...the first shipments of Apple's new iPod "tubby" nano -- aka iPod "fatboy", iPod "phatty", iPod "bilbo", iPod "stubby", and iPod "biggie smalls" -- began cropping up...
Good God, Kasper. We know you like to pretend to be a journalist, but at least make sure to keep your objectivity when you do so. So you like making fun of the thing. Fine, but keep it out of your articles.
In my experience, the album art takes a negligible amount of space. If you added the album art yourself, it might be embedded into the music file anyway.
I guess my main concern is with screen real estate - I'd like to use all of it for menus. I use my iPod for teaching and it would be nice to have more space for track names, etc. rather than (IMHO) waste it with artwork that I have no interest in.
Hopefully a review (or user) will say if it's configurable.
I'm really happy the Nano now plays video, but I'm not sure I'm 'McLovin' the new form factor.
I realize that many will find it adorable, but to me the length to width ratio is just too messed up. Despite the thinness, the thing doesn't look sleek at all. \
On the plus side, the iPod Touch is beyond gorgeous, even better-looking than the iPhone (so glad they lost the chrome border). And thumbs-up on most of the new Shuffle colors, especially (Project) red and sage.
"Oh no, within 5 seconds we had minor scratches on the back of the nano and we hadn't even turned it on yet"
BOO HOOOOOO, my nano looks like I've actually used it!
I hate when it looks like I've been using it!
Why can't it stay in the pristine state that I purchased it in?
Why must using it cause it to look like I've been using it?
BOOO HOOO
SHUT UP ALREADY!
I'm sure you can too.
I don't think you really understand this. You imply that none of us understand that wear and tear is normal. That's not the problem, and I think you should know better than that. What you don't seem to understand is that a product that's going to be handled a lot shouldn't be abnormally sensitive to scratches. It's supposedly an intentional design choice, but I've never checked anywhere to confirm this.
OK so let's just look at how healthy he looks -- forget the ultra-thin (anorectic?) previous model.
You mean "anorexic"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinney57
I'm starting to really really like 'Fatboy Slim'. Watching video on that is really quite an awesome thought. That's the wifes birthday present sorted. (I'm a man therfore I need the full 160GB baby)
Heh. "Fatboy Slim" is a perfect term for it. A pity anyone under 25 would have no idea what the reference really is...
"Included with each of the new video-capable players is a Quick Start guide, dock adapter, USB charging cord, and a pair of second-generation iPod earbuds."
I still find it difficult to understand why apple won't manufacture colour-coded ear-buds for the non white iPods. even just a black set would be good for people without a white iPod!!
Oh, and I quite like the new design - when you hold it in your hand (Yes get yourself down to an apple store) it does seem really much nicer than any of the photos. It grew instantly on me as soon as I picked one up.
It's called iPod porn. Do a search on previous articles and see all the hot, sexy goodness that Kasper can muster with a macro lens.
Yes, it is unnecessary.
"Hot" and "sexy" aren't the adjectives that come to mind so much as "unnecessary" and "detracting." Macro photography isn't about shallow depth of field, it's about detail. If the photos are supposed to be "high-quality", you should be trying to maximize the clarity of the subject matter, not try to show off some expensive lens you bought. Why not throw in some Photoshop lens flares for good measure? Those are always cool, right?
its not that i care too much about people i don't know, because - that would be dumb.
its that people make stupid comments about a device they have purchased, about a design that has been around for years now.
if you don't like the aesthetic, say so.
but backhanded comments about the design by saying "oh, our precious nano had scratches on it the second we took it out of the box" is only really understandable if you've been living under a rock for the past few years and have never seen an iPod before.
realising of course that this is appleinsider, and that the author has had some experience with the iPod before, i find this a childish and immature comment about the shiny aluminum design.
don't get me wrong, i'm not crazy about the shiny back, but its not ugly, and my iPod doesn't look ugly when it has scratches or smudges on the back. i appreciate the "used" look. i don't need the device to look like i just bought it.
perhaps this is an image thing? an "i spent lots of money on an ipod and i need it to look good so i can show it off" thing.
and i do understand what the article reads - maybe you didn't understand what i wrote - which was frustration with the whining about the scratches. i don't need the motherly "you should know better" because i understand what the words means - how can you assume that i'm implying "none of you" understand what wear and tear is? and what is "abnormally sensitive" for a shiny metal? hmmm... lets think on that one for a second...
and of course its an intentional design choice!? um, let me introduce you to this company called Apple... they focus on their award winning design... you know... intentionally...
its not that i care too much about people i don't know, because - that would be dumb.
its that people make stupid comments about a device they have purchased, about a design that has been around for years now.
