Nano was 6.5 mm x 40 mm x 90 mm.
The new Nano is 6.5 mm x 52.3 mm x 69.8 mm.
It just as thin. It is shorter. It is 12.3mm wider.
You are complaining about 1.23 centimeters or 0.48425197 inches.
Just hold one and realize how wrong you are.
"OMFGWTFBBQ TEH NEW PHAT NANO IS TOTALLY GHEY, STEVEY ADDED MOAR WIDNESSES!"
You people are bitch about less than half a friggin inch! Your coin pocket will fit it, it fits my cell phone for pete's sake.
No, wrong. We are not complaining about the 1.23 centimeters in gained width. We are complaining about the change in its aspect ratio which went from 9:4 to approx. 7:5 and that is what makes it APPEAR "fatter." I haven't seen one in person yet, but I still think the pictures of it are ugly. A device that size has no need to play video anyway.
The entry point for video has been lowered by $100. That's significant.
That's just the reality of the tech, at the moment. To keep the Nano small as it is, Apple has to use flash memory. To keep the price points, they have to keep capacity about where it is.
This, of course, will change, and we can expect 16 and 32 GB Nanos when flash drive prices have dropped enough-- certainly by next summer, maybe sooner.
They would do better, IMO, to offer multi touch full screen with an HDD model. An 80GB HDD doesn't cost much more than a 16GB flash drive (might be less, depends on how fast flash memory is falling), so they could offer a much higher capacity iPod Touch for the same money, and just make it a little thicker.
I can just feel Jobs itching to get rid of HDD models altogether, the way he got rid of CRT monitors. You just know those, dirty, dirty moving parts keeps him awake at night.
Yes, battery life, cost, and size played a role in the iPod touch/iPhone storage decision. But in the bigger picture, wiFi everywhere will reduce the need for huge amounts of local storage. We don't have wifi everywhere yet but Apple is going to drive its growth by making it incredibly desirable, so you'd be willing to pay something for it, thus, giving companies incentive to install it everywhere.
Why would you want it? To access your own content (music, video, podcast library) from anywhere once Leopard and a new .Mac arrives, and if the rumors come true, to access your rented content from your .Mac virtual locker.
Ok, ok, dude...I'll admit I over-reacted as long as you do the same. The photos look fugly. I didn't initially realize how much shorter the new nano is, which makes the proportions all the more wrong, from an aesthetic stand point (it looks like an old style blackberry). And it's not so much the extra width as it is the reason for the extra width. They are bloating it with features (video) that 99% of users will never use. (A poster on another forum said Apple is getting more and more like MS all the time.)
I still think, relative to overall iPod sales, nano sales will decline. There is now a gap in the lineup between the shuffle and the new nano. And it's my opinion that the sweet-spot is in the middle of that gap, formally occupied by the 2nd gen nano.
I over reacted too.
And I think you're wrong, this will be very popular and lots of people that didn't dabble in video will now.
Like someone else said in this thread the entry point for video just lowered a hundred bucks.
Wu agrees....not that that means anything.