PDA

View Full Version : Fake iPod nano




Jesus
Jan 8, 2006, 06:20 PM
You have to see this, I hope Apple legal get these people.
Its lists itself as better than an iPod, then compares itself to a shuffle!!

Ebay Item (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/512MB-MP3-MP4-1-5-LCD-Movie-REC-Repeat-512-I07-512D_W0QQitemZ8747666455QQcategoryZ4601QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem)



G5Unit
Jan 8, 2006, 06:34 PM
Wow. Ugly.

grapes911
Jan 8, 2006, 06:39 PM
I wouldn't buy it because I don't know how well it will work or how well it is built, and I just love my iPod. I wouldn't call it ugly though. It looks almost like a real iPod.

zap2
Jan 8, 2006, 06:44 PM
only 512mbs

thats not enought for Pics Music and Vidoes

i saw a black 256 one some were (it was real Nano like)

doucy2
Jan 8, 2006, 06:44 PM
total POS lol
really cheap plastic looking
never would buy that
prob would break very easily and not to mention no compatability with mac
apple legal needs to be all over this

Chaszmyr
Jan 8, 2006, 06:45 PM
How do these companies manage to make MP3 players with more features than Apple's? Also, the dimensions are EXACTLY the same as the nano.

adk
Jan 8, 2006, 06:52 PM
I don't think it's similar enough to infringe on patents. It doesn't say Ipod anywhere, not even anywhere in the auction. Apple doesn't hold a patent on things that just look like the ipod. On top of that, it's being sold out of hong kong.

killuminati
Jan 8, 2006, 07:02 PM
well it is a much better deal than the shuffle. I think it's about $70 canadian with shipping and insurance, and it's got much better features (a screen!). If i was in the market for a shuffle I would get one. And it's only 70 bucks so its not a huge gamble if it ends up being ****.

Chaszmyr
Jan 8, 2006, 11:14 PM
I don't think it's similar enough to infringe on patents. It doesn't say Ipod anywhere, not even anywhere in the auction. Apple doesn't hold a patent on things that just look like the ipod. On top of that, it's being sold out of hong kong.

Apple holds a patent on the scroll wheel. Apple has also been known to patent all sorts of other aesthetic things.

cgratti
Jan 8, 2006, 11:29 PM
very ugly...an not an Aple product... Bleh!

Counterfit
Jan 8, 2006, 11:37 PM
How do these companies manage to make MP3 players with more features than Apple's? Also, the dimensions are EXACTLY the same as the nano.
And yet, the capacity is EXACTLY the same as the smallest iPod... :eek:

It doesn't say Ipod anywhere, not even anywhere in the auction.
Well, they do a point by point comparison between it and the shuffle (conveniently leaving out such points as size and weight...), but that's it.

adk
Jan 9, 2006, 12:44 AM
Apple holds a patent on the scroll wheel. Apple has also been known to patent all sorts of other aesthetic things.

I highly doubt that that cheap piece of garbage has a scroll wheel.


well it is a much better deal than the shuffle. I think it's about $70 canadian with shipping and insurance, and it's got much better features (a screen!). If i was in the market for a shuffle I would get one. And it's only 70 bucks so its not a huge gamble if it ends up being ****.

Except that I bet it has ZERO compatibility with itunes.

Chappers
Jan 9, 2006, 02:43 AM
http://aussie149.wordpress.com/ There are lots of them and some previous threads on this too.

I'd start worrying about stuff like this that look like it has the build quality

http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1166)-SanDisk_Sansa_e200_Series_MP3_Players.aspx

Glenn Wolsey
Jan 9, 2006, 04:03 AM
I have had enough of these blatant rip-off's. I am not even going to comment on them anymore, it's just giving the company attention.

mannix87
Jan 9, 2006, 05:00 AM
remember guys, most iPods were assembled in China hence, I wouldn't be surprised if they knocked off most of the good parts of an iPod for a cheap look- alike. and the Chinese are not really known for honoring IP rights. the China gov't has been arguing for the longest time that they never charged any royalties for everyone else's use of gunpowder and noodles w/c they invented so why should they, in turn, be charged for using somebody else's invention.

California
Jan 9, 2006, 05:47 AM
remember guys, most iPods were assembled in China hence, I wouldn't be surprised if they knocked off most of the good parts of an iPod for a cheap look- alike. and the Chinese are not really known for honoring IP rights. the China gov't has been arguing for the longest time that they never charged any royalties for everyone else's use of gunpowder and noodles w/c they invented so why should they, in turn, be charged for using somebody else's invention.

