Apple announces iPod nano

Creative Nano was first....and is lighter

Dave00 said:
This looks like a lawsuit bait technique to me. Have apple sue them over the "nano plus', and sue back about the menus. This is certainly no competition to the nano. $150 for 1Gb, and it's not even an iPod? And that it weighs 50% more, is twice as fat, and doesn't have a color screen. Pshaw. They shouldn't even bother.

Dave
Click to expand...
Creative's Nano was announced in April (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000387040904/), so it was first by a long shot. The Nano Plus is newer....

Apple says that the Ipod Nano is 42 grams, the Creative Nano Plus is 34 grams with battery. That's 8 grams lighter, not 50% heavier.

And, while it may be thicker, but it's smaller in other dimensions. The overall volume is about the same....
 
much as this is probably a dead thread...

so, it seems like there is plenty of supply for these things, judging by the ship times and the number of people with them already.

This means:

A) the ipod nano is not a staggering success on apple's part
B) Apple anticipated staggering success, and has built up an even more staggering supply.


I'm kind of leaning towards A, because while the mini brought whole classes of people who wouldn't have bought an ipod into the ipod fold, the nano doesn't appeal to new people, just has a stronger appeal to those who would have or have bought a mini.
 
dontmatter said:
I'm kind of leaning towards A, because while the mini brought whole classes of people who wouldn't have bought an ipod into the ipod fold, the nano doesn't appeal to new people, just has a stronger appeal to those who would have or have bought a mini.
Click to expand...
Also, as many posts here have said, the Nano has a physical attraction that distracts people from evaluating it on its actual merits.

People who thought that the Nano sounded interesting, they look at and hold one - and suddenly the thought of paying 23% interest on their maxed out credit card to own one seems reasonable. Cha-ching!

And, of course, people who think that a couple of hundred dollars is a reasonable tab for dinner for 4 are also picking them up.
 
Dahl said:
Slow start for the iPod nano ???
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1270
I would think it would be a little early to call it, there are still tons of people who are unaware of the nano.

Sorry if it's been posted already.
Click to expand...

I certainly think it's too early to call. They were flying off the shelves quicker than I've seen anything sell before on Saturday at my local Apple store.

A lot of the target audience have been reached already with the mini so I suspect one of the reasons for dropping the mini and replacing it with the nano is to generate interest and maintain sales in the cheaper ipod range.

It's probably unrealistic to expect it to shift as many units as the mini did.

Judging by the reaction, I can't imagine that the nano will be a disappointment. Especially around christmas.

Personally I'm rooting for it as I think it's briiliant. It performs as well as it looks for me.
 
nomad01 said:
I certainly think it's too early to call. They were flying off the shelves quicker than I've seen anything sell before on Saturday at my local Apple store.

A lot of the target audience have been reached already with the mini so I suspect one of the reasons for dropping the mini and replacing it with the nano is to generate interest and maintain sales in the cheaper ipod range.

It's probably unrealistic to expect it to shift as many units as the mini did.

Judging by the reaction, I can't imagine that the nano will be a disappointment. Especially around christmas.

Personally I'm rooting for it as I think it's briiliant. It performs as well as it looks for me.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. I think after we see some Xmas sales figures, everyone will see just what a hit the nano really is. Since the mini seems top be the most popular iPod, yes, of course many of those owners already have their needs met and may not have a need for the nano right away, but regardless of that, the nano is so cool, I have every faith that it will be a tremendous hit for Apple. :cool:
 
I actually think that the nano can beat the mini, even if overall iPod sales have peaked. While some will be ok with their first iPod, many will feel the need to upgrade. It might be the last great iPod before we see a video iPod.
 
Dahl said:
I actually think that the nano can beat the mini, even if overall iPod sales have peaked. While some will be ok with their first iPod, many will feel the need to upgrade. It might be the last great iPod before we see a video iPod.
Click to expand...

