I'll get Nano when they look like this

[drjsway]

2" 320x480 retina display
About as powerful as the original iPod Touch
Able to run any iOS app the original iPhone/iPod Touch can run (with the same resolution, this shouldn't be hard)
No external speaker/mic (a headset will work fine)
Bluetooth and Wifi
A VGA camera would be great but not necessary.

[roland.g]

I'm sure they'll get on that when the technology arrives. Ha! :D

Even at double the height and slightly wider, you are asking them to put too much into that small a package. There are physical constraints to what you are asking for.

[iParis]

You have no idea how small everything would be if it as that size but on a 320x480 screen. Especially in apps that you can't zoom into unlike Safari or iBooks.

EDIT: Woops. Depth perception completely off. For some reason I was thinking 2cm, not 2in. xD

[Alaerian]

What you're asking for isn't very reasonable, nor is it currently feasible in that size. Have you seen the inner components of an iPod Touch? You're essentially demanding an iPod Touch in a Nano package - it's not physically possible to do what you're wanting.

Plus, on that small of a screen, most apps would be completely unusable and would need to be rewritten, if not devoid of any support at all, for that model.

[drjsway]

At 2" inch (maybe 2.25" like the Nano 5G), a 320x480 screen would still be lower pixel density than the iPhone 4.

[drjsway]

What you're asking for isn't very reasonable, nor is it currently feasible in that size. Have you seen the inner components of an iPod Touch? You're essentially demanding an iPod Touch in a Nano package - it's not physically possible to do what you're wanting.

Plus, on that small of a screen, most apps would be completely unusable and would need to be rewritten, if not devoid of any support at all, for that model.

It's taking an iPod Touch and removing the cameras, mic, external speaker, and gyroscope. Plus, I'm sure an ARM chipset about the same power as the original Touch could be made much smaller now.

Don't see why it's unreasonable since this nano would be taller than the current one and I'm not adding any new hardware except a faster processor that can run iOS, and bluetooth/wi-fi.

[roland.g]

At 2" inch (maybe 2.25" like the Nano 5G), a 320x480 screen would still be lower pixel density than the iPhone 4.

It's not the screen size, it's the componentry that has to go into it. The engineering, even at Apple isn't there to put the power of a 1G Touch into something that small, even on a scaled down iOS.

[billysea]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.

[alust2013]

I do agree, that would be cool, even if it was like the current nano's OS plus video. I think that is a bit more reasonable

[roland.g]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.

I'll continue to disagree. The reason the Nano got the features you mention over time is that they were trying to make the Nano more than it was with add-ons year after year for marketing. Truth is video recording belongs in a Touch or iPhone. Video viewing belongs in a Classic, Touch, iPhone or iPad. Same with things like Speaker, Games, Notes, etc. Only Contacts and Calendar syncing might be arguable and come back in a software update. Possibly notes too. But truth is, they know that most Nano owners workout or run with it, and a lot of students use it or people commuting. If you want to watch video, a Nano is not the answer. Not in the evolution of the Nano, which this is. The Shuffle doesn't work for people who want a screen and/or Nike+ support. This does that with a clip, small package, easy to use.

[Alaerian]

The size you show is much more appropriate for the Nano.

However, I don't think it should run iOS. Shoehorning those Apps into this small screen will not work nicely. However, it needs to have all the features of the 5G back into this (Video Playback, Camera, Speaker, Cal, Note, Games etc)

With so much criticism, I am sure Apple will make the Nano bigger with more features next year, but still be able to fit in a clip.
Since you are so unhappy with everything Apple has to offer and you feel you can do it better, I'd recommend pursuing some investors to assist you in your own startup. Perhaps you'll be able to compete head to head with Apple in the portable media category.

Quoting from below, just for emphasis:
I don't think the Nano needs to run apps. It's been all about the music and the audio content. We have the iPod Touch and the iPhone for that.

[R94N]

I don't think the Nano needs to run apps. It's been all about the music and the audio content. We have the iPod Touch and the iPhone for that.

[tibi08]

What you're describing isn't significantly different to the iPod touch. Sure, you're going to argue it's just that tiny bit too big - but that gives the screen estate to run actual apps. Plus it can share apps the same size with the iPhone.

