iPod Why oh why does the nano NOT support FireWire??

[mrgreen4242]

I don't care about the price. I can't use it.

Well, when you are trying to sell 10's of MILLIONS of these things that's just an unfortunate side effect for you, and incentive to buy for the rest of us.

BTW, you can USE it. It may not be as fast as you'd like, but it will work with just about any machine capable of running iTunes 4+. I have computers from the mid 90's with USB, which is all that is required.

 

[jayscheuerle]

When it came time for Apple to trot out people for press fawning purposes, notice that they provided Ive and no engineers. That's all you need to know about the new Apple.

You mean the successful Apple?

Ive has been far more essential to Apple's success than any one engineer has been...

 

[iMeowbot]

You mean the successful Apple?

Successful as a toy company. What ever happened to "the rest of us"?

 

[jayscheuerle]

Successful as a toy company. What ever happened to "the rest of us"?

Ive has been crucial to the success of Apple as a computer company as well. It was his design of the original iMac, along with Steve Jobs return, that has brought Apple back.

I think what you're referring to is Apple's fixation on the iPod, which has nothing to do with Mr. Ive (the fixation doesn't). Apple is having a love affair with the taste of high market share, using it to build brand recognition, which they're hoping will lead to purchases greater than just the iPod. My concern is that innovation on the computer front is stagnating during the X86 turnover, as though the company wants to make the switch first and THEN go back to innovating and producing new designs.

 

[cube]

You mean the successful Apple?

Ive has been far more essential to Apple's success than any one engineer has been...

That's B.S. All those designs are based on superb engineering. Without engineers, all Ive can do are useless mockups.

 

[cube]

BTW, you can USE it. It may not be as fast as you'd like, but it will work with just about any machine capable of running iTunes 4+. I have computers from the mid 90's with USB, which is all that is required.

Able to use it means good usability. So the Nano is useless on USB 1.1

 

[mrgreen4242]

Ive has been crucial to the success of Apple as a computer company as well. It was his design of the original iMac, along with Steve Jobs return, that has brought Apple back.

I think what you're referring to is Apple's fixation on the iPod, which has nothing to do with Mr. Ive (the fixation doesn't). Apple is having a love affair with the taste of high market share, using it to build brand recognition, which they're hoping will lead to purchases greater than just the iPod. My concern is that innovation on the computer front is stagnating during the X86 turnover, as though the company wants to make the switch first and THEN go back to innovating and producing new designs.

I agree they are pushing the iPod brand hard, and devoting what seems to be a large portion of their efforts into... but why shouldn't they? It's making them good money, maybe not as much as the computer division, but must be the fastest growing segment of their revenue stream.

Anyways, I am actually thinking the x86 transition will do the opposite to the amount of innovation in the computer section of the company. Right now they are basically the only builder of PPC desktop machines (I know there is a few other very small builders who sell some linux PPC machines, but Apple is the only real player). This makes me speculate that at least part of the time, cost, and effort of developing a new Mac goes into either creating or funding the creation of the hardware needed for a PPC desktop. With the Intel move they will be able to 'piggyback' on the work of other companies in the industry and spend less time/money/effort making the machine actually work and more of it making it work WELL and look NICE.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Able to use it means good usability. So the Nano is useless on USB 1.1

No, able to use means it works. Able to use in a way that satisifies you may not overlap with the first statement. There are a lot of people who will disagree with you on wether their iPod works well over USB1.1.

My Dad for instance has an older PC with USB1.1 and a 15gb 3G iPod. He uses it just fine and loves his iPod and the iTmS OVER DIALUP. He doesn't completely re-write his library all that often (or ever, really), just adds the occasional CD to it and remove one here or there. After his initial sync he probably has spent no more than 10 minutes on any given update to his music after that. And even if he did, it wouldn't matter because he is almost assuredly charging the iPod at the same time, which is going to take at least 30-60 minutes to get any sort of usable juice into the battery.

Think about it like this: the poster who mentioned he was still syncing his nano after an hour is going to have to keep it plugged in even longer than it takes to sync because he HAS to charge the battery before the first use. After that, even if he is turning over 50% of his songs it is STILL going to take longer to get to an 80% charge from, say, 30% battery capacity. (1.5 hours from 0% to 80% according to apple. 3 if you want to charge the batter completely).

 

[jayscheuerle]

That's B.S. All those designs are based on superb engineering. Without engineers, all Ive can do are useless mockups.

That's plain wrong. The designs are based on his designs. Engineering provides the components and they're given the challenge of fitting them to his designs. To suggest the opposite is ludicrous. Superb engineering allows his designs to come to life.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Anyways, I am actually thinking the x86 transition will do the opposite to the amount of innovation in the computer section of the company.

As far as I can see, the iBook and Powerbooks have been stuck with their current design for quite a while. The last product to have its look updated (other than iPods) was the iMac. Sure, I'm talking about external design here, but that's what really sets Apple apart from other manufacturers.

The next round of revisions will be exciting because Apple has backed itself into a minimalist corner, kind of like where the jellybean autos of 5-10 years ago were. They can't simplify the iBook or the iPod any more, so where are they going to go? The iPod minis and the G5 towers have been the only deviation from the current Apple theme..

 

[TheMonarch]

Does USB drain the Nano's battery like on the HD ipods? That would suck, as there would be extra strain on the battery, meaning less cycles...

 

[jayscheuerle]

Does USB drain the Nano's battery like on the HD ipods? That would suck, as there would be extra strain on the battery, meaning less cycles...

