any possibility of ipod nano update?
any chance we're gonna see new nanos with increased storage capacity - say 16GB or so? with all this talk of a "possible event coming up this month" what are your opinions regarding a nano upgrade?
on similar lines, what do you guys think about an ipod touch with a smaller form factor?is it possible to squeeze in a 16GB SSD into a nano or a touch the size of a nano?
anyone else thinking on similar lines? mockups?
let the speculations flow...
on similar lines, what do you guys think about an ipod touch with a smaller form factor?is it possible to squeeze in a 16GB SSD into a nano or a touch the size of a nano?
anyone else thinking on similar lines? mockups?
let the speculations flow...
Comments
any chance we're gonna see new nanos with increased storage capacity - say 16GB or so? with all this talk of a "possible event coming up this month" what are your opinions regarding a nano upgrade?
I see the chances now as bing better than a couple of days ago simply because of the Shuffle related news. I also expected an iPhne Nano at MWSF so what do I know.
In any event I think things are really looking good in the Flash world for an update. Apple needs to stimulate sales and the flash makers need to get new products into lasting mass production. The position of the Flash makers means Apple has pressure form both the consumer and the suppliers to generate sales.
on similar lines, what do you guys think about an ipod touch with a smaller form factor?is it possible to squeeze in a 16GB SSD into a nano or a touch the size of a nano?
16GB in a Nano can be done today. Compact Flash cards and SD cards with that amount of storage have been around for some time.
As to a smaller TOUCH who would want such a thing? I want bigger to better deliver the web and movies. I'd like to see a unit that has HD resolution though that might just be pushing things a bit.
anyone else thinking on similar lines? mockups?
To be honest I have little interest in the Nano, I'm just not that big into music. I'm very interested in the Touch/iPhone though. The difference here is that I'm holding out in hopes that Apple does the right thing with respect to the SDK. There are a couple of custom apps that I could see myself writing for work. Combine that with an excellent multimedia machine and you end up with a very compelling device.
let the speculations flow...
Well there is no speculation needed, Nano is was a hot seller and the technology is moving in the right direction price wise. So we have an environment where Apple may simply need to stimulate sales with an earlier than expected upgrade. 16GB is doable right now with out dramatically impacting prices, 32 GB should be doable by mid year at a price premium.
Dave
any chance we're gonna see new nanos with increased storage capacity - say 16GB or so? with all this talk of a "possible event coming up this month" what are your opinions regarding a nano upgrade?
on similar lines, what do you guys think about an ipod touch with a smaller form factor?is it possible to squeeze in a 16GB SSD into a nano or a touch the size of a nano?
anyone else thinking on similar lines? mockups?
let the speculations flow...
Before the shuffle update, I would have said that there was zero chance of a Nano update before September. I would now say that there is an infinitesimally small chance of an update before September. Sure, it's now non-zero, but it's zero for all intents and purposes.
iPod touch in a smaller body only makes sense if you get rid of the web-browsing, at which point there's no difference between the device and a Nano (other than a slightly larger screen). You're not going to buy it just for video, so save your money and buy a Nano instead.
Does it make sense to have an iPhone Nano? sure. But it won't be wifi enabled either. It will be your phone and your mp3 player; and for those who don't think that they need the bulk of the iPhone wifi-on-the-go there will be an iPhone Nano. But who knows when we'll see that one. Soon, I hope, because my Nokia is getting long in the tooth.
so if the ipod nano with increased capacity is feasible then i look forward to it.
the idea of an ipod touch with a smaller form may be wishful thinking, but then it could probably be unwise to say "no one needs it" - i for one would be interested & i'm sure there are people who would be, too.
sure, it may mean that wi-fi would not be included - my question "so what?". wi-fi isn't necessary to be a success; look at the nano & classic - they're runaway hits WITHOUT wi-fi.
how much use do i have for wi-fi enabled ipods?
1) when i'm at home, i have my macbook hooked to the net 24*7 - so why bother having another device to access the net?
2) when i'm at work, i have all the macs & pcs at my disposal - so once again why another device?
