This was the best iPod nano iteration hands down. To the point where I actually bought one after they were discontinued. Great workout device - if only I ever worked out :-/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Watch-Sized iPod Nano is Officially Obsolete
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love this iPod,a triumph of miniaturisation.
I am still amazed how they got all this tech in such a small device and how well it worked. Great UI, oh and a radio!
Glad I got a few of these. I have stop myself when I see these in second hand stores. I have too many. Though the greatest problem I have with these, is almost all the 16gb models I see are pink.
I am still amazed how they got all this tech in such a small device and how well it worked. Great UI, oh and a radio!
Glad I got a few of these. I have stop myself when I see these in second hand stores. I have too many. Though the greatest problem I have with these, is almost all the 16gb models I see are pink.
Not sure what your beef was, but that form-factor definitely was my favorite iteration....
I still have my 16GB Nano. I've maybe used it a handful of times since buying it mostly because it's only 16GB.
I do have an several Apple watches and never have I ever used them for music. I still use my 30GB iPod Photo and 160 GB Classic.
I do have an several Apple watches and never have I ever used them for music. I still use my 30GB iPod Photo and 160 GB Classic.
I agree!!
In its category, which is now rather unique, it is definitely not obsolete. There is no device taking its place that makes it obsolete.
I still use mine for the gym. Technogym equipment still supports iPod Nano 6th gen connectivity too.
Nano 6th gen was a godsend. I was always so frustrated with iPod Shuffle, especially where Podcasts were concerned and never really knowing what song/podcast was playing. The Nano 6th gen was like the shuffle but with a touch screen.
Unlike Apple Watch, you can clip the Nano to your gym shorts and its out of the way. Wearing Apple Watch or having a large iPhone strapped to your arm really gets in the way when you're lifting weights.
Perhaps if Apple came up with an Apple Watch design where the straps come off and you can attach a clip to it so you can clip it to your shorts while working out it they would get more buyers.
And then if gym equipment could be updated to include a charger for the Apple Watch that would be awesome too.
Apple products used to be like candy. I couldn't get enough of them.
no they would tell you its vintage. because that's the term that comes up in the system and 99.9% of apple techs just read off what's on the screen. it won't be obsolete until its passed the extensions required in California and Turkey.
I still have and use mine. It no longer is used as a watch (the Apple Watch saw to that) but it is still a great little iPod... but only on a dock. No bluetooth = no Air Pods...
Ironic an iPod turned into a watch by entrepreneurs had better watch faces than the actual Apple Watch.
Exactly what they should've done. But the best part about the Nano compared to Apple Watch?
It was DIRT. CHEAP. The price was right for a product this small. And wallet accessible for any customer that wanted one. I don't have a Nano but own a vintage first gen iPod click wheel. Old school, FTW. That was THE iPod to have and MP3 done right without the frivolous crap added in.
I did contact someone who makes mod boards for classics to see if there was any way to increase the memory. He said he was going to buy one and have a look and see how much memory the Nano could address. He thought it may be possible to double the memory (to 32GB).
It would be great if someone started modding these units - imagine one with 256GB (chip implant and modded firmware).
It would be great if someone started modding these units - imagine one with 256GB (chip implant and modded firmware).
That’s a pretty strange thing to say considering how feature packed Apple Watches are. Please explain your post.
Wireless synching may be more physically convenient, in some respects (it must be powered to do so), but it sure takes a lot longer. And the irony is it only holds 250 songs, or 2GB; while the nano had 8 to 16GB storage. So in that regard, I'd say it's less convenient. Depends on your point-of-view.
I saw a gentleman on a plane a year ago, wearing the iPod on his wrist as a watch, and had his EarPods plugged into it. I thought it would be awkward, but nothing like that was evident. The cord never seemed to get in his way, and seemed very convenient. It also benefitted from higher quality audio since it wasn't compressed BT, and he only had one battery to worry about on his iPod.
And for those who merely wanted a watch and iPod, the Apple Watch is not really better at all, when one considers music playback is limited to 6 hours continuous playback, while the nano had 24 hours worth on a single charge. It also had an FM radio built-in. And the cost was significantly less, for more storage, and faster transfer and backup. But to each his own.
I love this little gadget. I never work out, but it keeps me company doing chores in house and yard, all the while listening to audiobooks. I don't want the watch, since I own I very nice and precious Swiss heirloom for that purpose. My husband just got me AirPods and tried to convince me to use them together with my iPhone 7 for the same thing (listening to audiobooks while doing chores). They are sitting unused in their box, I hated always having to carry the phone from room to room to yard to cellar and back...I just hope the little nano keeps going. Maybe I should get some secondhand as extras.
exactly, a dedicated music player is best. It just baffles me how Apple just killed all pure music players... Guess they are desperate to push their Apple Music subscription BS.
[doublepost=1504583249][/doublepost]
Really? Good to know... Still you need an iPhone to use it normally, and I use an iPod touch.
I'm curious, it wasn't this way with the first iteration of the Apple Watch right? This "music on the watch" is only from the newest version yes?
"Obsolete" (and "vintage," effectively the same except in a few areas of the world) are just terms used by Apple to denote support status, a status which it enters a certain number of years after it was discontinued--nothing to do with how unique/popular/beloved-by-you it is.
They spell it out at https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201624, and MR has historically done a decent job of explaining this in their summaries.As for the iPod itself, this was definitely my favorite non-Touch model--and if they allowed apps like iOS or watchOS, it likely still would be. It wasn't so big and fragile that you needed a case, and it was light and unobtrusive enough to just clip to your shirt or gym shorts with the built-in (!) clip. I remember buying a few over the course of its life. Nowadays it wouldn't quite meet my needs since I stream (e.g., Spotify and similar) more than I play synced music, but it was definitely great for its time--and still would be if I used mostly local music (or, again, they opened it up to third-party apps). That being said, although it was made to look a lot like iOS, it was apparently just a copy of the UI while the underlying OS was not actually so, so I guess Apple Watch is as close as we'll get to this form factor again.
I have 3 iPhones (6 Plus, 5S & 7) and Apple Watch. None will allow me to tune in to my favorite political talk radio station without need for data. Hopefully, with care, it will last a long time.
They could have updated the nano with Wifi for use with Apple Music. At a minimum, enabled BT streaming with the iPhone. But they chose not to.
I'm still puzzled why Apple hasn't expanded the reach of the Apple Watch by allowing at least iPads and iPod Touches to set up and sync with a watch, if not a Mac. Hopefully that will come with the LTE edition?
The Apple Watch has always been able to load music for local playback from day one. There is a 250 song or 2GB limit, however, and it must be synched with the iPhone via BT, and then only while charging. It takes forever and is extremely inconvenient to do, which is why most people don't mess around with it. 250 songs is rather limited, so rotating playlists is not realistic, especially since the iPhone has to be updated as well. I don't keep a lot of music on my iPhone, because I want the space for photos and video and apps. But I did on my iPod which I synched directly, and quickly, with my Mac. Changing playlists and updating music was a breeze. So even though the watch has always had this ability, it's never been convenient.