Is the iPod Nano 6G a step back?

Discussion in 'iPod' started by Corbin052198, Mar 30, 2011.


Is the iPod Nano 6G a step back?

  1. Yes, I think the new Nano sucks.

    16 vote(s)
  2. No, I love the hardware/software design!

    9 vote(s)
  1. Corbin052198 macrumors 6502


    Mar 13, 2010
    When the iPod Nano came out, it was like a miniature iPod Photo. After a while it got Search, a new UI, videos, games, and a camera. Now with the 6th generation, it loses everything but Music and (I think) Search. Do you think the iPod Nano 6G is a step back for Apple?

    I know the Nano was meant only for music, but a lot of people like it because it is a semi-cheap mini video player. I know I did. :(

    On a last note, not too long ago I installed alternative firmware (Rockbox) on my Nano 1G. It gave me video, Game Boy Color games, and Doom :D But ever since I got a Nintendo DSi, a 4 GB SD card, and converted most of my music to MP4, my Nano has been sitting dormant.
  2. blevins321 macrumors 68030

    Dec 24, 2010
    Winnipeg, MB
    I think it's a step backwards. Before I jumped into my iPhone contract, I was going to buy a Nano for the video camera. I had an old Classic for music and media and just wanted the portability of the Nano. Now the Nano is pretty much useless in my opinion.
  3. Anonymous Freak macrumors 603

    Anonymous Freak

    Dec 12, 2002
    The nano has returned to be about music. It's for people who want more than the Shuffle, but still only want music. It has a few other features still (live radio, fitness bits, etc,) but yeah, it has removed essentially everything else.

    I think the idea is that if you want to move up from there, you get an iPod touch. (After all, the iPod touch is only 50% more.) With all the feature creep that was in the nano 5G (which I love, by the way,) the iPod touch was being less of an upsell for people who were interested in the few extra features. Now, the nano is about music, the touch is about video+.

    Personally, I also liked the 'remote control only' ultra-tiny shuffle as my ultra-portable music-only player, and the nano as my 'holds a lot of music, plus does a couple other things' player, and my iPhone for everything else. Now, the shuffle and the nano are so similar, the shuffle's ONLY selling point is price.

    The way I see it, they discontinued the line that had been the nano, and replaced it with a new "shuffle plus".

    It's not "better" or "worse", it's not a "step back" or a "step forward", it's a completely different product that happens to share the same name.
  4. iEvolution macrumors 65816

    Jul 11, 2008
    Step back in value? yes. (same price points as last years model with no video, no camera, no games, smaller screen)
    Step back in usability? depends on you.

    I found this to be the most useable iPod nano yet, but I'm music centric. The clip makes it very versatile in comparison to its predecessor, I clip it on a arm band and its very easy to navigate and doesn't feel awkward like the previous gens. This is the first iPod I've upgraded to in which capacity increases didn't play a factor in my decision.

    The ability to change screen orientation is a huge plus for me as I can place it anywhere and have the screen face the correct way.

    The sound is slightly louder on the 6th gen and I think it might be the best sounding of the current iPod line.

    If there was a capacity upgrade to at least 32GB I would have a hard time justifying still using my iPod classic as my main player in all honesty.

    I'm not one to fancy touch screens as I feel the technology is very gimmicky and useability on tactile feedback is still superior, but this thing comes very close to being just as useable as my classic.

    At the end of the day I still prefer my classic to any iPod for music, but the 6th gen runs a VERY tight 2nd in my book.

    The 6th gen is a very niche device in that it probably will only appeal over the 5th gen to a small amount of individuals who favor music above all. Otherwise, most will prefer the 5th generation nano over this one.

    Bottom line: If you have always wanted a shuffle with a screen, primary interest is music, and the 16GB capacity is a fair amount for your needs I say go for it.
  5. netdog macrumors 603


    Feb 6, 2006
    While I don't think it sucks, I had no interest in upgrading from my previous generation shiny silver Nano. I love the fact that mine does HD video, replacing my much bulkier Flip, and I like the clickwheel as I can change my music in my pocket without looking at my iPod.

    Really, they could shorten it a little, but the previous Nano was pretty close to perfect. Every time SJ goes on medical leave, it seems, the design team comes up with some radical and cool new idea for iPods that doesn't work, and that Steve then has to present at a keynote as incredibly awesome. The buttonless Shuffle was another example of this, and I expect that the new Nano will go the same way that that Shuffle did.
  6. WLS, Apr 2, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2011

    WLS macrumors 65816

    Jul 10, 2008
    I love the new iPod nano. It is (as has been mentioned), the perfect upgrade from the Shuffle which I had previously. I have no need for a camera even though it is rumored that the next version will have one. If that is the only difference then I won't be upgrading to that. Besides the camera is a bad idea because I can't take it to my Y to work out as they forbid cameras in the locker rooms.
    The watch idea for it is cool but it drains power, now if you could wake it up by shaking it or touching the screen then it might work for that. I would like for some more apps in the ROM, perhaps a calculator and calendar.
    If they did offer that kind of ROM update that would be awesome. I'm having a great time using it as it is. :)
  7. 4DThinker macrumors 68020

    Mar 15, 2008
    There are tech sites showing a "leaked" photo of a camera hole in the upcoming new Nano's body. Most assume it's pointing out the back and that the clip would have to be changed a little. I say it is pointing forward through the screen, and they'll add WiFi to the new Nano as well. Why? Facetime!

    You'll have the best execution of a Dick Tracy Watch EVER! ;)

  8. WLS macrumors 65816

    Jul 10, 2008
    I think the new nano design makes perfect sense in the Apple iPod line, as a "Nano" it should be the smallest device in the line unless you want to have a "Pico" name also. If anything they should bring back and redesign the Mini as the the replacement for the old nano. That iPod is too big to be called a nano now. I do hope they don't ruin the Nano with a useless camera.

Share This Page