I had no idea the Grammar Police read AppleInsider. Learn something new every day.
We may be miles apart politically, but we're in the same camp on this. I have been guilty of it in the past, but have tried to hold my tongue going forward.
Do you guys really think that the nano was selling that well? Prior to the iPod touch it was the best selling iPod, but that isn't the case anymore. iPod sales are declining, and I'm sure thats not the fault of the iPod touch, so what does that mean for the rest of the lineup?
Many people insisted that the fatty nano wasn't going to happen either, but it did. Then people argued that they wouldn't go back to the old form factor after just a single generation, but they did. Now you guys are arguing that Apple wouldn't abandon features just implemented in the last generation... Things should be interesting tomorrow.
If the prices of the iPod touch and the nano remain similar, the nano needs something that is better than what the iPod touch offers. The video camera and fm radio wont cut it this year.
Maybe this Small touchscreen device will be called the iPod nano but we'll keep the current nano form-factor with the name "iPod" - giving customers the choice of:
iPod Shuffle, cheap, screen less, control less iPod
iPod Nano, small 1.7" touchscreen ultraportable iPod
iPod, candybar design, clickweel, widescreen display, camera (near-full featured iPod)
As for the nomenclature, I think it’s mostly irrelevant. I think the more important question is why we think Apple would kill the current Nano styling?
Because it can't compare to the iPod Touch. The click wheel limits screen size, while increasing the devices size. You could add a touch screen, but then the OS would be compared with iOS. The nano features a video camera and an fm radio, but what if the iPod touch gets those? It's biggest advantage is that it is smaller than the iPod touch. Apple seems to want to play to that strength.
Quote:
It’s for this reason I think (regardless of what this is called) that the current Nano design will not likely be killed tomorrow as it fits a niche that is not covered by this rumour, the Shuffle, the Touch or Classic.
What niche does it leave exposed? The smaller square screen annoys me too, but the nano's biggest niche, fitness, would actually be better served by a smaller nano. Video would quite frankly be better served by a smaller ipod touch as opposed to the current iPod nano.
Edit: I'll leave any further discussion for tomorrow. I've stated my thoughts, and I'm probably being overly argumentative at this point.
This is the new form factor for the nano, unless the case manufacturers are completely out to lunch.
Something they have frequently been over the years.
A smaller screen, no room for a camera and no practical way to hold it for use as a camera, the same amount of storage (flash prices have been stable for two years) and the same old price?
I think you've been drinking the kool aid a bit too long.
For everyone wringing their hands over the excellence of the current Nano, consider this:
And that chart includes the Touch, which by all accounts is showing explosive growth. So how many Nanos do you reckon Apple is actually selling, at this point? Given the trends, how many do you think they are going to be selling this time next year?
No matter how fond any given owner might be of their particular iPod, the fact is Apple knows the market for dedicated players has peaked, and that the decline will likely accelerate. If they can get a cheaper Touch on the market, that will hasten the inevitable. As someone else has said, why goof around with a shitty camera and so-so video playback when you can get a really good camera and stellar playback for not much larger and just $50 more, and what happens if that price differential shrinks? Yes, there are click wheel enthusiasts, but are there enough of them for Apple to bother catering to?
The answer is to make the Nano a "wow" device, nothing but a tiny touchscreen. New enough and fun enough to spur at least a short term sales spike. The size gives you incentive to choose it over the Touch, if small is what you're looking for, while dropping the camera removes the decidedly un-Apple-esque problem of having two devices which do the same thing, only one of them does it really poorly. Plus, as has been pointed out, the standard dock connector is a huge asset.
I'd certainly buy one of these over the Shuffle for the gym, and I suspect that Apple will implement some kind of easy tap and swipe transport controls to make no-look operation possible. Works for me.
Some of you seem unwilling to let go on the click wheel. On the iPhone and the iPod Touch, there is no such thing. But momentum scrolling works just fine for navigating thru song lists.
The click wheel has had its time. Let it go already.