3) when i'm commuting (30 mins each way) do you really think that any wi-fi singal would give me consistent coverage throughout my bus-ride? well, at least in Pittsburgh, the answer is a resounding "NO"
4) that leaves me with "all the other times", like e.g., at the airport - but how many terminals have free wi-fi? & should I just purchase airport wi-fi access just to surf the mail... ummm... maybe not, thanks anyway!
feel free to disagree & define your own wants & needs, but wi-fi on a touch isn't of much use to me. the nano & classic support contacts & calendar sync - the touch already does those & also notes. skip the whole wi-fi internet & there would still be people (probably like me) who would still buy it for what it does, rather than for what it lacks.
interesting views.
so if the ipod nano with increased capacity is feasible then i look forward to it.
You use the word feasible like you don't understand electronics. Nano uses Flash memory which is constantly under development and improvement. You can expect on almost a yearly basis improvements in storage capacity at a given price point. Much of this due to improvements in chip construction. Things like chip stacks also come into play but that doesn't always lead to a lower price per GB.
It is not a question of feasibility but one of timing. If the availability, costs and market demand all align correctly we get a rev'ed iPod. It may be Apple's norm to wait until mid year / September time frame to do an update, but if demand slows and new technology is in place the possibility of an update is very real. The question becomes is demand for Nano slowing enough for Apple to respond?
the idea of an ipod touch with a smaller form may be wishful thinking, but then it could probably be unwise to say "no one needs it" - i for one would be interested & i'm sure there are people who would be, too.
I doubt seriously that Apple sees much demand at all for a smaller Touch. Personally I want larger and I'm very much of the opinion that many feel that way.
sure, it may mean that wi-fi would not be included - my question "so what?". wi-fi isn't necessary to be a success; look at the nano & classic - they're runaway hits WITHOUT wi-fi.
It is however a key part of Touch and is integral to how it is used. If you don't understand WiFi on Touch then you don't grasp the devices market. It is simple as that.
how much use do i have for wi-fi enabled ipods?
1) when i'm at home, i have my macbook hooked to the net 24*7 - so why bother having another device to access the net?
so
2) when i'm at work, i have all the macs & pcs at my disposal - so once again why another device?
so
3) when i'm commuting (30 mins each way) do you really think that any wi-fi singal would give me consistent coverage throughout my bus-ride? well, at least in Pittsburgh, the answer is a resounding "NO"
so
4) that leaves me with "all the other times", like e.g., at the airport - but how many terminals have free wi-fi? & should I just purchase airport wi-fi access just to surf the mail... ummm... maybe not, thanks anyway!
so
Not to be a pain in the behind but really you don't get Touch if you asked the questions above. Think of Touch not so much as an iPod but as a Internet Tablet. Once you get that you will see that the device is very unique and only has one or two close competitors.
feel free to disagree & define your own wants & needs, but wi-fi on a touch isn't of much use to me.
Well again you need to realize that if you don't get WiFi on the Touch then you don't really have an idea of why people are buying it and why they are so happy with it. I think your first error here is in thinking about the Touch as another member of the iPod family. Technically it is practically it isn't.
the nano & classic support contacts & calendar sync - the touch already does those & also notes. skip the whole wi-fi internet & there would still be people (probably like me) who would still buy it for what it does, rather than for what it lacks.
Not a chance, if any thing I see people demanding more from the Touch platform not less. You have people who want bigger Touches, Newton2's and Mac Touches with little to be heard form people wanting a smaller Touch.
In any event please tell us how you think you would put an even smaller Touch to good use? That is make use of the Touch screen in a practical way on a Nano sized screen. I just can't imagine it at all.
Dave
You use the word feasible like you don't understand electronics. Nano uses Flash memory which is constantly under development and improvement. You can expect on almost a yearly basis improvements in storage capacity at a given price point. Much of this due to improvements in chip construction. Things like chip stacks also come into play but that doesn't always lead to a lower price per GB.
It is not a question of feasibility but one of timing. If the availability, costs and market demand all align correctly we get a rev'ed iPod. It may be Apple's norm to wait until mid year / September time frame to do an update, but if demand slows and new technology is in place the possibility of an update is very real. The question becomes is demand for Nano slowing enough for Apple to respond?
I doubt seriously that Apple sees much demand at all for a smaller Touch. Personally I want larger and I'm very much of the opinion that many feel that way.
It is however a key part of Touch and is integral to how it is used. If you don't understand WiFi on Touch then you don't grasp the devices market. It is simple as that.
so
so
so
so
Not to be a pain in the behind but really you don't get Touch if you asked the questions above. Think of Touch not so much as an iPod but as a Internet Tablet. Once you get that you will see that the device is very unique and only has one or two close competitors.
