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.
Next-Generation iPod Nano to Maintain Price Range, Ship Later?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8A306)
I can buy into this being the Nano versus the shuffle.
Given the current nano has a smaller screen and camera, by introducing a New Nano without the camera, this could push an upsell into the iTouch for those wanting a more robust camera feature.
Or
I can buy into this being the Nano versus the shuffle.
Given the current nano has a smaller screen and camera, by introducing a New Nano without the camera, this could push an upsell into the iTouch for those wanting a more robust camera feature.
Or
This is the new shuffle. Why on earth would Apple take away so many features from the nano? They would have to take away the camera, screen size, battery life and other things to fit it into this form factor. It probably wouldn't even have video playback. Plus, the cases had cutouts for a clip. I think the new nano will be the 2.8" iPod touch that has been rumored.
Dual Surface
Has anyone noticed that the case is cut out on both sides? Anyone remember a patent for a dual surface Nano Phone? I think we are looking for a drastically different device with dual surfaces oozing with coolness. That's why there is no price drop.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2009/07/stunning-nano-phone-surfaces-in-patent.html
Has anyone noticed that the case is cut out on both sides? Anyone remember a patent for a dual surface Nano Phone? I think we are looking for a drastically different device with dual surfaces oozing with coolness. That's why there is no price drop.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2009/07/stunning-nano-phone-surfaces-in-patent.html
"Sixth-generation iPad nanos on deck for an introduction by Apple on Wednesday will reportedly be priced in-line with existing models and will not replace the company's other diminutive media player, the iPod shuffle."
Strongly doubt it will be called iPad nano
Strongly doubt it will be called iPad nano
There's another photo of a case which does not have full cutouts both sides, looking more like a slot to slip the shuffle-style clip thru.
Another prediction:
iPod classic gets retired, and iPod Touch is rebranded as simply iPod. They want touch to be the new norm. Also, bump to 128G storage.
iPod classic gets retired, and iPod Touch is rebranded as simply iPod. They want touch to be the new norm. Also, bump to 128G storage.
Seems Apple does this when a product requires public regulatory review for legal reasons (see iPad 3G pre-availability announcement). Wrist-sized iPad Nano 3G?
Someone else in another thread called this item iPod squared - intriguing name to me. This screen diagonally, if the size rumored is correct, would be greater than that on my 2nd gen (2GB) iPod nano and I can read notes on it fine. Hopefully, it will keep the FM radio and capabilities for adjusting the on-screen font - two reasons I like the 5th gen iPod nano. The big negative for that particular nano is the camera, so I cannot take it to work. An iPod shuffle doesn't have enough capacity or a screen and I'm not interested in the iPod Touch. The points about battery life, capacity, colors, and price all concern me. We'll see tomorrow.
You are in denial.
It is the new Nano. Apple wouldn't make current Shuffle any bigger and it wouldn't be a Shuffle if it had a display.
Dang you and your perfect argument
Apple + Nike partnership
I think it's a new shuffle with a display able to show pulse (for running etc), and artwork of songs.
A couple of weeks ago, Nike and Apple filed some patents involving sports applications.
We might even see that cycling app for the iPod Touch?
I think this Nano entry price thing is BS. Steve will do the same he did with the iPad, much lower than "rumors involving unknown sources". It just so that it dosen't seems stupid paying more for a ... new shuffle
I think it's a new shuffle with a display able to show pulse (for running etc), and artwork of songs.
A couple of weeks ago, Nike and Apple filed some patents involving sports applications.
We might even see that cycling app for the iPod Touch?
I think this Nano entry price thing is BS. Steve will do the same he did with the iPad, much lower than "rumors involving unknown sources". It just so that it dosen't seems stupid paying more for a ... new shuffle
I agree. This is the new Nano, the camera tech/appeal moved up hill to the Touch. The difference between paying $150 for a nano and $200 for a retina display, camera enabled Touch is silly. Why would you not go for the Touch? I think thats the point Apple is trying to make. Give everyone a fool proof reason and access to the broader offering of the itunes store (Apps, TV and such).
It'll be interesting to see if these crazy rumors are true!
