Not quite. The new one does display photos, but indeed does not do video. Not sure why you'd even want to look at photos on such a small, square screen. Having said that, it does have a full 30 pin dock connector so presumably you could hook it up to a TV for displaying photos.
I do think Apple may have screwed the pooch on this one. Maybe they should have introduced this new model and called it the "super shuffle" or some such, but also retained the old Nano.
I do think Apple may have screwed the pooch on this one.
It does have that feel about it, but there's also something else: something futuristic about clipping that little touchscreen on, and I don't know which will win out. Perhaps if it had 3G email. What I mean is, the thing that gives me that uneasy feeling is releasing a digital device in 2010 that is not networked.
So I have a 5th gen nano and its perfect for running at the gym. Unfortunately its having battery problems...so I might need a new one.
Is there an easy way to like shuffle to the next song without looking at it? Very critical that I can do that!
I don't know if you can put apps on it but there is one called OPUS which if you like tap the screen it goes to the next song. Would be perfect for this!
So I have a 5th gen nano and its perfect for running at the gym. Unfortunately its having battery problems...so I might need a new one.
Is there an easy way to like shuffle to the next song without looking at it? Very critical that I can do that!
I don't know if you can put apps on it but there is one called OPUS which if you like tap the screen it goes to the next song. Would be perfect for this!
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it’s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I’ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I’ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
2) Having a tap-to-shuffle option would be cool, but that only works if it’s a physical button to enable the screen for regular access. Since this would require the touch panel to be on at all times it would drain the battery more, but this is a small display area so it would be more feasible than the iPhone/Touch. I can see that coming eventually.
3) The G5 Nano came out just under a year ago. That means it’s under warranty. Those batteries are supposed to last years and hundreds of charges before they get to 80% charge capacity. So why the hell haven’t you gotten it replaced? Even if you are set on getting a new one you can still pass your old down or sell it.
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it?s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I?ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I?ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
You use the Apple headphones for running? How is that even possible? OR does everyone who wants to do it this way have to go out and buy expensive special headphones for this basic functionality?
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it?s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I?ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I?ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
2) Having a tap-to-shuffle option would be cool, but that only works if it?s a physical button to enable the screen for regular access. Since this would require the touch panel to be on at all times it would drain the battery more, but this is a small display area so it would be more feasible than the iPhone/Touch. I can see that coming eventually.
The headphones Apple makes are useless for running and always fall out of my ear. Had to get some aftermarket ones. I'm afraid that if I have to look at it when running to change it then its a non-starter for me...which sucks b/c I really like the new Nano!
Oh and is it me or is Apple confused as to what configuration the Nano should take? I mean this is their third re-design of it since it came out like 5 years ago.
You use the Apple headphones for running? How is that even possible? OR does everyone who wants to do it this way have to go out and buy expensive special headphones for this basic functionality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by omelet1978
The headphones Apple makes are useless for running and always fall out of my ear.
Read the thread guys. He already said that he uses Apple's in-canal earphones rather than the standard ones.
Wow. So add another $79 to the price, and you still don't get to use any of your old or preferred headphones. Sounds great.
Are you not aware of the headphones you get with any PMP you buy? Are you suggesting Apple give you some golden ticket to get a free pair of headphones from any vendor you wish at their expense? Despite my dislike for the Apple ear buds they apparently are usable by most. I see people running with them all the time.
PS: Successful people don’t dwell on problems, they look for solutions.
Are you not aware of the headphones you get with any PMP you buy? Are you suggesting Apple give you some golden ticket to get a free pair of headphones from any vendor you wish at their expense? Despite my dislike for the Apple ear buds they apparently are usable by most. I see people running with them all the time.
PS: Successful don? dwell on problems, they look for solutions.
No, but I already have headphones that I love that work well with every player of every type on the market, except the iPhone, iPod Touch, previous iPod Shuffle and new iPod Nano. Why should I be forced to:
1) Buy another pair with inline controls that I might not like as much; or
2) Settle with the crappy Apple headphones with remote
just because I want to be able to control my music without looking at the device?