Well again you need to realize that if you don't get WiFi on the Touch then you don't really have an idea of why people are buying it and why they are so happy with it. I think your first error here is in thinking about the Touch as another member of the iPod family. Technically it is practically it isn't.
Not a chance, if any thing I see people demanding more from the Touch platform not less. You have people who want bigger Touches, Newton2's and Mac Touches with little to be heard form people wanting a smaller Touch.
In any event please tell us how you think you would put an even smaller Touch to good use? That is make use of the Touch screen in a practical way on a Nano sized screen. I just can't imagine it at all.
Dave
Bloody hell that was a long post but you're spot on. I definitely am in favor of a larger Touch device as I use my iPod Touch and iPhone as my primary browsing devices. I sit on the bus/train browsing constantly. The only advantage a smaller touch iPod would have is a larger screen for video playback. Strip away all the other features and have simple music and Video functionality on a touch based Nano.
You use the word feasible like you don't understand electronics.
maybe i don't... it's not my primary field.
I doubt seriously that Apple sees much demand at all for a smaller Touch.
no disagreement on that point
Personally I want larger and I'm very much of the opinion that many feel that way.
& i want something that i can use to hear music & play videos. period. when i say smaller touch imagine the screen of the nano expanded to cover the clickwheel. & of course, in a proportionate length:width ratio.
If you don't understand WiFi on Touch then you don't grasp the devices market. It is simple as that.
once again why be adamant that "it has to have wi-fi, goddammit!!!"?
why not a series of ipods that offer full-face screen capability without wi-fi?
so
so
so
so
i can dismiss every one of your arguments similarly, but i chose not to because then we wouldn't be having a discussion.
Not to be a pain in the behind but really you don't get Touch if you asked the questions above.
geez, c'mon now... are you saying that i should stop asking questions? my needs, my questions! - how's that for simple. no offence meant, but please read on below...
Think of Touch not so much as an iPod but as a Internet Tablet. Once you get that you will see that the device is very unique and only has one or two close competitors.
when have i ever argued on that? when have i ever denied that?
my whole point is: "why not take something that's good about the touch & put it into something like the nano? why not remove the click-wheel, give it a bigger screen & let users control it via the touchscreen?"
Well again you need to realize that if you don't get WiFi on the Touch then you don't really have an idea of why people are buying it and why they are so happy with it. I think your first error here is in thinking about the Touch as another member of the iPod family. Technically it is practically it isn't.
your first error, sir, is in assuming that i don;t have an idea about anything - you keep saying it so often, it's irritating. so please stop saying that, if you don't mind & come to the issue at hand.
if you've read my replies, you probably have understood what my opinions are - i'm not holding steve jobs hostage, nor am i threatening a radical product overhaul. just a few ideas in my head.
like i said before, "please feel free to disagree..." but stop assuming that i've made comments with zero thinking/understanding!!
Not a chance, if any thing I see people demanding more from the Touch platform not less. You have people who want bigger Touches, Newton2's and Mac Touches with little to be heard form people wanting a smaller Touch.
quite possible. perhaps my idea of a downsized touch isn't good. so i'm gonna call it an "upgrade to the nano" - "lo and behold! a nano with touch!"
In any event please tell us how you think you would put an even smaller Touch to good use? That is make use of the Touch screen in a practical way on a Nano sized screen. I just can't imagine it at all.
hear music, watch movies - once again since the whole of the nano's face will be the screen, it's an improvement over the current nano screen size, while the total dimensions do not exceed those of the current nano. got it?
The only advantage a smaller touch iPod would have is a larger screen for video playback. Strip away all the other features and have simple music and Video functionality on a touch based Nano.
YOU, sir, are spot on!
maybe i don't... it's not my primary field.
Maybe not well stated but I tried to get across the point that the technology in these devices is improving at a fairly steady pace.
& i want something that i can use to hear music & play videos. period. when i say smaller touch imagine the screen of the nano expanded to cover the clickwheel. & of course, in a proportionate length:width ratio.
There are two problems with this that I can see. One is having enough room for gestures on screen. The second is having enough room for components of the user interface to be large enough to allow selection and manipulation with fingers. It is not that a full screen Nano would be bad for viewing, after all it would be a larger screen then what we got now, just that I see issues with actually using the screen.