I KNEW this couldn't possibly be the shuffle. It seems like everyone who's been shouting "it's the new shuffle" has failed to understand the meaning of the shuffle's very name. "shuffle" implies bare minimalist functionality. with gen 1 & 2, all you could really do is play a single playlist sequentially or "shuffled". that's all really. (save for sitting there and clicking fwd fwd fwd, back back back til you find a certain song/beginning of an album). single-playlist sequential or shuffled play. (and i'm guessing "iPod sequential" was never considered as a name, lol). I suppose that changed a bit with the buttonless shuffle, using voice commands to choose a playlist (I don't have one, but that's how they work right?), but practically speaking, the shuffle is still uber-minimalist. once you have a screen and "features" and the ability to conveniently browse through your collection it is no longer a "shuffle", but rather an "iPod ???"... some other kind of iPod. (my 2 cents on that).
but the notion that this is the NEW/replacement for the clickwheel nano... ugh! i'm curious to see how awesome and wonderful it is, if i will be blown away and my mind changed. but i thought for sure this was a new breed! maybe the rumor-mongers are confused, and this will be CALLED the nano... but the current-style nano will stick around as simply "iPod" or "iPod classic". i'd love to see that. it seems risky to kill the iconic nano, even if this new thing is freakin' amazing.
when Apple announced the 3rd-gen shuffle, i remember thinking EWWWWWW...yuck! thankfully, they kept the 2nd-gen shuffles for sale for quite some time. and i remember as soon as i heard rumors that they would stop selling 2nd-gen shuffles, i ordered 2, one for myself, one for a friend, engraved. and am glad i did. they are great little shuffles.
although i've never used a 3rd-gen shuffle, i have since gotten an iPhone 3GS and find myself using the headphone clicker as a play/pause/fwd/back interface almost constantly. so perhaps the 3rd-gen shuffle isn't as bad a concept as i initially suspected it would be. (whether or not it is selling, however, i've no idea).
anyhow, the moral of this story is 2-fold...
1. if this is a REPLACEMENT for the current nano, i suspect/hope Apple will continue to sell the current-gen nanos side-by-side with the new "nano nanos" at least into early 2011, like they did with the 2nd/3rd-gen shuffle transition... to A) mitigate the shock and B) capitalize on the shock...
2. i'm guessing 2nd-gen shuffles sold rather well alongside the 3rd-gen shuffles, until they finally discontinued them for good. i doubt i was the only one who bought one out of extinction-panic. even though i may someday (perhaps even tomorrow) warm up to the concept (whatever it may be) of the new "nano nano"... something tells me a current-gen clickwheel nano may be on my list of purchases in the very near future, because i'm getting that "OMG they're killing a great product that i've always wanted" feeling ALL OVER AGAIN.
you are nothing if not the SHREWEDIST of marketeers,
Apple! =) bastards are doing it to me again! =)
all that being said, still hope the rumors are wrong. if i were Steve, i'd keep the shuffle (unless it isn't profitable), introduce this "new thing", up the current-style nano to 32 GB & 64 GB, offer a high-end 128 GB touch, and--if anything oughta be axed--retire they tired-looking old classic.
most people don't need more than 64 GB or 128 GB choices anyway. audiophiles who need to carry everything around with them... i'm sorry, that is not the future. make choices. playlists. take what you need. change it up when you need to. my music collection wouldn't even fit on a 160 GB classic anymore. and the types of folks who are in the "classic niche", i suspect no size will ever be enough... 250 GB... 320 GB...? your collection will continue to outgrow it. make choices and re-sync.
not goonin' on the classic, even though that might sound harsh. i'm sure they are nice. but the classic just seems like a relic to me. the last 2 gens of nanos, on the otherhand (i say last two gens, b/c i don't think the video camera is a deal-breaker), are to me the "new classic iPod". the clickwheel is iconic. they are beautiful little devices. and to me they just scream, "the classic, fun, Apple-quality MP3 player... i.e. iPod". i guess i assumed the average consumer sees them the same way, but either i'm dead wrong or Apple is taking a HUGE risk... (or the rumors are wrong).
I KNEW this couldn't possibly be the shuffle. It seems like everyone who's been shouting "it's the new shuffle" has failed to understand the meaning of the shuffle's very name. "shuffle" implies bare minimalist functionality. with gen 1 & 2, all you could really do is play a single playlist sequentially or "shuffled". that's all really. (save for sitting there and clicking fwd fwd fwd, back back back til you find a certain song/beginning of an album). single-playlist sequential or shuffled play. (and i'm guessing "iPod sequential" was never considered as a name, lol). I suppose that changed a bit with the buttonless shuffle, using voice commands to choose a playlist (I don't have one, but that's how they work right?), but practically speaking, the shuffle is still uber-minimalist. once you have a screen and "features" and the ability to conveniently browse through your collection it is no longer a "shuffle", but rather an "iPod ???"... some other kind of iPod. (my 2 cents on that).
but the notion that this is the NEW/replacement for the clickwheel nano... ugh! i'm curious to see how awesome and wonderful it is, if i will be blown away and my mind changed. but i thought for sure this was a new breed! maybe the rumor-mongers are confused, and this will be CALLED the nano... but the current-style nano will stick around as simply "iPod" or "iPod classic". i'd love to see that. it seems risky to kill the iconic nano, even if this new thing is freakin' amazing.
when Apple announced the 3rd-gen shuffle, i remember thinking EWWWWWW...yuck! thankfully, they kept the 2nd-gen shuffles for sale for quite some time. and i remember as soon as i heard rumors that they would stop selling 2nd-gen shuffles, i ordered 2, one for myself, one for a friend, engraved. and am glad i did. they are great little shuffles.
although i've never used a 3rd-gen shuffle, i have since gotten an iPhone 3GS and find myself using the headphone clicker as a play/pause/fwd/back interface almost constantly. so perhaps the 3rd-gen shuffle isn't as bad a concept as i initially suspected it would be. (whether or not it is selling, however, i've no idea).
anyhow, the moral of this story is 2-fold...