The problem I see in that explanation is that because it's been a common complaint for several years, Apple has had several years to improve on it. There are other harder, yet shiny surface treatments available but they aren't used. The thing I liked about the 2nd gen nano is that it isn't so sensitive, I've been using it for a year. It does show some wear, but only a little more than a week's worth of wear with respect to Apple's shiny backs.
Quote:
and of course its an intentional design choice!? um, let me introduce you to this company called Apple... they focus on their award winning design... you know... intentionally...
No, not intentional as in shiny, as in it's intentionally sensitive to scratching. As I said above, it is possible to get something as shiny without resorting such a sensitive surface.
I don't agree that because people complain about the scratchy, shiny back that it is a poor design choice, or that it should be changed because people complain about it.
My *guess* is that its not that big of a problem, or maybe its not really a big complaint, which is what brings me back to my claim that those who continually complain about it are whiners. Like I said, its not my first design choice, but it is far from a bad design choice.
Do you really think its "intentionally sensitive?" It doesn't make much sense to pick a material that is intentionally sensitive to scratches. I'm sure there are other reasons behind the design choice - but lets face it - Apple is selling loads of iPods. Apple is going to sell loads of their new iPods, all of which are in their Nth revision, and all of which sport the shiny back (save for the Shuffle). Either nobody cares, or its easy to overlook the scratches, because, here we are, at revision N with the shiny backs.
It still frustrates me, after revision N, that people still whine and bitch - after they purchased the product! It would make more sense to me to not purchase the product if you are not happy with its design.
Do you really think its "intentionally sensitive?" It doesn't make much sense to pick a material that is intentionally sensitive to scratches.
From what I've heard, the material was chosen that way so that owners would baby it and "bond" with the product. I've even seen one AI poster praise it as an ingenious marketing tactic. I can't really come up with an alternate explanation as to why it scratches or dulls so easily.
Quote:
It still frustrates me, after revision N, that people still whine and bitch - after they purchased the product! It would make more sense to me to not purchase the product if you are not happy with its design.
In this case, I think it's only the article writer, it doesn't look like the people commenting on it in this thread actually bought one or intend to buy one anyway.
My iPods (almost) always stay in their cases so it's not an issue with me. If you stick in your purse, pocket, backpack, etc. all the time without a case then yeah, it's going to get scratched up. ANYTHING will to some extent.
My iPods (almost) always stay in their cases so it's not an issue with me. If you stick in your purse, pocket, backpack, etc. all the time without a case then yeah, it's going to get scratched up. ANYTHING will to some extent.
No one has denied that, it's just a matter of degree. Everything scratches eventually, but most portable electronics seem to use more scratch-resistant materials. Left unprotected, my phones have taken maybe as much as a year to show the same amount of scuffing my iPod would take in maybe a week. Having your customers keep them in a protective case kind of defeats the point of trying to make the prettiest devices.
No one has denied that, it's just a matter of degree. Everything scratches eventually, but most portable electronics seem to use more scratch-resistant materials. Left unprotected, my phones have taken maybe as much as a year to show the same amount of scuffing my iPod would take in maybe a week. Having your customers keep them in a protective case kind of defeats the point of trying to make the prettiest devices.
i second that, i had my 3rd iPod with out protective skin, full of scratches, but i do not like the skin/covers, it defeats the purpose...
wish iPod's back panel all changed similar to iPhone's back panel
Comments
...the first shipments of Apple's new iPod "tubby" nano -- aka iPod "fatboy", iPod "phatty", iPod "bilbo", iPod "stubby", and iPod "biggie smalls" -- began cropping up...
Good God, Kasper. We know you like to pretend to be a journalist, but at least make sure to keep your objectivity when you do so. So you like making fun of the thing. Fine, but keep it out of your articles.
