mac_128

tuckerjj said:

mac_128 said:

artdent said:

The 6G Nano was the best device I've used for running/working out, up until I got the Series 3 Apple Watch/AirPods combo. I do miss the Nano's FM radio though.

Funny this article didn't mention the obvious 6th gen legacy being the Apple Watch. I saw a guy on an flight last year who was wearing one as a watch, with his EarPods plugged into it. It was surprisingly normal looking.

Absolutely. The release of the 6th gen nano was when I realised I wanted Apple to make a watch. When they went in a different design direction for the 7th gen nano I was fairly sure (or possibly just v hopeful) that this was an indicator that they were working on one behind closed doors. There was then a long 3 year wait, expecting an announcement at every keynote, (though in retrospect, based on what we know, three years seems about right for the development of a new product line) but we got there in the end  

For me it was the 2011 OS update release the day before Steve Jobs died. That’s when they released a dozen new watch faces, after Steve Jobs had seen people wearing it as a watch. And that’s why I don’t believe for a minute that Jobs had nothing to do with the Apple Watch. He clearly had seen the way customers were using the nano, ordered the new watch faces, and likely starting thinking about how the watch could be used as a health monitoring tool given his focus on his own health and steps he could have taken to prevent his death had he acted sooner. A year after Jobs deaths, the nano was completely redesigned to look nothing like a watch despite the enormous popularity and success of the device for use as a watch.

artdent said:

The 6G Nano was the best device I've used for running/working out, up until I got the Series 3 Apple Watch/AirPods combo. I do miss the Nano's FM radio though.

Funny this article didn't mention the obvious 6th gen legacy being the Apple Watch. I saw a guy on an flight last year who was wearing one as a watch, with his EarPods plugged into it. It was surprisingly normal looking.

Using the article example we've seen in the leak, the 345PPI allocation becomes clear.

The corners (red) of the 384x480 display area will be rounded to fit within the glass bezel leaving thin uniform margins all the way around. Those corner pixels (red) will be re-allocated to the sides (orange) to expand the aspect ratio slightly to keep the active display area symmetrical. This keeps the watch case the same while allowing the display to expand edge-to-edge with a maximum increase in display area @ 398x480. The slightly wider aspect ratio will not be a problem for developers adapting the apps. Existing apps will still be displayed in the original 312x390 active area (white) and appear no different than the original watch. However, new 38mm watches may be able to start using the old 42mm apps as the active area will fit within the new expanded 38mm display area -- if Apple allows it. They stand to benefit the most, getting both instantly larger original apps and new edge-to-edge apps. It remains to be seen whether Apple would allow the 42mm apps to be upscaled to fit in the new area. It also throws the overall bezel design symmetry out of whack, with awkward looking angles too close to the rounded corners, which Apple may not desire.

netrox said:

Sounds like the DPI is increased significantly.

Yeah, it's a 23.08% increase over the current display area, not the rumored 15%. It also appears as though they will have to change the ratio slightly, or lengthen the watch case, which seems the least likely unless they're making other changes. The dimensions are an extraction of the 345PPI, which assumes the same ratio. But based on the graphic below, that would exceed the current dimensions of the watch. However, if the corners are rounded as expected, then it easily fits within the case parameters, though it will be somewhat asymmetrical. Since that's another Apple no-no, I'd bet the display area will actually be slightly shorter, and slightly wider than the current ratio if this PPI is accurate. This won't be a big deal to developers who will be redesigning the display interface to take advantage of the larger display area. And shaving a few pixels off the corners and top, and adding them to sides won't be a big deal. Original apps will continue to work in the same window as they always have making the new watch appear for all practical purposes the same as the old. The following is based on Apple's actual schematics ...

payeco said:

I've got a 16GB 6th gen that was left over from a project at work that I keep in an old speaker. I only have a couple apps on it. I mostly just use it for Apple Music and occasionally I'll use Safari to look something up if I'm near it and don't have my phone on me.

I just went to use it the other day and noticed the battery has expanded causing the screen to split away from the body. I looked up how to replace it myself but it involves soldering unlike battery swaps on the iPhone. Apple charges $80 to replace an iPod battery. I'm going to check a few local shops and see what they would charge but if they're going to charge more than $20-30 bucks it might be, sadly, time to decommission my last iPod.

That happened to my 5s. Took it to the Apple Store and they gave me a brand new 5s (we’ll likely refurbished) for the price of the battery. You should make an appointment with an Apple Store to see what they will do. Once the battery expands like that, it damages internal components, and they can’t just replace the battery anymore. Might be worth it for a brand new unit to keep around for a while longer.

bestkeptsecret said:

Strangely, I never bought an iPod Touch, despite my perchance for buying at least one of each Apple product! The last iPod I bought was the 160 GB iPod Classic. It served me very well and is still in top condition, as is my first Apple purchase - the 3rd generation iPod.

With the iPhone now sporting 256GB, the iPod Classic is taking a long break!

I’ve always been surprised they didn’t offer the iPod in 256GB as soon as it was possible for whatever price, even if it was special order. With the size of iOS install, and the option of so many huge apps, photos and video storage as well, 128GB doesn’t come close to replacing the 160GB Classic for music storage alone. It’s too bad Apple doesn’t offer an iPad-like cellular option too, though I suspect part of the reason the iPod is still with us is the ability to crank out a one-size-fits-all cheaply manufactured device. 

Hopefully Apple will offer one more Touch before it’s all over to address some of these short comings. Although I’m not interested in carrying a larger phone than the SE, I can see where a larger iPod makes sense, especially for kids playing games, and watching movies. A 256GB 5.8” iPod might be the ticket, with an eSIM and optional cellular radio.