That's my problem - I have a 3G iPod, and no other update has tempted me like this nano one. Yet, I always told myself I would hold out until a video iPod! Damn Apple.... ;)
 
Chundles said:
The shuffle feature is random, if you have a selection of 1,2,3,4,5 then 1,1,1,1,1 is a possibility for a 5 song playlist. Random means it can take any of the songs and play them at any time.
Click to expand...
The shuffle is definitely not truly random. It creates an order and plays it in that order. You'll never have 1, 1, 1, 1. However, the issue is that the ordering itself is not random. There is a consistent clustering of songs. To have 3 songs from the same artist in the first 20 songs, in a very large list, is unlikely. To have it happen consistently is even more so. However, as I've said before, quantifying the lack of randomness is quite difficult. Especially since it's impossible to generate a truly random number.

Dave
 
~Shard~ said:
That's my problem - I have a 3G iPod, and no other update has tempted me like this nano one. Yet, I always told myself I would hold out until a video iPod! Damn Apple.... ;)
Click to expand...

This was me as well!
Note I said WAS.... as you can see by my signature!!!!
 
AidenShaw said:
Creative's Nano was announced in April (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000387040904/), so it was first by a long shot. The Nano Plus is newer....

Apple says that the Ipod Nano is 42 grams, the Creative Nano Plus is 34 grams with battery. That's 8 grams lighter, not 50% heavier.

And, while it may be thicker, but it's smaller in other dimensions. The overall volume is about the same....
Click to expand...
I was confused by the earlier posting, indeed creative had the name first. Which raises a whole lot of other issues.

For some reason, I can't seem to find the nano plus's weight with battery. I thought the weight was 2.2oz, but I could have read wrong.

But anyway, there's really no comparison here. Much smaller capacity, and it's not the "real thing."

Dave
 
Hattig said:
I've done an odd, but maybe useful, pricing table for iPods.

It is in UK prices, and the interesting column is the Price/GB/cm^3 one.

512MB Shuffle

Price: £69
Price/GB: £138
Volume: 16.8 cm^3
Price/GB/Volume: £8.26/GB/cm^3
Capacity-Volume Value: **

1GB Shuffle

Price: £89
Price/GB: £89
Volume: 16.8cm^3
P/G/V: £5.29/GB/cm^3
Capacity-Volume Value: ***

2GB Nano

Price: £139
Price/GB: £69.50
Volume: 25.2cm^3
P/G/V: £2.75/GB/cm^3
Capacity-Volume Value: ****

4GB Nano

Price: £179
Price/GB: £44
Volume: 25.2cm^3
P/G/V: £1.74/GB/cm^3
Capacity-Volume Value: *****

20GB iPod

Price: £209
Price/GB: £10.50
Volume: 95.2cm^3
P/G/V: £11/GB/cm^3
Capacity-Volume Value: *



From the above: If capacity is all that matters, then the iPod clearly windos on the Price/GB, being 4x more price efficient than the next closest iPod! However if the volume of the player is most important, the iPod drops to last! The 4GB nano is astoundingly cheap per GB per unit volume. Way more so than the Shuffle, and you get a colour display and style to boot.

The worst buy is the 512MB Shuffle. It sucks on a capacity rating, on the price per capacity rating, and on the price/capacity/volume rating. The 1GB Shuffle is nearly as bad. Clearly, if the choice is between a 1GB Shuffle and a 2GB Nano, the choice would be the Nano, despite being £50 more.
Click to expand...

Thankyou very much! U have just found a reason for me to justify (to myself) that I should by a Nano! THANKYOU! *goes to lubricate bank account*
 
WHERE IS MY MAC

Okay apple a new ipod with no firewire support or remote connector is great but remember the time when you used to make these really cool computers called macs and weren't just a music accesory company. HELLO. iPods are great but at leastput some effort into the macs. and now no keynote in paris means we won't see one an upgrade for months
 
Macrumors said:


Apple announced a replacement to the iPod mini line today. The iPod nano. The iPod nano comes in 2GB and 4GB flavors and offers a smaller/sleeker package:

- 1000 songs in your pocket
- Color display, can support photos
- Click wheel navigation
- 80% smaller in volume than the original iPod. 1.5 ounces
- 1/2 the thickness of the iPod mini
- Supports the dock connector
- 14 hour rechargeable battery
- Flash memory instead of a hard drive
- New graphical clock, games, stopwatch, lap timer, screen lock
- White and Black models available.
- $199 and $249 for 2GB and 4GB models
Click to expand...