No, but I already have headphones that I love that work well with every player of every type on the market, except the iPhone, iPod Touch, previous iPod Shuffle and new iPod Nano. Why should I be forced to:
1) Buy another pair with inline controls that I might not like as much; or
2) Settle with the crappy Apple headphones with remote
just because I want to be able to control my music without looking at the device?
1) If you have headphones you like then use them.
2) You are inventing a problem. If a product doesn't exist the way you want it to you either don't buy it, buy the parts you need to make it ideal for your needs, or (if you think there is an untapped market) you sell your own to corner that market. There are no other viable options.
3) If you are being "forced" to buy something you don't want then you should contact the authorities instead of complaining on the internet as that is clearly against the law.
I wonder why the Nano is such a hotbed of sort of random design ideas? It's really not very Apple like-- usually they either stand by their design decisions or drop the product altogether.
The Classic has soldiered on with very basic capacity and feature bumps, the Shuffle (except for the brief detour into buttonless land) has been a story of shrinking down until there's nothing but a click wheel, but the Nano has been all over the place, from its roots in the Mini to the fat boy to widescreen to multi-touch. I expect next year's to be round, or inexplicably huge, or transparent.
Like I said in an earlier post, I think Apple has this market so sewn up (at a time when no one else is even bothering to introduce new products) that they figure they can do almost anything, on the off chance something will be a breakout hit.
I really like someone's idea (sorry to not give credit where it's due, can't remember) of making this Nano a pluggable interface to little square accessory pieces, although that's probably way to elaborate for Apple to bother with at this point. As someone posted elsewhere, a Nano and a Shuffle stacked now make the previous model Nano-- how cool would it be if Apple sold a super-cheap, dockable Nano sized click wheel for people who wanted it?
Is there any confirmation the Nano is running iOS yet?
It the keynote at 27:50, Steve is demo'ing it and he drags an icon to the home screen and says "Just like I can with my other iOS devices," so that would seem to suggest it is (else he wouldn't have said "other.") But I could be reading to much in to one word.
But if so, it must be the most cut down version of OS X ever, with most of the background daemons not started, etc. And hopefully the parts they do start, they profiled and made as efficient as possible, and those performance improvements can feed back to the Mac.
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. Portions of iOS are derived from FreeBSD, and as such Apple is required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their accompanying documentation. Small devices such as iPods and iPhones don't come with substantial printed documentation, so such acknowledgments are often digitally embedded inside the device itself, in an on-screen "About" page. This is exactly what happens in iOS devices such as iPhones and iPod touches. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. iOS employs portions of the FreeBSD OS in its userland, and as such they are required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their "About" screen. They do this in existing iOS devices. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
Based on Erica Sadun’s in-depth perusing of the code she believes it’s Pixo OS.
I wonder why the Nano is such a hotbed of sort of random design ideas? It's really not very Apple like-- usually they either stand by their design decisions or drop the product altogether.
It does seem that making too drastic of a change is risky to do on their most popular product, but so far it appears that if it works, it's a big hit, if it doesn't work, it doesn't seem to hurt them too terribly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. iOS employs portions of the FreeBSD OS in its userland, and as such they are required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their "About" screen. They do this in existing iOS devices. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
That's interesting. To me it would seem that refitting iOS would be the the most straightforward way of getting the touch, look and behavior into the device vs. shoehorning the same services into Pixio.
That's interesting. To me it would seem that refitting iOS would be the the most straightforward way of getting the touch, look and behavior into the device vs. shoehorning the same services into Pixio.
Me too, as I think we?ve previously discussed. I guess even Apple couldn?t get iOS small and efficient enough to make it viable.
Me too, as I think we’ve previously discussed. I guess even Apple couldn’t get iOS small and efficient enough to make it viable.
Yeah, who knows. They probably will sell more than enough of them to make a heavy rework worthwhile. If you can plan on selling 15-20 million of a product, it's worth the custom tuning to make it work optimally.
Comments
they crippled it
the old model was pretty cool
now we have no video or photos
Not quite. The new one does display photos, but indeed does not do video. Not sure why you'd even want to look at photos on such a small, square screen. Having said that, it does have a full 30 pin dock connector so presumably you could hook it up to a TV for displaying photos.
