Isn't the new Nano great?

[coachingguy]

Wow, I'm shocked how many people here loved the square nano. I hated it! I'm still using the 1st nano and 5th... What was the point of square screen that was so small you couldn't really see anything on it. I agree, I thought the watch idea was neat... But I never met anyone who wore it as a watch.

This harkens back to the original idea behind the Nano in the 1st place. I predict it will sell big time. Small, useable screen, good battery life, nice options, good storage.

"...My oh my, where oh where will I clip it?" Really?

Coachingguy

[ManicMarc]

I don't see a point in the Nano (other than for small kids too young for an iPod Touch/iPhone). Runners / Gym users have the shuffle, everyone else has the iPod Touch. It doesn't even support iTunes Match (no WiFi).

Pointless. The Classic at least has massive capacity (great for keeping in the car).

Sorry Nano.

[rapaleeman]

Originally Posted by ManicMarc

I don't see a point in the Nano (other than for small kids too young for an iPod Touch/iPhone). Runners / Gym users have the shuffle, everyone else has the iPod Touch. It doesn't even support iTunes Match (no WiFi).

Pointless. The Classic at least has massive capacity (great for keeping in the car).

Sorry Nano.

That's kind of my thoughts too.

I'm curious as to who this device was designed for. What was their target market?

The older Nanos really existed due to the high price of the standard iPods and their hard drive based storage along with emerging technology of MP3 players as a market segment. Now that MP3 players, even the iPod Touches, aren't really that expensive in the scheme of things, and that MP3 players are a dime a dozen now, who really needs one of these.

Sure a few people are on board to update older devices but what is this devices true purpose? There are so many other devices that fill the role of MP3 player better and those that want an iPhone style device have the iTouch which his also a small and great music playing device (meaning it is an MP3 player). Then there is the iPad which is also a music player as well.

It seems to me that Apple just didn't want to kill this line like they essentially have done with the Classic since it would take another several skus off their product line. In reality though, it seems like this device just exists to take up shelf space.

Say what you want about the Nano 6G being a bastardization of the 5G iPod Nano, but at least it had a reason for existing in the market place. That clip along with the storage size and the prices were a great value to a lot of people. This device not so much.

[Cloysterpeteuk]

This will be my first Nano purchase since the 1st gen model, I just want a small light mp3 player that looks good and that I don't even feel in my pocket.q

This model with lovely screen for albumn art, Bluetooth for speakers when at home, new earphones and more importantly great battery life means this model is perfect for me.

iPod touch would be a pointless purchase for me, loads more expensive and I already have an iPhone and iPad which can do all the same things. Whereas the Nano will be used in situations where I don't want a bigger iPhone with me - out for a run or I want to chill out to some tunes when walking the dog and not be disturbed by incoming texts, calls, notificications etc.

Younger bro is buying one also, his old touch just broke and he wants one of these as he never bothered with apps on the touch, just used it solely for music.

[karlwig]

They should have put antennas and a micro-sim tray in it and called it the iPhone nano.

I would actually buy that -- great for days when you want a lighter phone to take with you.

[macnerd93]

seems like Apple are neglecting one of the very things what saved them. Please god don't neglect the Mac thats all I ask.

[Qgirl]

Originally Posted by ManicMarc

Runners / Gym users have the shuffle, everyone else has the iPod Touch.

People keep saying that, but though the Shuffle is certainly super convenient at the gym, it's also TINY (I'm talking capacity, not physical size). You have to be constantly changing your playlists on it, because pretty quickly you can't add anything new. And you can not reasonably use it for audiobooks or even podcasts. Having something like the 16 gb Nano that you can clip to your clothes like a Shuffle but it holds all your stuff ... priceless. This new one will have to go in a pocket. I don't always have pockets.

[PinkyMacGodess]

Originally Posted by ftaok

I doubt Nike would be working on an integrated Nike+ receiver/Bluetooth transmitter.

Why not? That's the way most of their stuff seems to work now. I don't think that will be too far off...

[ftaok]

Originally Posted by PinkyMacGodess

Why not? That's the way most of their stuff seems to work now. I don't think that will be too far off...

I was referring to Nike making a new transmitter that includes BT and the Nike+ protocols with a 30-pin connector. This would be for the nano6G (and older devices).

Since the 30-pin connector is effectively discontinued, I doubt Nike would be working on any hardware that uses 30-pin.

Anyway, I don't think Nike would be making any more stand-alone transmitters as all of the new devices have BT built-in, so they would likely allow for the hardware guys to use the Nike+ protocol (which uses the same frequencies as BT). This would be like how the iPod touch and iPhone can access the Nike+ footpod.

[PinkyMacGodess]

So far I think that the best iPod for runners and gym animals was the stick 3G Shuffle. No display, simple, just a switch and a hole for the headphones. For skiing, the display didn't freeze, for outdoor stuff, I clip it to my hat for mowing and other general maintenance. Then they went back to the brick with buttons. Downgrade...

I loved the original squarish 3G Nano too. I have three around here somewhere. They worked with the Nike+ and were small enough, although they needed a clip very badly. My original clip case for them broke and I haven't been able to find a replacement. Not a fan of the 6G Nano.