That should not be taken to mean that Apple can't overcome those limitations. Indeed they can and have patents that may even apply, but I still question the user experience.
once again why be adamant that "it has to have wi-fi, goddammit!!!"?
why not a series of ipods that offer full-face screen capability without wi-fi?
Well for one thing you didn't say that! You asked about a Touch based interface which I don't think will work well. Apple could go full screen and implement alternative control strategy's. As mentioned above they seem to have patents on such already.
Would it be a good idea. Possibly if the interface worked as patented.
The issue with WiFi is that even though Touch is an iPod it is in many ways something more. It is not really fair to lump it in with the rest of the line up. The Touch has some unique features, along with its function as an internet tablet, that make WiFi a requirement. Now we could drop that WiFi stuff but I still don't see the Touch interface working well on a smaller device. The first thing that comes to mind is the on screen keyboard.
i can dismiss every one of your arguments similarly, but i chose not to because then we wouldn't be having a discussion.
You could, but do realize I dismissed them because they have nothing to do with the reasons people like the Touch and iPhone. Many of those Touchs that have been sold recently, still end up in a cradle connected to a computer for management of the songs stored there on. The WiFi is a factor when away from the PC.
geez, c'mon now... are you saying that i should stop asking questions? my needs, my questions! - how's that for simple. no offence meant, but please read on below...
Not at all, I was very clear in that I said you don't get Touch if you asked those questions. Never stop asking questions, but I can't help much on trying to relay why people like Touch and its WiFi connectivity if you don't get it.
It is sort of like helping somebody in math class. If you come to a communications impasse then you really need to wait for the bulb to switch on or get a different point of view involved. WiFi is a key element of what the iPod Touch is. Frankly I'm not even sure Apple knew at first how important it was. They do now as it is often being referred to as a tablet.
when have i ever argued on that? when have i ever denied that?
my whole point is: "why not take something that's good about the touch & put it into something like the nano? why not remove the click-wheel, give it a bigger screen & let users control it via the touchscreen?"
A touchscreen is fine but the Touch interface from the iPod Touch isn't. My point is that the screen would be to small for the current interface on these units.
In any event Apple already has patents on alternative interfaces that would give you apparently what you want. I think the big issue here isn't the screen, but rather how does one pack in the required electronics and make battery life acceptable? A bigger screen leads to more processing demands which leads to more power usage. Success here might mean nothing more than the next generation of chips. In any event you should be glad to here that Apple has already thought about your requirements. I believe at least one of the patents was highlighted right here on appleinsider.
your first error, sir, is in assuming that i don;t have an idea about anything - you keep saying it so often, it's irritating. so please stop saying that, if you don't mind & come to the issue at hand.
Now you are putting words into my mouth I did not speak. The issue at hand was your dismissal of WiFi and its importance to the Touch.
if you've read my replies, you probably have understood what my opinions are - i'm not holding steve jobs hostage, nor am i threatening a radical product overhaul. just a few ideas in my head.
Look at it this way your ideas are good enough that Apple has already thought of the issues involved. They have even issued patents to cover certain solutions. The big 'but' here is that these are not the same thing as Touch based solutions. I think the problem with our communications is that you talk about shrinking the Touch and that leads to people wondering why. What you want though is a Nano with a large touchscreen, that is a different product.
In any event I urge you to search appleinsder for coverage of Apple's patents. Your concerns have been the subject of research. This of course does not mean a product will come out anytime soon.
like i said before, "please feel free to disagree..." but stop assuming that i've made comments with zero thinking/understanding!!
Again I never said such, you are reading into my statements things that are not there!
quite possible. perhaps my idea of a downsized touch isn't good. so i'm gonna call it an "upgrade to the nano" - "lo and behold! a nano with touch!"
Part of the problem here is in Apples use of the word Touch for the iPod Touches interface. As one can see it is a mistake when one starts to talk about alternative touchscreen interfaces. There is an unlimited number of ways to make use of touchscreens to interface to a person. Apple's Touch based devices have one variant that works well on the iPhone and iPod Touch. My only concern is that this interface will not translate well to a much smaller device.
hear music, watch movies - once again since the whole of the nano's face will be the screen, it's an improvement over the current nano screen size, while the total dimensions do not exceed those of the current nano. got it?
Yep got it!
At this point I'm not sure if the technology is there yet as we may need another round of SOC introductions to accomplish this. The bigger issue is what will demand look like and will Apple go in that direction. Along with that is the issue of user acceptance, many users like the current iPod interface as it can be handled blind.