I think you're missing the point with the new nano. It's outstandingly brilliant. It's just a mp3 player, and it's the best mp3 player ever known (the iPod touch not being "just" an mp3 player).

[hcho3]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

[roland.g]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

Point made. I don't see Apple putting an A4 chip in a Nano. :eek:


It's outstandingly brilliant.

Best post. :)

[Dr Kevorkian94]

I think that size screen and a VGA camera would be just fine

[JohnnyQuest]

I think the size of that mock-up is just useless. Why would you want all the functionality of iOS on a package that's still so small? I really like where they took the new nano, but wish that the screen was just a tad bit larger...like if they have just chopped the wheel off of the previous generation and added the new touch functionality to the screen. I currently have a 4G iPod nano, and will most likely sit this update out, although I like the overall functionality of the new nano.

[old-school]

I think you're missing the point with the new nano. It's outstandingly brilliant. It's just a mp3 player, and it's the best mp3 player ever known

Well said. Get that man a chair, he can stay!

[headset]

I dig it. I think it's totally feasible. Not to run full ios apps, but specific, highly optimized versions of a couple apps. Maybe only one app, facetime. Maybe it would have to be a little thicker, a little bigger. But if apple can make a dick-tracy watch, they totally will.

[billysea]

Since you are so unhappy with everything Apple has to offer and you feel you can do it better, I'd recommend pursuing some investors to assist you in your own startup. Perhaps you'll be able to compete head to head with Apple in the portable media category.

Quoting from below, just for emphasis:

So what do you actually contribute to this discussion? Asking people with opinion to go somewhere and only Apple fanboy to stay, accept and admire?

I totally agree Apple should have a machine that doesn't have to do anything other than to just play music, or your 'theory' about separating the market from the iTouch/iPhone (which I found stupid since Apple has ton of products overlap in features over the years, and now they are overlapping the Shuffle in terms of 'featureless'). But for the cost they are charging for the Nano, it SHOULD have more features. It's not the point of how much features you care to use, but the balance between price and features. $150-180 is way overprice for a music-only device.

As I said in another thread, this thing will still sell though especially at the beginning. The Apple fashion brand, and the 'wow' factor from the size differences to previous models, will always sell machines. But sale numbers and product value/quality is never equal in our society, and I am here only to give my opinion on the value/quality.

However, I can see this new Nano as the (first step of an) evolution to the Nano line (instead of a natural successor to the old Nano). Next year after they take in all the criticisms they will do a much better job implementing other features while still keeping the machine small (but not as small and featureless as now).

[Alaerian]

But for the cost they are charging for the Nano, it SHOULD have more features. It's not the point of how much features you care to use, but the balance between price and features.

Forums ate my post. Ergo, TL;DR below.

You didn't create the device; therefore, you don't get to set the price. If you want to set your own price and demand specific features, then grab some investors and create your own.

There are plenty enough features to balance out the price. A smaller form factor comes at a price. So does an above average LCD with multi-touch capabilities. I'm sorry if it's not what you have demanded, but again, it's not your creation.

If you are so insistent on having "fluff" features like video recording, a camera, and the ability to make pancakes and fold your laundry ... why don't you simply get an iPod Touch?

You aren't understanding that the Nano isn't marketed to the crowd that needs everything above. It's apparently being marketed towards those looking for a fairly full-featured music player that is small and unobtrusive for active people. Why else would they have included a clip, a tiny form factor, a rotating screen, Nike+ integration, and a pedometer? I'm sorry that it doesn't have what you think it needs, but it just doesn't look like it was designed for what you'd be using it for.

$150-180 is way overprice for a music-only device.
Oh, and with this logic, the Classic should be discontinued too, right?
/facepalm

[m.a.c.b.o.y]

Looks like great idea to me, I'll hold out for that! The nano now is way too small.

[ConnorTurnbull]

No. Apple are moving their iOS device to a higher resolutions. They're not going to try and get develops to keep scaled back apps for a Nano.

I think it'll be RIP Nano in a few years.