----------

Originally Posted by ftaok

I was referring to Nike making a new transmitter that includes BT and the Nike+ protocols with a 30-pin connector. This would be for the nano6G (and older devices).

Since the 30-pin connector is effectively discontinued, I doubt Nike would be working on any hardware that uses 30-pin.

Anyway, I don't think Nike would be making any more stand-alone transmitters as all of the new devices have BT built-in, so they would likely allow for the hardware guys to use the Nike+ protocol (which uses the same frequencies as BT). This would be like how the iPod touch and iPhone can access the Nike+ footpod.

Sorry I misunderstood... I would think that the older dock is a done deal at this point. Is the pod Bluetooth? I wasn't aware and assumed it was something else, although it would make sense if it were. The chest strap isn't Bluetooth though because Polar has their own frequency range they work with.

I'm still pissed Nike+ dropped their wrist controller. That was so cool product. It made it so easy to control the iPod playback... But technology marches on I guess...

[Braniff747SP]

Its nice, but I like the sixth generation more for my uses. I clip it on to my sleeping bag when I go camping... The battery life is fantastic; when I'm at long-term camps, it gets through without recharging without a problem.

This new one just seems to big for that use. Also, I'm curious--how does that bigger display impact battery life?

[RyanG]

Originally Posted by Braniff747SP

Its nice, but I like the sixth generation more for my uses. I clip it on to my sleeping bag when I go camping... The battery life is fantastic; when I'm at long-term camps, it gets through without recharging without a problem.

This new one just seems to big for that use. Also, I'm curious--how does that bigger display impact battery life?

Did you even read the tech specs for the new nano?

Built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery
Music playback time: Up to 30 hours when fully charged
Video playback time: Up to 3.5 hours when fully charged

[Braniff747SP]

Originally Posted by RyanG

Did you even read the tech specs for the new nano?

Built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery
Music playback time: Up to 30 hours when fully charged
Video playback time: Up to 3.5 hours when fully charged

30 hours? That's pretty good. I'll need to check how much the sixth generation's battery life is.

[ftaok]

Originally Posted by PinkyMacGodess

Sorry I misunderstood... I would think that the older dock is a done deal at this point. Is the pod Bluetooth? I wasn't aware and assumed it was something else, although it would make sense if it were. The chest strap isn't Bluetooth though because Polar has their own frequency range they work with.

I'm still pissed Nike+ dropped their wrist controller. That was so cool product. It made it so easy to control the iPod playback... But technology marches on I guess...

The Nike+ footpod works on the same frequency as Bluetooth, but it's proprietary. iPhones and iPod touches can use the footpod since they have BT reciever and I guess Nike gives them the "codes" to translate the signals.

Anyways, it looks like the 7G nano can utilize the Nike+ footpod. Woohoo! It can also send signals to a BT headphone and receive signals to a BT HR strap while communicating with the footpod. This is huge, but a part of me wishes they added these features to the 6G nano form factor.

[jacoder]

Yeap, it is great!!!


iPod Nano (RED) 7th Generation by Tohru にゃん, on Flickr


iPod Nano (RED) 7th Generation by Tohru にゃん, on Flickr


iPod Nano (RED) 7th Generation by Tohru にゃん, on Flickr

Compare with iPhone 5:


iPod Nano vs iPhone 5 by Tohru にゃん, on Flickr


iPod Nano vs iPhone 5 by Tohru にゃん, on Flickr

[lshaner]

No it isn't great.

Please allow me to enumerate the ways that is is a dud:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1467573

[batmangorden]

Battery life was terrible on the last nano, don't know if it was cause how small the nano was, but yeah, terrible battery life. At times the battery only lasted around 4 hours. And that was lightly turning the screen on to change songs every once and a while.

Anyone gave the new nano's battery a test run?

[PinkyMacGodess]

It's interesting that the Touch and the Nano got so close in functionality there for a while, and then drifted apart again... I can't see the Nano really working well for me. I've still got the earlier Nano, and am still getting used to it...

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by batmangorden

Battery life was terrible on the last nano, don't know if it was cause how small the nano was, but yeah, terrible battery life. At times the battery only lasted around 4 hours. And that was lightly turning the screen on to change songs every once and a while.

Anyone gave the new nano's battery a test run?

The 6G nano has given me very good battery life and still does, way more than 4 hours.

[Jessica Lares]

Found a place to dock it!

[dba415]

Does anyone still buy the shuffle? There are a bunch of cheap MP3 players better and lower priced if you are in the price range.

[racoop]

Originally Posted by dba415

Does anyone still buy the shuffle? There are a bunch of cheap MP3 players better and lower priced if you are in the price range.

You're not a runner, are you?

[Ivabign]

I know it is silly, but I liked that the 5th generation had a speaker - I KNOW it wasn't worth a damn - but I can't tell you how many times I watched Family Guy at a school function when it would have been difficult (appearance-wise) to have sported headphones.

[TacticalDesire]

For those with large hands and/or long fingers, the 6th gen nano was a pain to use and the 7th gen is a godsend.

[Guacamole]

The reason I would like to get a nano is for when I want to listen to music on my long journey by bus and I don't want to waste my iPhones battery listening to music because the battery on my iphone doesn't last long and I'd rather save it