Because it can't compare to the iPod Touch. The click wheel limits screen size, while increasing the devices size.
But in your theory that this is the new Nano, they removed the click wheel, all the additional space AND made the display small, when they cold have made it bigger. That is part of my questioning of how this can be an evolution of the Nano.
Quote:
The nano features a video camera and an fm radio, but what if the iPod touch gets those? It's biggest advantage is that it is smaller than the iPod touch. Apple seems to want to play to that strength.
I buy that.
Quote:
...but the nano's biggest niche, fitness, would actually be better served by a smaller nano.
I buy that, too, but that?s why I am wanting it to essentially be clip-on iPod with Nike+ built in.
Quote:
Video would quite frankly be better served by a smaller ipod touch as opposed to the current iPod nano.
This is why I love productive arguments. That is the first I?e read about of thought of this as the new Nano, which an iOS-based iPod filling the niche between this new Nano and the iPod Touch. Note: I don?t think that will happen tomorrow.
Quote:
Edit: I'll leave any further discussion for tomorrow. I've stated my thoughts, and I'm probably being overly argumentative at this point.
Nah, your arguments are rational and well thought out. That?s what makes this forum great?at times.
Something they have frequently been over the years.
A smaller screen, no room for a camera and no practical way to hold it for use as a camera, the same amount of storage (flash prices have been stable for two years) and the same old price?
I think you've been drinking the kool aid a bit too long.
As I said earlier. I'm waiting for tomorrow to further dicuss this. I would appreciate you keeping the personal attacks to yourself though. For the record, I've never speculated how much storage the device would have and I've hardly discussed prices at all.
Edit: Thanks for the comments solipsism, nike+ should have been integrated into the nano long ago
I wonder how much space it would actually take up.
I just cant bite it. This can't be a Nano. it's a shuffle. Doesn't anyone else get it?
I agree. If this is the Nano, this could be one of Apple's product failures. I don't see why someone would want to give up the 'widescreen' aspect ratio.
Also, even with the Classic so long in the tooth it?s still part of their lineup even when they kept adding new iPods. Why must one die so the other can live?
No way that tiny thing is the nano if they keep the shuffle. That might be the shuffle with display and the nano will stay the say but with larger touch screen.
I'm gonna have to go with new iPod. The product matrix doesn't make sense to me if this is the iPod nano:
Current:
iPod touch - iOS, Music, Video, Web, Apps
iPod classic - iPod OS, Music, Video
iPod nano - iPod OS Advanced, Music, Video, Video Camera, FM Radio
iPod shuffle - iPod shuffle (Spoken Word) OS, Music
There's a problem here, but it's not the nano. It's the legacy classic and the fact the current iPod touch is clearly missing features. We know Apple is adding those features, and likely eliminating the classic, but when you do that AND make the square thing the nano, a new problem emerges:
iPod nano - iOS lite/iPod OS touch, Music, FM Radio (Possibly). Video unlikely.
iPod shuffle - iPod shuffle (Spoken Word) OS, Music
Problem here is the gap between the shuffle and the nano is too small, and the gap between the nano and the touch is too big. Now consider if it's a new iPod, say, the iPod air:
So I guess the iPod square is not the iPod Nano. I already put my thoughts into what it could be, so am not gonna restate. Tomorrow is gonna be interesting.
Rather than continually making it smaller, you would think Apple would add HD Radio (instead of FM) and add the Nike sensor. That would add value to the device (which I assume is staying at the same price point.)
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
Why would they add HD Radio when it does not help them sell more iTunes songs? Apple only reluctantly added FM last year. They simply don't have a history of adding features just for the sake of it.
Comments
I had no idea the Grammar Police read AppleInsider. Learn something new every day.
We may be miles apart politically, but we're in the same camp on this. I have been guilty of it in the past, but have tried to hold my tongue going forward.
Many people insisted that the fatty nano wasn't going to happen either, but it did. Then people argued that they wouldn't go back to the old form factor after just a single generation, but they did. Now you guys are arguing that Apple wouldn't abandon features just implemented in the last generation... Things should be interesting tomorrow.