I think you guys overdid it a bit with the shallow-depth-of-field thing. This isn't the food channel, making half the photo blurry is just annoying.
It's called iPod porn. Do a search on previous articles and see all the hot, sexy goodness that Kasper can muster with a macro lens.
Yes, it is unnecessary.
In my experience, the album art takes a negligible amount of space. If you added the album art yourself, it might be embedded into the music file anyway.
I guess my main concern is with screen real estate - I'd like to use all of it for menus. I use my iPod for teaching and it would be nice to have more space for track names, etc. rather than (IMHO) waste it with artwork that I have no interest in.
Hopefully a review (or user) will say if it's configurable.
I realize that many will find it adorable, but to me the length to width ratio is just too messed up. Despite the thinness, the thing doesn't look sleek at all.
On the plus side, the iPod Touch is beyond gorgeous, even better-looking than the iPhone (so glad they lost the chrome border). And thumbs-up on most of the new Shuffle colors, especially (Project) red and sage.
.
Ye shall call it the fatboy nano and none other henceforth!
Nope. In homage to Bob and Doug MacKenzie, I'm going to continue to call it the iPod stubby.
"Oh no, within 5 seconds we had minor scratches on the back of the nano and we hadn't even turned it on yet"
BOO HOOOOOO, my nano looks like I've actually used it!
I hate when it looks like I've been using it!
Why can't it stay in the pristine state that I purchased it in?
Why must using it cause it to look like I've been using it?
BOOO HOOO
SHUT UP ALREADY!
What is with the whining about the shiny back?
"Oh no, within 5 seconds we had minor scratches on the back of the nano and we hadn't even turned it on yet"
BOO HOOOOOO, my nano looks like I've actually used it!
I hate when it looks like I've been using it!
Why can't it stay in the pristine state that I purchased it in?
Why must using it cause it to look like I've been using it?
BOOO HOOO
SHUT UP ALREADY!
oo, somebody's caring too much about people he doesn't know.
What is with the whining about the shiny back?
"Oh no, within 5 seconds we had minor scratches on the back of the nano and we hadn't even turned it on yet"
BOO HOOOOOO, my nano looks like I've actually used it!
I hate when it looks like I've been using it!
Why can't it stay in the pristine state that I purchased it in?
Why must using it cause it to look like I've been using it?
BOOO HOOO
SHUT UP ALREADY!
I'm sure you can too.
I don't think you really understand this. You imply that none of us understand that wear and tear is normal. That's not the problem, and I think you should know better than that. What you don't seem to understand is that a product that's going to be handled a lot shouldn't be abnormally sensitive to scratches. It's supposedly an intentional design choice, but I've never checked anywhere to confirm this.
OK so let's just look at how healthy he looks -- forget the ultra-thin (anorectic?) previous model.
You mean "anorexic"...
I'm starting to really really like 'Fatboy Slim'. Watching video on that is really quite an awesome thought. That's the wifes birthday present sorted. (I'm a man therfore I need the full 160GB baby)
Heh. "Fatboy Slim" is a perfect term for it. A pity anyone under 25 would have no idea what the reference really is...
I still find it difficult to understand why apple won't manufacture colour-coded ear-buds for the non white iPods. even just a black set would be good for people without a white iPod!!
Oh, and I quite like the new design - when you hold it in your hand (Yes get yourself down to an apple store) it does seem really much nicer than any of the photos. It grew instantly on me as soon as I picked one up.
It's called iPod porn. Do a search on previous articles and see all the hot, sexy goodness that Kasper can muster with a macro lens.
Yes, it is unnecessary.
