iPod Nano Retina

Discussion in 'iPod' started by Hexiii, Jun 15, 2012.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Hexiii

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #1
    Just came to mind, if Apple would bother putting retina into an iPod Nano. It seems pointless now, but they could add some Mini App Store.

    What do you think?
     
  2. macrumors 68030

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #2
    Screen already puts considerable drain on the battery. Retina could make it significantly worse (looking at teardowns, there doesn't appear to be any room to fit a bigger battery).
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Location:
    Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
    #3
    they should make a regular iPod nano with the click wheel and the retina display, and make the current one the iPod Touch Nano. I'm sure with IGZO, it can achieve retina display-type resolutions.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    Carlanga

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Location:
    PR
    #4
    You don't need retina to have an app store and retina displays hit the battery hard.
     
  5. macrumors 65816

    Irock619

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #5
    To have an app store they would have to add wifi capabilities unless plugged into a computer, highly unlikely imo.
     
  6. macrumors 6502

    PatrickW98

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Location:
    Subrubs of Chicago, IL
    #6
    This is why Apple made an iPod touch.
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2012
    #7
    It would be overkill...
     
  8. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #8
    App store for the nano would NOT be overkill.

    All the nano needs to be "useful" as an app sales point is bluetooth.

    Then I could have notifications post from iPhone to the nano as a watch. Great for exercising. Who was that text message from? Do I care to stop and answer or no?

    Incoming call... do I want to answer? Yes? tap. No? tap.

    Bluetooth headphones would already be connected...

    What about watch faces? .99 cents for a watch face you really like seems like an easy sale.

    Stream music from your iPhone...then you have pandora, etc instantly available.

    LOTS of apps like that would be very valuable, even if you had to buy on iTunes and then sync your iPod to it to download them.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Hexiii

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #9
    Some of the games...

    [​IMG]
     
  10. macrumors 68020

    aPple nErd

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2012
    Location:
    Jailbreaks/IOS Hacks
    #10
    yes they look cool and nice but try PLAYING those games on it. Temmple Run would be very hard as you can't see upcoming breaks, and obsticals. nice rendering though.
     
  11. macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #11
    i don't even like the current nano's as it is. i think its good that they have them and the ipod classics for their simplicity alone. sometimes less is more.
     
  12. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    #12
    Agreed. The UI for flash iPods has been going down hill for some time. I just bought a used G3 nano because anything newer is just too small to hold or operate, at least if you want to read what is on the screen and interact with it. [yes, the 4G and 5G have the same size screen; they just don't have as good of a UI, and are harder to hold in a human-sized hand; smaller is not necessarily better].

    Now the shuffle is different; its for shuffling, which means you basically don't interact with it that much, but for podcasts and audio books? The controls on a modern iPod just suck out loud.

    I left my soapbox in my other pants, but here's what really bugs me about the UI for the nano:

    Regardless of how small the screen may or may not be, their approach in how to use that real estate is ridiculously bush-league. I don't need album art (or a generic "note") taking up 90% of what is available, with teensy little lettering scrolling on by below it. When I start to push buttons on an iPod, it should immediately shrink the album art down to nothing and expand the controls I am accessing, so that they dominate the screen. If I press one button to wake up the backlight, then the iPod should dim the album art and put the song title, album, artist, and time bar in over that in readable type, ferchrissake. If I start to scroll, it should hide everything but the scroll indicators and the time bar (and blow those up to dominate the screen) until I finish. Its a friggin' no-brainer; why can't they figure that out?

    The UI for iPods is not smart at all. In fact, it's pretty stupid. For instance, who ever thought it was a good idea to make the back rounded? Try to operate the buttons and clickwheel on a 5G with one hand while it is sitting on a desk in front of you. Basically impossible. Why not make all the laptops with rounded bottoms, too? It's just as stupid of an idea.

    And I am tired of everything Apple does being designed by people who have the eyesight of 20-year olds. They live in a bubble and don't have a clue what most folks over 40 have to deal with.

    I wanted another 35 years from Steve; we didn't get it. I wanted it partly because if what he did in the last 35 years is any indication, he would have taken us somewhere even more incredible in the next 35. But what I REALLY wanted is for him to age and finally realize that how eyesight declines with age needs to be addressed in his UI. We may never get that, either.
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Hexiii

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #13
    Well, I chose the games that could actually be playable. But it's just a concept, there's no way Nano would run Real Racing 2.
     
  14. JMG
    macrumors 6502a

    JMG

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    #14
    Your fingers aren't small and thin enough retina or not.
     
  15. macrumors member

    Benjamin,

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Location:
    Brighton, UK
    #15
    220 PPI is Apple's claim, making them close to Retina Display, as Apple also claim that the human eye can only see 220 PPI.
     
  16. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    #16
    lol, clickwheel. it´s 2012, bro!
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    Location:
    Lusaka, Zambia(If you know where it is)
    #17
    lol, some people like it, bro! But I have to admit that it's kind of like wishing that the iPhone get's a keypad. I was a bit silly, maybe just craving it.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    TacticalDesire

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Location:
    Michigan
    #18
    I don't think a 'retina' display would be very practical on a nano. Those devices are great for working out and leaving in the car. You don't have to look at the screen much with those anyway.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Jackintosh

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    The screen may be too small to bother with making it retina.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    B777Forevar

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #20
    I think they should just put back the click wheel.
     
  21. macrumors 601

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #21
    Apple's made no such claim. They have claimed, that at typical viewing distances for smartphones, the pip of a screen needs to be about 300 for an average human to not see the pixels. I'd guess that a nano is typically viewed closer than a smartphone, so you'd need even more resolution.
     
  22. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Hexiii

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #22
    Well, I can't really see the iPhone pixels even if I look from the closest distance I can :D And I don't have a bad sight.
     

Share This Page