Bluetooth Nano Watch -- Kickstarter

Discussion in 'iPod' started by Schmoyer, Jul 3, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
  2. macrumors 68020

    RedCroissant

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #2
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    #3
    Got 3 new nanos from the apple recall and got the TikTok watch bands for them, this one looks interesting!
     
  4. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #4
    Looks pretty cool, but the dealbreaker for me is that the 30-pin connector is unavailable for use when using this watchband.

    So using the Nike+ sportskit becomes impossible.

    I've thought about putting together a prototype watchband that would provide bluetooth through the headphone port, thus leaving the 30-pin for the Nike+ receiver.

    But I figured that the next Nano would solve the problem for me by baking in BT or Nike+ (or both) right out of the box.

    For now, I continue to use my iWatchz band with wired headphones.

    ft
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    #5
    The Nike+ dongle dosent work in the new Nano after the last software update. It was because Apple built that all into the OS so it's a non issue. I used to work for a company that sold iPods and we had a seves area for computer and whatnot divece repair and I can't tell you how many people were like I did the software update and now this doesn't work what's up and we had to explain the situation. So like I said its s null issue my only prolem is I like to put mine into a speaker dock so this seams like a pain when I can take my nano in and out of all my other watch bands so easy except my LunaTik but then again I don't wear that one very much for that reason.

    ----------

    Oh and by he way I do think this is cool for thoes select few people who only use the nano as a watch and use it to work out. But for my having the cowed doesn't bug me and the barrty I am sure would drain so fast from what I have read about other Bluetooth iPod adapters. And to have to take it in and out all the time to charge just saying
     
  6. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #6
    With all due respect, you're wrong. The nano 6G does not have the Nike+ receiver built-in. Even with the latest firmware. What the latest firmware does do, is allow for the built-in accelerometer to calculate running data.

    Without the Nike+ kit, you still cannot use the footpod (potentially more accurate) and you can't use any of the Nike+ accessories (which include the HR strap and the discontinued Nike+ remote).
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    AppleDApp

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #7
    Found this on Apple's website.
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    #8
    It is correct that you don't need to connect a receiver because the nano now has an accelerometer-based option, but it is not as accurate as the footpod solution which still works perfectly fine if you insert the Nike+ sensor into the port.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    #9
  10. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #10
    No, you were wrong. You said the Nike+ dongle doesn't work with the new firmware. It absolutely does work.

    Anyways, there are a myriad of other reasons to use the dongle for Nike+, especially when using with a watchband (as is the point of this thread). For example, if you want to run using Nike+ and a watchband, you have two choices ... with the Nike+ receiver and without the receiver.

    If you run without the receiver using the watchband, the software will have to account for your armswinging motion to count your pace. In my estimation, this will be wildly inaccurate, even if you calibrate it. Your arm swing will vary a lot more than your footsteps, especially as you tire over the duration of your run.

    With the footpod, you can swing your arms like a wildman if you want and your pace will be recorded more accurately.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    AppleDApp

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    #11
    can you use the nano only with the footpod and not the receiver attached to the nano?
     
  12. macrumors demi-god

    ChristianJapan

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Location:
    日本
    #12
    nice idea as the lack of BT hold me back buying a nano. now I just would like to have no rubber as holder; leather or steel would be nice, too.
     
  13. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #13
    No, you cannot. To use the footpod with the nano, you need to use the receiver. The nano 6G doesn't have the necessary radios to receive the Nike+ signals.

    Only the iPod touch and iPhone can receive the Nike+ signals without using the Nike+ receiver. Apparently, the Nike+ system uses the same frequencies as Bluetooth and iOS is set-up to receive these signals and process it.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Gator24765

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
    #14
    I really think that with the trend of these new watches etc, the new ipod nano will feature all the features that will make it the perfect watch. Pairing with iphone, bluetooth etc..
     
  15. macrumors 68000

    mentaluproar

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    #15
    That's an interesting idea. Perhaps Apple will do to the iPod nano what it did to the apple TV. Get rid of local storage and grab everything elsewhere, in this case, bluetooth to the iPhone/ipod/ipad/imac/iproduct....
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Gator24765

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2009
    Location:
    Texas
    #16

    Well idk about getting rid of storage as a lot of people would still use it for a music device.

    Add bluetooth and a decent set of bluetooth headphones it would be nice.

    Also, connectivity with an iphone with alerts would be ideal.
     
  17. macrumors 68000

    mentaluproar

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    #17
    The notification thing MUST happen. It's so obvious I don't see why apple would skip over it.
     

Share This Page