I do think Apple may have screwed the pooch on this one. Maybe they should have introduced this new model and called it the "super shuffle" or some such, but also retained the old Nano.
I do think Apple may have screwed the pooch on this one.
It does have that feel about it, but there's also something else: something futuristic about clipping that little touchscreen on, and I don't know which will win out. Perhaps if it had 3G email. What I mean is, the thing that gives me that uneasy feeling is releasing a digital device in 2010 that is not networked.
Is there an easy way to like shuffle to the next song without looking at it? Very critical that I can do that!
I don't know if you can put apps on it but there is one called OPUS which if you like tap the screen it goes to the next song. Would be perfect for this!
So I have a 5th gen nano and its perfect for running at the gym. Unfortunately its having battery problems...so I might need a new one.
Is there an easy way to like shuffle to the next song without looking at it? Very critical that I can do that!
I don't know if you can put apps on it but there is one called OPUS which if you like tap the screen it goes to the next song. Would be perfect for this!
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it’s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I’ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I’ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
2) Having a tap-to-shuffle option would be cool, but that only works if it’s a physical button to enable the screen for regular access. Since this would require the touch panel to be on at all times it would drain the battery more, but this is a small display area so it would be more feasible than the iPhone/Touch. I can see that coming eventually.
3) The G5 Nano came out just under a year ago. That means it’s under warranty. Those batteries are supposed to last years and hundreds of charges before they get to 80% charge capacity. So why the hell haven’t you gotten it replaced? Even if you are set on getting a new one you can still pass your old down or sell it.
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it?s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I?ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I?ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
You use the Apple headphones for running? How is that even possible? OR does everyone who wants to do it this way have to go out and buy expensive special headphones for this basic functionality?
1) Even on the Touch or iPhone (connected to an armband) it?s easy to switch to the next song with the click of the button on the headphone cord. I find this method easier than the physical buttons of the G2 Shuffle attached to my sleeve. I?ve been buying the MarWare cases but this time I?ll just buy the new Nano (aka SuperShuffle).
2) Having a tap-to-shuffle option would be cool, but that only works if it?s a physical button to enable the screen for regular access. Since this would require the touch panel to be on at all times it would drain the battery more, but this is a small display area so it would be more feasible than the iPhone/Touch. I can see that coming eventually.
The headphones Apple makes are useless for running and always fall out of my ear. Had to get some aftermarket ones. I'm afraid that if I have to look at it when running to change it then its a non-starter for me...which sucks b/c I really like the new Nano!
Oh and is it me or is Apple confused as to what configuration the Nano should take? I mean this is their third re-design of it since it came out like 5 years ago.
You use the Apple headphones for running? How is that even possible? OR does everyone who wants to do it this way have to go out and buy expensive special headphones for this basic functionality?
The headphones Apple makes are useless for running and always fall out of my ear.
Read the thread guys. He already said that he uses Apple's in-canal earphones rather than the standard ones.
Read the thread guys. He already said that he uses Apple's in-canal earphones rather than the standard ones.
Wow. So add another $79 to the price, and you still don't get to use any of your old or preferred headphones. Sounds great.
Wow. So add another $79 to the price, and you still don't get to use any of your old or preferred headphones. Sounds great.
Are you not aware of the headphones you get with any PMP you buy? Are you suggesting Apple give you some golden ticket to get a free pair of headphones from any vendor you wish at their expense? Despite my dislike for the Apple ear buds they apparently are usable by most. I see people running with them all the time.
PS: Successful people don’t dwell on problems, they look for solutions.
Are you not aware of the headphones you get with any PMP you buy? Are you suggesting Apple give you some golden ticket to get a free pair of headphones from any vendor you wish at their expense? Despite my dislike for the Apple ear buds they apparently are usable by most. I see people running with them all the time.
PS: Successful don? dwell on problems, they look for solutions.
No, but I already have headphones that I love that work well with every player of every type on the market, except the iPhone, iPod Touch, previous iPod Shuffle and new iPod Nano. Why should I be forced to:
1) Buy another pair with inline controls that I might not like as much; or
2) Settle with the crappy Apple headphones with remote
just because I want to be able to control my music without looking at the device?