[drjsway]

This thread starter should stay as a customer....
If apple hires a guy like this for their design team, apple will die...

2 inch screen? First of all...
In order to be called retina display, it must have 300 pixels per inch.480X320 is not going to be a retina display for 2 inch screen.

who is going to play games on 2 inch screen? Haven't people already cried out loud about how small 3.5 inch screen is on iPhone 4 or iPod touch?


All of those processing power in that tiny device? You think about battery life?


Glad you don't work for apple.

Why would you say something like this? Did I mention I was applying for a design job at Apple? Of course, I'm staying a customer and I'm speaking from a customer point of view.

At 2", it will have a ppi of 288, which is retina at 12" away assuming 20/20 vision. 20/20 = 1 arcminute = 3438 feet. 1/288 = .00347 inch per pixel. 12"/3438' = .00349 inch per pixel.

Why don't you learn about what you talking about before you speak? You just come off as ignorant.

As far as processing power, The original iPhone only had slightly faster chipsets than the ones used in the current nanos. With the added height, they could certainly fit a processor the same speed as the iPhone 1 (or optimize/streamline iOS more). The added height would also give it a bigger battery.

Of course the Nano doesn't NEED apps and no one will be force you to use them but it would be nice to have them there. And of course not all apps would work well given the size but simple apps like weather, calculator, stocks, and simple games would be great.

[M-5]

Good luck typing on a screen that small.

[drjsway]

Made one with bigger icons. I respect that people want JUST a music player but I think we're heading into a future where every device is a computer, even a music player.

[billysea]

Forums ate my post. Ergo, TL;DR below.

You didn't create the device; therefore, you don't get to set the price. If you want to set your own price and demand specific features, then grab some investors and create your own.

There are plenty enough features to balance out the price. A smaller form factor comes at a price. So does an above average LCD with multi-touch capabilities. I'm sorry if it's not what you have demanded, but again, it's not your creation.

If you are so insistent on having "fluff" features like video recording, a camera, and the ability to make pancakes and fold your laundry ... why don't you simply get an iPod Touch?

You aren't understanding that the Nano isn't marketed to the crowd that needs everything above. It's apparently being marketed towards those looking for a fairly full-featured music player that is small and unobtrusive for active people. Why else would they have included a clip, a tiny form factor, a rotating screen, Nike+ integration, and a pedometer? I'm sorry that it doesn't have what you think it needs, but it just doesn't look like it was designed for what you'd be using it for.


Oh, and with this logic, the Classic should be discontinued too, right?
/facepalm

Last time I check, the Classic does way more than a music player. In fact, it does the same thing the old Nanos do.

Of course I didn't create the device, but that doesn't mean I don't get to speak about it. Roger Ebert doesn't make film, so as millions of movie goers. That doesn't mean they can't say a thing when the film sucks, or they have to find a movie production company and make their own movies.

Also, I do have an iPod Touch. I also have older generation of iPod Nanos and Shuffles. As an iPod fan, I was just stating my opinion on the value vs. features of the new Nano. If you read my last post throughly, I did mention I welcome an Apple device that is music-only and don't need the so called 'fluff' features (that you think they are). The problem I was stating was the price they charge for what they are putting in.

I can't wait to see what Apple will do next year to the Nano. I have a feeling they will put back in a lot of features that so many people criticized they dropped this year, then people will agree that machine will be what this year's Nano suppose to be.

I know you want to defend the new Nano to justify with your new purchase, but try to be more rational here with your argument.

[drjsway]

Good luck typing on a screen that small.

Not much smaller than iPhone portrait mode.

[drjsway]

You aren't understanding that the Nano isn't marketed to the crowd that needs everything above. It's apparently being marketed towards those looking for a fairly full-featured music player that is small and unobtrusive for active people. Why else would they have included a clip, a tiny form factor, a rotating screen, Nike+ integration, and a pedometer? I'm sorry that it doesn't have what you think it needs, but it just doesn't look like it was designed for what you'd be using it for.

My concept is not radically different than the current Nano. In fact, I like the current Nano, I just think they should've went all the way.