That is the click wheel doesn't require bringing up the user screen and navigating to the right program to do something like change songs. The iPod Touch user interface has a lot going for it but it is not the best interface for simple use as an MP3 player.
Dave
I guess I understand the issues that would come when adapting the touch interface for a product of smaller size - especially the part w.r.t the gestures.
How about a simpler version of the interface then, with no complex gestures? say one-finger input for selection of track, volume adjustment etc on a "virtual control panel" (forgive my ignorance of proper technical terminology) that pops up when i tap on a portion of the screen. likewise a two-finger scrolling or "flipping" a-la coverflow -maybe this can even be done with one finger.
look, i have nothing against bigger devices that employ touch screen, e.g., a PDA as some people want it or maybe a tablet, as others wish for - hell, i might just go out & buy an apple PDA if one ever comes out! & yes i can live with the fact that the iPod Touch is a step or a leap in this direction - depending on how you define a PDA.
my reasoning is that, with a simplified interface & controls, the touchscreen can be used effectively even for smaller devices.
i don't expect apple (or any other company) to actually come out with such smaller devices - they know what's good for them & probably the market (in terms of sheer numbers).
nor am i going to admonish them for any "failure to meet my expectations" during product launches - it's almost become a trend in these forums to bash the company every time it ruins some fan-boy's geek-wet dream.
all said & done, i'm gonna stick to my idea for a while.... at least until i find something else to think about!
thanks for your inputs, anyway & have a great weekend,
Ajay
I really think (and hope) that Apple should make the iPhone headphones/clicker standard. That way we can pause/flick through songs via the little clicker and still get the advantages of a full screen video/touch experience. Not the most elegant of solutions but it is a solution.
Dave,
I guess I understand the issues that would come when adapting the touch interface for a product of smaller size - especially the part w.r.t the gestures.
How about a simpler version of the interface then, with no complex gestures? say one-finger input for selection of track, volume adjustment etc on a "virtual control panel" (forgive my ignorance of proper technical terminology) that pops up when i tap on a portion of the screen. likewise a two-finger scrolling or "flipping" a-la coverflow -maybe this can even be done with one finger.
What you have suggested above is similar to one of Apples patents. That is a virtual click wheel on a "touchscreen".
look, i have nothing against bigger devices that employ touch screen, e.g., a PDA as some people want it or maybe a tablet, as others wish for - hell, i might just go out & buy an apple PDA if one ever comes out! & yes i can live with the fact that the iPod Touch is a step or a leap in this direction - depending on how you define a PDA.
my reasoning is that, with a simplified interface & controls, the touchscreen can be used effectively even for smaller devices.
Yes I believe it is possible to use a touchscreen also on the smaller devices. The only limitation is technology and that improves every few months. By this I mean squeezing the extra electronics in to support a touchscreen. Since SoC technology is improving at a rapid pace, for these sorts of devices, I would not be surprised to find that the technology is already there.
i don't expect apple (or any other company) to actually come out with such smaller devices - they know what's good for them & probably the market (in terms of sheer numbers).
It is more of a possibility than you might think. It is a simple matter of all the right technology coming on line at the right times. For example OLED displays would be ideal in such a device once perfected to the point that Apple is happy with them.
nor am i going to admonish them for any "failure to meet my expectations" during product launches - it's almost become a trend in these forums to bash the company every time it ruins some fan-boy's geek-wet dream.
Well frankly I see the admonishments seen in these forums as being very valuable and I hope Apple does too. For example when the first Mini's came out they where a bit thin on USB ports and that was highlighted to a great extent in the forums. Eventually Apple did respond and added more USB ports. That is to me a really good example of people expressing REASONABLE expectations and Apple realizing that yep they are right.
I see nothing unreasonable at all about your expectations or desires. The more that Apple gets into video media the better the various iPods need to support video. As you noted a Nano with a screen that gives close to 100% coverage would be very desirable to some.
all said & done, i'm gonna stick to my idea for a while.... at least until i find something else to think about!
Send a suggestion to Steve at Apple. They may not be able to respond to it directly but somebody there has to be monitoring consumer wants and desires.
thanks for your inputs, anyway & have a great weekend,
Ajay
Hey gotta work all weekend so if you don't hear back don't take it personally
Dave