No, but I already have headphones that I love that work well with every player of every type on the market, except the iPhone, iPod Touch, previous iPod Shuffle and new iPod Nano. Why should I be forced to:
1) Buy another pair with inline controls that I might not like as much; or
2) Settle with the crappy Apple headphones with remote
just because I want to be able to control my music without looking at the device?
1) If you have headphones you like then use them.
2) You are inventing a problem. If a product doesn't exist the way you want it to you either don't buy it, buy the parts you need to make it ideal for your needs, or (if you think there is an untapped market) you sell your own to corner that market. There are no other viable options.
3) If you are being "forced" to buy something you don't want then you should contact the authorities instead of complaining on the internet as that is clearly against the law.
The Classic has soldiered on with very basic capacity and feature bumps, the Shuffle (except for the brief detour into buttonless land) has been a story of shrinking down until there's nothing but a click wheel, but the Nano has been all over the place, from its roots in the Mini to the fat boy to widescreen to multi-touch. I expect next year's to be round, or inexplicably huge, or transparent.
Like I said in an earlier post, I think Apple has this market so sewn up (at a time when no one else is even bothering to introduce new products) that they figure they can do almost anything, on the off chance something will be a breakout hit.
I really like someone's idea (sorry to not give credit where it's due, can't remember) of making this Nano a pluggable interface to little square accessory pieces, although that's probably way to elaborate for Apple to bother with at this point. As someone posted elsewhere, a Nano and a Shuffle stacked now make the previous model Nano-- how cool would it be if Apple sold a super-cheap, dockable Nano sized click wheel for people who wanted it?
Is there any confirmation the Nano is running iOS yet?
It the keynote at 27:50, Steve is demo'ing it and he drags an icon to the home screen and says "Just like I can with my other iOS devices," so that would seem to suggest it is (else he wouldn't have said "other.") But I could be reading to much in to one word.
But if so, it must be the most cut down version of OS X ever, with most of the background daemons not started, etc. And hopefully the parts they do start, they profiled and made as efficient as possible, and those performance improvements can feed back to the Mac.
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. Portions of iOS are derived from FreeBSD, and as such Apple is required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their accompanying documentation. Small devices such as iPods and iPhones don't come with substantial printed documentation, so such acknowledgments are often digitally embedded inside the device itself, in an on-screen "About" page. This is exactly what happens in iOS devices such as iPhones and iPod touches. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. iOS employs portions of the FreeBSD OS in its userland, and as such they are required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their "About" screen. They do this in existing iOS devices. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
Based on Erica Sadun’s in-depth perusing of the code she believes it’s Pixo OS.
I wonder why the Nano is such a hotbed of sort of random design ideas? It's really not very Apple like-- usually they either stand by their design decisions or drop the product altogether.
It does seem that making too drastic of a change is risky to do on their most popular product, but so far it appears that if it works, it's a big hit, if it doesn't work, it doesn't seem to hurt them too terribly.
I think it had to have been a slip of the tongue. iOS employs portions of the FreeBSD OS in its userland, and as such they are required by copyright license to acknowledge FreeBSD, inc in their "About" screen. They do this in existing iOS devices. But if you search through the entire legal section of the new iPod nano, there is no mention of FreeBSD to be seen.
That's interesting. To me it would seem that refitting iOS would be the the most straightforward way of getting the touch, look and behavior into the device vs. shoehorning the same services into Pixio.
That's interesting. To me it would seem that refitting iOS would be the the most straightforward way of getting the touch, look and behavior into the device vs. shoehorning the same services into Pixio.
Me too, as I think we?ve previously discussed. I guess even Apple couldn?t get iOS small and efficient enough to make it viable.
Me too, as I think we’ve previously discussed. I guess even Apple couldn’t get iOS small and efficient enough to make it viable.
Yeah, who knows. They probably will sell more than enough of them to make a heavy rework worthwhile. If you can plan on selling 15-20 million of a product, it's worth the custom tuning to make it work optimally.