Don't know why people think it's unreasonable when all I'm asking is for them to make it slightly taller (to fit a wider 2" screen) and slightly faster (to run 1st gen iOS apps). Slightly taller and slightly faster is unreasonable? Slightly taller and slightly faster would increase costs dramatically?

It would still be "small and unobtrusive for active people" and you could still put a clip on it.

[Alaerian]

Last time I check, the Classic does way more than a music player. In fact, it does the same thing the old Nanos do.
Oh, I wasn't aware that things like Contacts, an Alarm Clock, and the ability to keep time counted as "way more."


I know you want to defend the new Nano to justify with your new purchase, but try to be more rational here with your argument.
Go check my posting history. I haven't purchased one. I purchased the 5th gen. Why (not that I need to explain myself)? Because I like the larger form factor and the physical buttons. I couldn't care less about a video camera or whether it does my laundry, as you do so much.

You still just don't get it. They didn't make the Nano what you want because you aren't who they made it for. You may cry and stamp your feet all you want, but you aren't the target demographic. If you are so concerned about the extras, play with your iPod Touch and be done with it. Game over. Your idea of price versus features is completely flawed, which I have already pointed out and you have chosen to sidestep several times.

As this will no doubt fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?), I'll take my leave. Let me know when you design your own iPod competitor with the features you desire for the same or lower price. I'll be interested in taking a look.

Have a good one! :)

[izimzis]

Actually i think this is where it's headed.

If not then i think the nano will die soon and apple won't be that stupid.
The nano was always the small version of the classic. Now that the classic is not refreshed and i think will die at least in 2 years then the nano will become the small version of the ipod touch.
Apple will realize that a multitouch interface on a device as small as the current nano is a stupid mistake. I even believe they know it but need a gap taker as long as the nano they seek is too expensive to build.

The final version is going to be a multitouch display with a crystal clear oled display and a resolution as the original iphone, 480*320. The screen size is going to be 2.5". Basically it will have an iOS UI with all the standard apps provided by apple with no app store. Maybe FaceTime capable, but clearly wifi, bluetooth, accelerometer, pedometer, (and if FT) speaker, microphone and HD/5mp camera. 64gb and 128gb for its current price. Long lasting battery because the custom made ARM by apple and the fully developed oled technology. The design sleek, thin and shiny as always.

This is the only way the iPod is not dying due to the increasing number of smartphones and the redundancy of mp3 players. Obviously this is the final version at least 6 years away.
But if apple wants to keep the Nano alive they will have to start in at least 2 years with this concept. Otherwise the nano will die with all them other simple mp3 players, probably even sooner than we think due to its price and lack of possibilities.

So an even more iOS like UI on a 2.5" screen with video playback next year.
Of course no home button nor wifi, i actually like the swipe to get back feature on the nano its a very good concept :)

[SlamJam12]

I think the iPod nano will be just a music player. There is a reason Apple has several different models in the iPod lineup. Anyhow, who knows where the iPod nano will go from here.

[billysea]

Oh, I wasn't aware that things like Contacts, an Alarm Clock, and the ability to keep time counted as "way more."


Go check my posting history. I haven't purchased one. I purchased the 5th gen. Why (not that I need to explain myself)? Because I like the larger form factor and the physical buttons. I couldn't care less about a video camera or whether it does my laundry, as you do so much.

You still just don't get it. They didn't make the Nano what you want because you aren't who they made it for. You may cry and stamp your feet all you want, but you aren't the target demographic. If you are so concerned about the extras, play with your iPod Touch and be done with it. Game over. Your idea of price versus features is completely flawed, which I have already pointed out and you have chosen to sidestep several times.

As this will no doubt fall on deaf ears (or blind eyes?), I'll take my leave. Let me know when you design your own iPod competitor with the features you desire for the same or lower price. I'll be interested in taking a look.

Have a good one! :)

Great, accept your argument is flawed and just leave already. I especially like how you ignored 90% of my post and take things out of context. Also, you can pretty much use that flawed argument of yours on any crappy products - as something that is not targeted to certain demographic.

Anyway, there's no need to argue anymore as we both have different points. You think it's an amazing product, I think it a wrongly priced product. Even a resolution to this argument won't do anything to change this product.