1. if this is a REPLACEMENT for the current nano, i suspect/hope Apple will continue to sell the current-gen nanos side-by-side with the new "nano nanos" at least into early 2011, like they did with the 2nd/3rd-gen shuffle transition... to A) mitigate the shock and B) capitalize on the shock...
2. i'm guessing 2nd-gen shuffles sold rather well alongside the 3rd-gen shuffles, until they finally discontinued them for good. i doubt i was the only one who bought one out of extinction-panic. even though i may someday (perhaps even tomorrow) warm up to the concept (whatever it may be) of the new "nano nano"... something tells me a current-gen clickwheel nano may be on my list of purchases in the very near future, because i'm getting that "OMG they're killing a great product that i've always wanted" feeling ALL OVER AGAIN.
you are nothing if not the SHREWEDIST of marketeers,
Apple! =) bastards are doing it to me again! =)all that being said, still hope the rumors are wrong. if i were Steve, i'd keep the shuffle (unless it isn't profitable), introduce this "new thing", up the current-style nano to 32 GB & 64 GB, offer a high-end 128 GB touch, and--if anything oughta be axed--retire they tired-looking old classic.
most people don't need more than 64 GB or 128 GB choices anyway. audiophiles who need to carry everything around with them... i'm sorry, that is not the future. make choices. playlists. take what you need. change it up when you need to. my music collection wouldn't even fit on a 160 GB classic anymore. and the types of folks who are in the "classic niche", i suspect no size will ever be enough... 250 GB... 320 GB...? your collection will continue to outgrow it. make choices and re-sync.
not goonin' on the classic, even though that might sound harsh. i'm sure they are nice. but the classic just seems like a relic to me. the last 2 gens of nanos, on the otherhand (i say last two gens, b/c i don't think the video camera is a deal-breaker), are to me the "new classic iPod". the clickwheel is iconic. they are beautiful little devices. and to me they just scream, "the classic, fun, Apple-quality MP3 player... i.e. iPod". i guess i assumed the average consumer sees them the same way, but either i'm dead wrong or Apple is taking a HUGE risk... (or the rumors are wrong).
If any of this happens, I will mail you a $5 bill... I don't think any of it will.
128GB of flash is still too expensive for mass production. B/C it is so expensive they will keep the classic for the people who want high capacity. They just wont re-brand any iPods with just the name "iPod".
I don't think the $200 model will have all those things. It's probably going to be last year's model.
iPod²
iPod² (pronounced "iPod squared"). =D
(can't believe i am the only one to come up with that... but if it was my post you saw, thanks for noticing, haha!)
iPod² (pronounced "iPod squared"). =D
(can't believe i am the only one to come up with that... but if it was my post you saw, thanks for noticing, haha!)
The reason the Shuffle is cheap is because it doesn't have a screen.
Because it's smaller, doesn't mean it should be cheaper. In fact, I'm surprised they can keep the prices as low as the current nano. The touch screen alone should account for a price increase, let alone the state of the art engineering that it takes to cram all the hardware into a package, one third the size of the current nano.
Well, I'm not opening my new account dedicated to winnings derived from Stevenote predictions yet, but hey--I have seen more far-fetched. And I think most agree the name "iPod Touch" is lacking. It's the new flagship media player--I think they ought to put the crown on it instead of the "iTouch", myself.
will 128 GB flash eventually be affordable? say in a year?
if it doesn't happen this year, it'll happen eventually--the classic will be retired because it will be deemed irrelevant by larger flash memory.
Apple could even chose to take a "capacity hit" on the iPod line for a year. 2 years ago, wasn't the largest iPod one could get a 120 GB classic, down from a high-end 160 GB classic the year before?? i know 1 year ago they brought the classic back UP to 160 GB (which i didn't even realize til just the other day). but what i'm saying is, if they are just ACHING to kill the classic, they could in theory just lower the max capacity available on the iPod product-line for a year (since they've done that before) or even two, until 128 GB flash becomes economically feasible.
unless classics are not profitable, i'd predict nothing is said or changed about them (maybe software update) tomorrow. but long-term, they seem dead.