My thoughts exactly. Chinese consider intellectual property theft a part of economic warfare against the West. Too bad we are too dumb to see that, all our biz leaders see is their vast population as if they would allow us to sell our stuff to them at our profit. They will only allow this until they can steal our inventions and sell it to themselves. Hollywood is the dumbest when it comes to Chinese and their DVD rape n pillage of H'wood films -- they keep thinking the Chinese oligarchs in power are gonna let them sell movie tickets to one billion Chinese and let H'wood collect the box office. Not.

adk
Jan 9, 2006, 11:21 AM
remember guys, most iPods were assembled in China hence, I wouldn't be surprised if they knocked off most of the good parts of an iPod for a cheap look- alike. and the Chinese are not really known for honoring IP rights. the China gov't has been arguing for the longest time that they never charged any royalties for everyone else's use of gunpowder and noodles w/c they invented so why should they, in turn, be charged for using somebody else's invention.


Somebody should inform them that a patent lasts 16 years, not 600. Although, I do think paying a "noodle tax" would be pretty funny.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 9, 2006, 11:56 AM
I think Engadget mentioned a player just like this one.

If you look at the grainy pictires you can see that there are screws protruding from the sides of the device - reeeaaaalllll classy there.:rolleyes:

Randall
Jan 9, 2006, 12:10 PM
Apple holds a patent on the scroll wheel. Apple has also been known to patent all sorts of other aesthetic things.Since when can you patent a wheel? Give me a fscking break. :rolleyes:

geese
Jan 9, 2006, 01:24 PM
Since when can you patent a wheel? Give me a fscking break. :rolleyes:

I beleive Apple has attempted to patent the scrolling click-wheel in the form thats on the iPod. I dont think they have been successful yet.

clayj
Jan 9, 2006, 01:47 PM
The funniest part is that the Buy It Now price was (roughly) 15 ($26.47), but the SHIPPING cost was 25 ($44.11).

Since when should the shipping cost for an item be more than the cost of the item itself?

nbs2
Jan 9, 2006, 02:27 PM
Since when should the shipping cost for an item be more than the cost of the item itself?
used books. especially paperbacks.

a couple years ago i was ebay surfing and found a collection of used books that had no reserve and was going for a penny. i bid the penny and won. cost me $5 to ship, but for 6 or 7 books, it was a good deal.

pmitch
Jan 13, 2006, 06:18 PM
This is quite a common tactic used by sellers from China and Hong Kong in particular. It appears to be a way of setting a 'reserve' price without actually having a reserve. No-one is really suggesting it costs that much to post [check the stamps when it arrives :D ].

Another tactic sellers often use, is to add in huge 'insurance' premiums. I suppose from their point of view, where they may have ten or fifteen identical items on auction each day, it's a way of ensuring that a $1 buyer ends up paying $60. Like it or lump it, it's one of the common tactics on eBay.

PS: I've updated my blog on fake nano's for those who are interested.

http://aussie149.wordpress.com/tag/ipods-and-mp3s/

technicolor
Jan 13, 2006, 07:46 PM
These people have an ad that says ipod.
http://nokachina.trustpass.alibaba.com/product/11238861/MP4_Player/showimg.html

:mad:

pmitch
Jan 24, 2006, 07:39 AM
http://aussie149.wordpress.com/ There are lots of them and some previous threads on this too.

I'd start worrying about stuff like this that look like it has the build quality

http://www.sandisk.com/Products/Catalog(1166)-SanDisk_Sansa_e200_Series_MP3_Players.aspx

Agreed. BTW, I have updated this site greatly this week: lots more fakes. Some pics were even taken in my home, of a "nano" sent to from China. VERY convincing: even the CD looked like an official Apple CD

http://aussie149.wordpress.com/2005/12/

greg555
Jan 24, 2006, 09:00 AM
This is quite a common tactic used by sellers from China and Hong Kong in particular. It appears to be a way of setting a 'reserve' price without actually having a reserve. No-one is really suggesting it costs that much to post [check the stamps when it arrives :D ].

Another tactic sellers often use, is to add in huge 'insurance' premiums. I suppose from their point of view, where they may have ten or fifteen identical items on auction each day, it's a way of ensuring that a $1 buyer ends up paying $60. Like it or lump it, it's one of the common tactics on eBay.

PS: I've updated my blog on fake nano's for those who are interested.

http://aussie149.wordpress.com/tag/ipods-and-mp3s/

I think it is also to help sell into countries with high VAT (value added tax) because then the buyer is charged on the $10 price not the $300 shipping.

Greg

gossas
Aug 20, 2006, 10:58 AM
Well check this out.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=73839&item=130012562852

'tis nearly genuine, excellent fake according to Apple UK, cloned serial number, obviously stolen from manufacture site. It will take iPod software updates and synchs perfectly with iTunes, but will not recognise Nike + iPod receiver.