**********************************************************************

The higher demand for black Nano's should tell Apple what I've known for years :

a satin black iMac G5 with matching accessories and throbbing blue Apple logo would rock !

How about a little iMac/iPod coordination ?


---gooddog

/
: * ] AAAaaaRRRrrrrrFFFFfff !!!
\
 
Other Flash Products???

I love the nano....

So why not develop other flash based products and dump the hard drive? I'd be ecstatic with a powerbook with only 20 gig of storage if it were cheap, light and flash based...
 
louden said:
I love the nano....

So why not develop other flash based products and dump the hard drive? I'd be ecstatic with a powerbook with only 20 gig of storage if it were cheap, light and flash based...
Click to expand...

Samsung has some pretty high capacity flash chips on their roadmap for next year, so this may be an option sooner than people might think. Whether Apple (or anyone for that matter) will make this type of an architectural change is another matter, but the option would at least be there.
 
louden said:
I love the nano.... So why not develop other flash based products and dump the hard drive? I'd be ecstatic with a powerbook with only 20 gig of storage if it were cheap, light and flash based...
Click to expand...

Agreed, but don't make it a PowerBook. Make it an iPal (PDA/MP3/etc) or Mac Tablet. The keyboard is detachable BT and much like a PowerBook or iBook keyboard with a trackpad. The Tablet can be used with the keyboard/Trackpad or by itself (touch screen) or the Tablet could be used with a full size keyboard and mouse if the user prefers.

Dumping the HD and the DVD/CD drive would save a lot of weight, space and thickness. A tablet that was have the size of a 15" PowerBook screen would be plenty big enough for a great many things, could be high resolution and extremely portable.

Making the unit have a SolarSkin would make a smaller battery last longer and recharge all by itself.

Think Mac-in-a-Clipboard...
 
pubwvj said:
Agreed, but don't make it a PowerBook. Make it an iPal (PDA/MP3/etc) or Mac Tablet. The keyboard is detachable BT and much like a PowerBook or iBook keyboard with a trackpad. The Tablet can be used with the keyboard/Trackpad or by itself (touch screen) or the Tablet could be used with a full size keyboard and mouse if the user prefers.

Dumping the HD and the DVD/CD drive would save a lot of weight, space and thickness. A tablet that was have the size of a 15" PowerBook screen would be plenty big enough for a great many things, could be high resolution and extremely portable.

Making the unit have a SolarSkin would make a smaller battery last longer and recharge all by itself.

Think Mac-in-a-Clipboard...
Click to expand...
How would you install things? network?

Edit: that gets me thinking a external portable CD/DVD drive.(for when you need it)
 
Lacero said:
This was posted over at Slashdot. Somebody left for the weekend and they let iTunes shuffle feature play over songs tagged to only play 1 sec.

When they came back and analyzed the playcounts, it was indeed random enough that all the songs had similar playcounts. It's people own predilection to certain songs that they feel it wasn't random.

Apple's more random setting actually lowers the randomness probability.
Click to expand...

i think when people say it isn't randomn, what they actually mean is that there isn't enough variety. they don't want songs to cluster, because that feels less randomn, somehow. i like the new 'non-randomn' feature.
 
bloogersnigen said:
Okay apple a new ipod with no firewire support or remote connector is great but remember the time when you used to make these really cool computers called macs and weren't just a music accesory company. HELLO. iPods are great but at leastput some effort into the macs. and now no keynote in paris means we won't see one an upgrade for months
Click to expand...

Once in a while a real post, such as the one above, comes along. Finally a true Apple user speaks up. I agree. It's too bad the Apple Computer Company has to become just another Dell or Gateway but it has happened my friend. Apple is simply not the visionary company it once was. Not only do they not think outside the box any more, they have become the box. Switching to Intel, going against every thing the visionary Apple stood for was a sure sign of doom. No longer is there any advantage for having a Macintosh. It's just going to be another old technology x86 box that needs massive resources to over come it's archaic architecture. Boo hoo.
Mad :mad: :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top