Oh, and have a good one! :)

[headset]

maybe it could do voice recognition for short bits of text input. Short email replies, speaking a url or search term. Even with wifi triangulation, it would be sweet to have a tiny map on your wrist which tells you where you are always.

[JohnnyQuest]

Not much smaller than iPhone portrait mode.

Why don't you just get an iPod touch? Transferring the functionality of iOS to the nano will just make it un-useable. It's a small, music-only device with a touch screen. It will NEVER be a computer because of its bite-sized form factor.

[stevensr123]

I'm loving the design of that, it's the size of what the screen should have been, but your asking for unreasonable things there.

1st any apps would be pretty much useless because the screen is still too small to actually enjoy most apps and content.

I would be happy with 2' screen, more storage (32gb) , mic and speakers ( speakers if possible as big and as good as the iphone) and bigger battery life. oh and bring back video playback + video-out options.

The dream would allow a nano to sync up somehow witht he apple tv to stream content and use it as a wirless hd for the apple tv but oh well.

adding that option to the classic would have been boss though. I'm still disappointed they didn't update it.

[SlamJam12]

It would be interesting to see where Apple will go with new iPod nano. I always wondered why they changed the 3rd generation iPod nano back to usual tall 4th generation nano.

[fizzwinkus]

instead of shoe horning a bigger screen, complete architecture change, os change with ram and battery obstacles into a fantasy nano, why not just ask for a smaller ipod touch?

apple is pretty clear on their devices
shuffle: price
nano: size
classic: capacity

iphone/ipod touch: everything else

[admanimal]

I know some people have already said this but it is worth repeating: standard iOS apps would be unusable on a screen that small.

[P0IS0N]

Well that looks fugly. Put it next to the 6th gen nano, and nobody would go for your design.
Why would apple make this small nano and then change their minds and make a bigger one, especially with all the advertising they put into size (cutting 40% out of this, 46% out of that, etc.)
Besides, the watch thing is catching on, and I think they'll use that to their advantage.
I'm sure that aspect-wise, the differences between the current generation and the next won't be bigger than those between the 4th and the 5th generation.

[4DThinker]

Apple has lost their ability to come up with original ideas for iPods. The last one that was all theirs was last year's gumstick shuffle. It is clear sales didn't meet expectations with that one. They were clearly inspired by the "Baby Touch (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5996565&postcount=56)" thread in this forum two years ago, and if they haven't paid Qacjared for his idea then they stole it.

The new Nano should have been the new Shuffle. There is room for the proposed Nano in between this one and the Touch. It would also make more sense at the current prices.

[HuggyLowDown]

I still wouldn't buy the nano if it looked like that. Browsing the web on a small screen like that would be really tough. iBooks and other apps wouldn't be so much fun either.

[belltree]

I'll get one when they look like this:

http://imgur.com/y3ubc.jpg

Oh wait, this beauty already exists and I bought one last week (from the last remaining stock). I'm loving it. It is a beauty with unmatched features for a player of this price.

The 6th gen Nano is a hobbled product and mis-step on Apple's part IMO. It should have been released as the Shuffle or Shuffle Pro.

[SnowLeopard2008]

The current lineup is pretty solid. Most people I know that have bought the current Nanos and Nanos of the past (including myself) don't consume a lot of video content. I know 7-8 people who have the last gen Nano with the video camera. Only 1 of them actually used it more than once or twice. None of them watch video content. The new one is so simple to pick up and use, having the benefits of a touch based interface while retaining it's roots in playing music. The Classic is primarily a music player. If someone were to tell me that the Classic is primarily a video player....

Each to his own I guess. I haven't owned a Nano since the 2nd gen and this is the only one that I actually was really tempted to buy. It's Apple's "back to the basics" version of the Nano. Small size, easy to use, easy to carry. That was what the 1st gen Nano was at the time when it was released. Small size, easy to use and easy to carry. If you don't like it, that's perfectly fine. But don't be so stubborn to criticism of your idea/concept. If you posted in this forum asking for response to your idea/concept, then expect some kind of opposition to your idea/concept.