If the prices of the iPod touch and the nano remain similar, the nano needs something that is better than what the iPod touch offers. The video camera and fm radio wont cut it this year.
iPod Shuffle, cheap, screen less, control less iPod
iPod Nano, small 1.7" touchscreen ultraportable iPod
iPod, candybar design, clickweel, widescreen display, camera (near-full featured iPod)
iPod Classic, huge hard drive
iPod Touch, full featured iPod
As for the nomenclature, I think it’s mostly irrelevant. I think the more important question is why we think Apple would kill the current Nano styling?
Because it can't compare to the iPod Touch. The click wheel limits screen size, while increasing the devices size. You could add a touch screen, but then the OS would be compared with iOS. The nano features a video camera and an fm radio, but what if the iPod touch gets those? It's biggest advantage is that it is smaller than the iPod touch. Apple seems to want to play to that strength.
It’s for this reason I think (regardless of what this is called) that the current Nano design will not likely be killed tomorrow as it fits a niche that is not covered by this rumour, the Shuffle, the Touch or Classic.
What niche does it leave exposed? The smaller square screen annoys me too, but the nano's biggest niche, fitness, would actually be better served by a smaller nano. Video would quite frankly be better served by a smaller ipod touch as opposed to the current iPod nano.
Edit: I'll leave any further discussion for tomorrow. I've stated my thoughts, and I'm probably being overly argumentative at this point.
I had no idea the Grammar Police read AppleInsider. Learn something new every day.
Thank God they are here to help AI put their articles in better condition than they sometimes appear to begin with. Love you guys.
This is the new form factor for the nano, unless the case manufacturers are completely out to lunch.
Something they have frequently been over the years.
A smaller screen, no room for a camera and no practical way to hold it for use as a camera, the same amount of storage (flash prices have been stable for two years) and the same old price?
I think you've been drinking the kool aid a bit too long.
And that chart includes the Touch, which by all accounts is showing explosive growth. So how many Nanos do you reckon Apple is actually selling, at this point? Given the trends, how many do you think they are going to be selling this time next year?
No matter how fond any given owner might be of their particular iPod, the fact is Apple knows the market for dedicated players has peaked, and that the decline will likely accelerate. If they can get a cheaper Touch on the market, that will hasten the inevitable. As someone else has said, why goof around with a shitty camera and so-so video playback when you can get a really good camera and stellar playback for not much larger and just $50 more, and what happens if that price differential shrinks? Yes, there are click wheel enthusiasts, but are there enough of them for Apple to bother catering to?
The answer is to make the Nano a "wow" device, nothing but a tiny touchscreen. New enough and fun enough to spur at least a short term sales spike. The size gives you incentive to choose it over the Touch, if small is what you're looking for, while dropping the camera removes the decidedly un-Apple-esque problem of having two devices which do the same thing, only one of them does it really poorly. Plus, as has been pointed out, the standard dock connector is a huge asset.
I'd certainly buy one of these over the Shuffle for the gym, and I suspect that Apple will implement some kind of easy tap and swipe transport controls to make no-look operation possible. Works for me.
rumor that Apple would be retiring the classic becomes truth, I assume Apple would fill the
lineup with something, rather than nothing.
I haven't checked or heard how the classic's sales were compared to the other iPods, but I
know I've heard the rumor before the last 2-3 summer events.
The click wheel has had its time. Let it go already.
Because it can't compare to the iPod Touch. The click wheel limits screen size, while increasing the devices size.
But in your theory that this is the new Nano, they removed the click wheel, all the additional space AND made the display small, when they cold have made it bigger. That is part of my questioning of how this can be an evolution of the Nano.
The nano features a video camera and an fm radio, but what if the iPod touch gets those? It's biggest advantage is that it is smaller than the iPod touch. Apple seems to want to play to that strength.
I buy that.
...but the nano's biggest niche, fitness, would actually be better served by a smaller nano.