"Hot" and "sexy" aren't the adjectives that come to mind so much as "unnecessary" and "detracting." Macro photography isn't about shallow depth of field, it's about detail. If the photos are supposed to be "high-quality", you should be trying to maximize the clarity of the subject matter, not try to show off some expensive lens you bought.
its not that i care too much about people i don't know, because - that would be dumb.
its that people make stupid comments about a device they have purchased, about a design that has been around for years now.
if you don't like the aesthetic, say so.
but backhanded comments about the design by saying "oh, our precious nano had scratches on it the second we took it out of the box" is only really understandable if you've been living under a rock for the past few years and have never seen an iPod before.
realising of course that this is appleinsider, and that the author has had some experience with the iPod before, i find this a childish and immature comment about the shiny aluminum design.
don't get me wrong, i'm not crazy about the shiny back, but its not ugly, and my iPod doesn't look ugly when it has scratches or smudges on the back. i appreciate the "used" look. i don't need the device to look like i just bought it.
perhaps this is an image thing? an "i spent lots of money on an ipod and i need it to look good so i can show it off" thing.
and i do understand what the article reads - maybe you didn't understand what i wrote - which was frustration with the whining about the scratches. i don't need the motherly "you should know better" because i understand what the words means - how can you assume that i'm implying "none of you" understand what wear and tear is? and what is "abnormally sensitive" for a shiny metal? hmmm... lets think on that one for a second...
and of course its an intentional design choice!? um, let me introduce you to this company called Apple... they focus on their award winning design... you know... intentionally...
its not that i care too much about people i don't know, because - that would be dumb.
its that people make stupid comments about a device they have purchased, about a design that has been around for years now.
The problem I see in that explanation is that because it's been a common complaint for several years, Apple has had several years to improve on it. There are other harder, yet shiny surface treatments available but they aren't used. The thing I liked about the 2nd gen nano is that it isn't so sensitive, I've been using it for a year. It does show some wear, but only a little more than a week's worth of wear with respect to Apple's shiny backs.
and of course its an intentional design choice!? um, let me introduce you to this company called Apple... they focus on their award winning design... you know... intentionally...
No, not intentional as in shiny, as in it's intentionally sensitive to scratching. As I said above, it is possible to get something as shiny without resorting such a sensitive surface.
I don't agree that because people complain about the scratchy, shiny back that it is a poor design choice, or that it should be changed because people complain about it.
My *guess* is that its not that big of a problem, or maybe its not really a big complaint, which is what brings me back to my claim that those who continually complain about it are whiners. Like I said, its not my first design choice, but it is far from a bad design choice.
Do you really think its "intentionally sensitive?" It doesn't make much sense to pick a material that is intentionally sensitive to scratches. I'm sure there are other reasons behind the design choice - but lets face it - Apple is selling loads of iPods. Apple is going to sell loads of their new iPods, all of which are in their Nth revision, and all of which sport the shiny back (save for the Shuffle). Either nobody cares, or its easy to overlook the scratches, because, here we are, at revision N with the shiny backs.
It still frustrates me, after revision N, that people still whine and bitch - after they purchased the product! It would make more sense to me to not purchase the product if you are not happy with its design.
Do you really think its "intentionally sensitive?" It doesn't make much sense to pick a material that is intentionally sensitive to scratches.
From what I've heard, the material was chosen that way so that owners would baby it and "bond" with the product. I've even seen one AI poster praise it as an ingenious marketing tactic. I can't really come up with an alternate explanation as to why it scratches or dulls so easily.
It still frustrates me, after revision N, that people still whine and bitch - after they purchased the product! It would make more sense to me to not purchase the product if you are not happy with its design.
In this case, I think it's only the article writer, it doesn't look like the people commenting on it in this thread actually bought one or intend to buy one anyway.
My iPods (almost) always stay in their cases so it's not an issue with me. If you stick in your purse, pocket, backpack, etc. all the time without a case then yeah, it's going to get scratched up. ANYTHING will to some extent.
No one has denied that, it's just a matter of degree. Everything scratches eventually, but most portable electronics seem to use more scratch-resistant materials. Left unprotected, my phones have taken maybe as much as a year to show the same amount of scuffing my iPod would take in maybe a week. Having your customers keep them in a protective case kind of defeats the point of trying to make the prettiest devices.
No one has denied that, it's just a matter of degree. Everything scratches eventually, but most portable electronics seem to use more scratch-resistant materials. Left unprotected, my phones have taken maybe as much as a year to show the same amount of scuffing my iPod would take in maybe a week. Having your customers keep them in a protective case kind of defeats the point of trying to make the prettiest devices.
i second that, i had my 3rd iPod with out protective skin, full of scratches, but i do not like the skin/covers, it defeats the purpose...
wish iPod's back panel all changed similar to iPhone's back panel