Not sure what you mean here. The iPod charging while plugged in via USB and the USB is idle when not connected, right? I would have assumed that having Firewire onboard could have drained a little because of the onboard chipset, but not USB...

 

[TheMonarch]

No, I was asking if USB on the nano drains the battery like on the 4G ipods. During transfers using USB, the 4G ipod would be running off the battery, Apple even warns in the manual telling the use to make sure that there is enough battery to complete the transfer. So a I'm wondering if its the same for the nano.

 

[cube]

That's plain wrong. The designs are based on his designs. Engineering provides the components and they're given the challenge of fitting them to his designs. To suggest the opposite is ludicrous. Superb engineering allows his designs to come to life.

His designs would be impossible without the development of new materials, processes, cool CPUs, etc.

And you said it yourself. The engineers are giving the CHALLENGE of fitting to a design. Without good engineering, you cannot do this.

Designs like the iMac G5 are obvious. It's an engineering, not design feat.

 

[cube]

No, able to use means it works.

If it's not usable it doesn't work.
A small player is meant to be filled every day with random tracks, as making playlists is a drag (I don't care about people with wimpy libraries).

 

[cube]

His designs would be impossible without the development of new materials, processes, cool CPUs, etc.

And you said it yourself. The engineers are giving the CHALLENGE of fitting to a design. Without good engineering, you cannot do this.

Designs like the iMac G5 are obvious. It's an engineering, not design feat.

And even the coolest hardware is useless without good software. See Sony.

 

[jayscheuerle]

His designs would be impossible without the development of new materials, processes, cool CPUs, etc.

And you said it yourself. The engineers are giving the CHALLENGE of fitting to a design. Without good engineering, you cannot do this.

Designs like the iMac G5 are obvious. It's an engineering, not design feat.

I'm not implying that engineering isn't important or even critical to Apple's success, but Apple would still have the best designs out there (and people would be buying them up at the same rate as they do now) even if their hardware was not so tight. The designs, along with the software integration, sell their machines, and the designs are allowed to be even cooler through great engineering.

 

[cube]

The designs, along with the software integration, sell their machines, and the designs are allowed to be even cooler through great engineering.

With the switch to Intel, Macs will just be pretty PCs. Not impressed. I want to switch to Solaris/SPARC but it's the available applications and drivers that is holding me back. It has just become another forced platform like Windows.

 

[jayscheuerle]

With the switch to Intel, Macs will just be pretty PCs. Not impressed. I want to switch to Solaris/SPARC but it's the available applications and drivers that is holding me back. It has just become another forced platform like Windows.

Not at all my friend. They'll still stand hand and shoulders above any other PC out there in terms of engineering and design, but they'll have the added benefit of having the fastest processors in them. Apple is finally in a position to have unarguably the best machines available.

 

[iAlan]

A few winers out there...

A few winers out there...and I am not referring to anyone specifically in this thread, but we all need to get over it.

The iPod nano is a fine piece of electronics. So it takes a little longer to transfer your songs. Plug it in, take a shower, have dinner, watch Alias, whatever - then it is done. Don't tell me you all sit at the computer and watch the little thing load up?

And the 'nano is not being positioned as the device to fill up with a few random songs and off you go - that is the 'shuffle. The 'nano is... well, the 'nano!

And I guess some of you get peeved having to wait an extra 2 minutes for your fries at McDo?

Sorry for the rant, but Apple have done a great job, but I guess they can't please everyone (except the shareholders who must be joyous with he maintained profitability and stock price...)

 

[cube]

Not at all my friend. They'll still stand hand and shoulders above any other PC out there in terms of engineering and design, but they'll have the added benefit of having the fastest processors in them. Apple is finally in a position to have unarguably the best machines available.

Boxx has shown at SIGGRAPH 2005 a quad-socket, dual-core Opteron, 32GB PC that can take a mezzanine with four more processors and another 32 GB of memory.

Whatever, x86 is disgusting.

 

[840quadra]

Whatever

Great way to make your point.

 

[840quadra]

Not at all my friend. They'll still stand hand and shoulders above any other PC out there in terms of engineering and design, but they'll have the added benefit of having the fastest processors in them. Apple is finally in a position to have unarguably the best machines available.

I am hoping for this also. Not just nice clean case designs, good components and equipment inside of them, all without too much churn in the marketplace.

 

[Le Big Mac]

It sucks that there's no FW support, but USB 2.0 speeds on the nano are actually pretty good.

I understand the business decision not to include FW. It makes sense, except for the fact that Apple declined to include USB 2 on its computers until less than 2 years ago, even though it was widely in use well before that. Apple was pushing firewire, and blowing off USB 2 as long as possible, and many of us are stuck with machines that are very useable and very recent, yet do not have USB 2. For me the lack of USB 2 is not generally a problem since I have FW, and use USB for its sensible purposes (card reader, keyboard, printer). But it means that a nano is entirely unappealing to me because I'm not going to spend hours waiting for it to sync. Too bad (but I'm sure Apple can't hear my complaints over the sound of cash registers ringing).

 

[steve_hill4]

... Or it could be the Intel Transition (USB was originally developed by Intel)

It's most likely just to keep the costs down, and the fact that most iPod buyers are PC users (As mentioned above).

I think USB 2.0 was pushed by Intel after apple wanted royalties over firewire. Don't forget apple were one of those comapnies who not only had a big hand in developing the original USB and USB 1.1, but pushed it forward on the iMacs by offering USB keyboards and mice.