I buy that, too, but that?s why I am wanting it to essentially be clip-on iPod with Nike+ built in.
Video would quite frankly be better served by a smaller ipod touch as opposed to the current iPod nano.
This is why I love productive arguments. That is the first I?e read about of thought of this as the new Nano, which an iOS-based iPod filling the niche between this new Nano and the iPod Touch. Note: I don?t think that will happen tomorrow.
Edit: I'll leave any further discussion for tomorrow. I've stated my thoughts, and I'm probably being overly argumentative at this point.
Nah, your arguments are rational and well thought out. That?s what makes this forum great?at times.
Something they have frequently been over the years.
A smaller screen, no room for a camera and no practical way to hold it for use as a camera, the same amount of storage (flash prices have been stable for two years) and the same old price?
I think you've been drinking the kool aid a bit too long.
As I said earlier. I'm waiting for tomorrow to further dicuss this. I would appreciate you keeping the personal attacks to yourself though. For the record, I've never speculated how much storage the device would have and I've hardly discussed prices at all.
Edit: Thanks for the comments solipsism, nike+ should have been integrated into the nano long ago
I wonder how much space it would actually take up.
I just cant bite it. This can't be a Nano. it's a shuffle. Doesn't anyone else get it?
I agree. If this is the Nano, this could be one of Apple's product failures. I don't see why someone would want to give up the 'widescreen' aspect ratio.
Also, even with the Classic so long in the tooth it?s still part of their lineup even when they kept adding new iPods. Why must one die so the other can live?
Very good point. Let's hope that is the case.
Current:
iPod touch - iOS, Music, Video, Web, Apps
iPod classic - iPod OS, Music, Video
iPod nano - iPod OS Advanced, Music, Video, Video Camera, FM Radio
iPod shuffle - iPod shuffle (Spoken Word) OS, Music
There's a problem here, but it's not the nano. It's the legacy classic and the fact the current iPod touch is clearly missing features. We know Apple is adding those features, and likely eliminating the classic, but when you do that AND make the square thing the nano, a new problem emerges:
Alleged Future:
iPod touch - iOS, Music, Video, Web, Apps, Photo/Video Camera, HD + Retina Display
iPod nano - iOS lite/iPod OS touch, Music, FM Radio (Possibly). Video unlikely.
iPod shuffle - iPod shuffle (Spoken Word) OS, Music
Problem here is the gap between the shuffle and the nano is too small, and the gap between the nano and the touch is too big. Now consider if it's a new iPod, say, the iPod air:
iPod touch - iOS, Music, Video, Web, Apps, Photo/Video Camera, HD + Retina Display
iPod nano - iPod OS Advanced, Music, Video, Video Camera, FM Radio
iPod air - iPod OS touch, Music, FM Radio
iPod shuffle - iPod shuffle (Spoken Word) OS, Music
Seems like a much better scaling of featuresets to me.
Why is the back of the case open like that?
It would be interesting if it had a front facing camera and WiFi.
FaceTime?
What the heck, I'll stick my neck out too. Two cameras, one front, one back, for FaceTime.
Click wheel on the back, along with the wifi antenna.
Fire away, I'm ducking . . .
What the heck, I'll stick my neck out too. Two cameras, one front, one back, for FaceTime.
then you would need 2 screens. Have an online chat in person facing each other.
Rather than continually making it smaller, you would think Apple would add HD Radio (instead of FM) and add the Nike sensor. That would add value to the device (which I assume is staying at the same price point.)
Was there anyone complaining the Nano was too big?
Why would they add HD Radio when it does not help them sell more iTunes songs? Apple only reluctantly added FM last year. They simply don't have a history of adding features just for the sake of it.
What the heck, I'll stick my neck out too. Two cameras, one front, one back, for FaceTime.
Click wheel on the back, along with the wifi antenna.
Fire away, I'm ducking . . .
Why do you need the click wheel? You don't need that anymore. Does anyone miss it on the iPhone?
Let it go!