Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > iPhone, iPad & iPod > iPod nano

iPod nano (Page 7)
Thread Tools
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Simon
Ironically, it wasn't long ago that Apple was taking a lot of heat on this board for having that same opinion. And now that they for once put color ahead of battery life or capacity, they are - in the eyes of some - failing again. It seems very difficult to please everybody, even when you offer four to five different iPod models.
Well, it isn't quite so simple. We could acutally have both. I now use a Cowon X5L and it has a color screen, yet I can get 33 hours of playtime out of it. Apple could eaisly get more playtime out of the iPod, but they choose not to, so that they battery will die quicker and you have to buy a new one sooner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this. While the iPod is a much slicker device and easier to use, I really do like the fact that I can just drag and drop music to the X5L player. I still use iTunes to rip my music, but no syncing is involved, just drag the iTunes folder and I am done....both ways. WHat is nice is that it works the same with a Mac. The only reason Cowon does this (I believe) is that it is more a Korean mindset versus how we do things.

I actually bought it because the iPod + iTalk just didn't cut. Of course, the built in mic on the Cowon is just about the same. I still would have loved to have seen a built in mic on the nano since there wouldn't be any drive noise thanks to the lack of a hard drive. I guess I need to look at using a standard minidisc unit to record my classes or look to spend some bigger bucks for a digital recorder that allows USB transfers.

It looks like Apple is getting rather lazy in regards to DAPs. I don't say that with a grin on my face either. I hope Apple continues to do well, but they really need to provide a few more quality features on their units versus creating this "accessory market" for thrd party folks. Sure folks see white accessories in the store and think, "iPod!!!", but enough is enough.

Just adding larger hard drives and color screens isn't the solution. Now, the nano's (despite its external appearance - I loved the mini's aluminum shell) it is a wonderful device. Not for me, but it is the most impressive iPod in quite some time, as the larger ones don't do it for me. It is funny, but I really miss the rectangular "brick" design from the 1st and 2nd generation!

Well, that is my 2 cents....whatever it is worth
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing
I now use a Cowon X5L and it has a color screen, yet I can get 33 hours of playtime out of it. Apple could eaisly get more playtime out of the iPod, but they choose not to, so that they battery will die quicker and you have to buy a new one sooner.
Did it occur to you that the reasons Apple uses a smaller battery is so the device can be smaller? The X5L looks like a nice machine, but it's 4.6 times the size of the nano and it weighs 4.2 times as much. I hardly think these two machines are comparable.
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
Did it occur to you that the reasons Apple uses a smaller battery is so the device can be smaller? The X5L looks like a nice machine, but it's 4.6 times the size of the nano and it weighs 4.2 times as much. I hardly think these two machines are comparable.
Exactly! Size isn't all about appearance. As soon as I saw the nano, I knew I was going to ditch my 40-GB iPod for it. Since I also carry my Exilim and Treo 650, the size is most important feature for me. I thought about trading it for a mini, but there wasn't a big enough size difference. Now there is.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing
Many folks don't need a color screen.
My point is that there are many folks who could use the extra battery life.
Yep. If you want 30+ hours per charge, you can join the "I want 80 gigs of music on me at all times" crowd in the "Apple doesn't make an iPod for me" line and/or get another music player, which you did.

If that battery gives 14 hours per charge (or about three days of listening) you can expect a lifespan of about two years. It the battery had 50 hours of life you could expect a lifespan of 6+ years. It seems apparent that Apple is more concerned about appearance (size) versus longevity. It makes perfect business sense. Now the person that bought the nano has to replace it after two years.
All I know is that my original iPod battery has lasted for almost 4 years now.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 01:41 PM
 
1. If Apple releases an 80GB iPod, someone will insist that it's not big enough because they need 100GB.
2. If Apple ups the battery life, it won't be long enough for some.
3. No matter Apple does, someone will find a better single spec on a competitors machine and use that as an example of why the iPod sucks.
4. When nanos hold 8GB, someone will whine because it's not 16GB.

Chris
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 10:54 PM
 
is transfer via USB 1.0 supported?
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
Cold Warrior
Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 11:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by stevesnj
is transfer via USB 1.0 supported?
Yes. My 2003 powerbook 12" has usb 1 and my nano works just fine.
Slowly, but fine.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior
Yes. My 2003 powerbook 12" has usb 1 and my nano works just fine.
Slowly, but fine.

thanks
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 23, 2005, 11:19 PM
 
The initial importing of music and photos from my PB 12" (USB1.1) to my nano took a little while because it was filling up 3.7GBs. But if I make minor tweaks to my playlists and photo library, it doesn't take very long at all.

I always laugh when my friends try to trash my iPod by saying their mp3 player has this feature or that feature for a much cheaper price than my "simple" iPod.

I'm not too concerned with having features like FM radio (can't stand the radio stations here so why bother tuning in when I have 1,000 songs in my pocket?).

While grocery shopping, strangers come up to me asking about my nano while my friend has the ugly duckling Samsung mp3 player and waits by the sidelines for me to finish showing off the nano. He just rolls his eyes and says "yeah, but mine has FM radio."
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 09:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
Did it occur to you that the reasons Apple uses a smaller battery is so the device can be smaller? The X5L looks like a nice machine, but it's 4.6 times the size of the nano and it weighs 4.2 times as much. I hardly think these two machines are comparable.
Um, did you read my post? I said I dropped the iPod + iTalk for the X5L. If you had read this you would have understood what I was saying. The nano doesn't work with the iTalk.

I wasn't comparing the X5L and the Nano, but instead to the iPod + iTalk. I also clearly stated that the iPod + iTalk ended up providing the same quality recordings when compared to the X5L. It seems folks could figure out that either one will work equally well for recording a lecture and such.

When I mentioned battery life, I was referring to the entire line of iPod products (with the iPod mini being the exception) as having subpar battery life. Just because Apple tells you that 15 or so hours is good enough doesn't make it so, especially when compared to other companies offerings. I am not saying that the other players are better, but instead that Apple could provide better battery life. Do you UNDERSTAND that lesser battery life equates to a shorter life span of your product? Also, with the battery replacement on the nano requiring a soldering gun, many folks will end up just buying new players.

In regards to your comment about me figuring out that Apple uses a smaller batter to make it thinner...as was said in my time...well, duh! The simple fact is that the Sony flash players get MUCH better life (even when playing bigger files versus the low bitrate files) compared to the nano and are not much larger. The simple fact is that the nano could have been the size of the mini and had incredible battery life...and therefore a longer lifespan. The battery life is the weak point of the nano design. The memory isn't an issue as it can be rewrtten about 100,000. Figure 10 rewrites a day (who knows!?!) and your nano will still live 27 years!. Yep, the battery will go first.

I am sorry, but this mentality of fashion over function drives me nuts. When did our society become so enamoured with appearance that we cannot use common sense?

Overall, the nano is a nice product. The black shows scratches very badly, but who cares about appaearance when it can do its job and play music? I guess that is a loaded question when rereading my last statement. It seems that many folks are concerned about showing off their toys to others. Get over it!!!

I still think the nano is a great product, 2nd only to the mini, but Apple went too far when applying the form over function idea, mostly. They did a great job by dropping the mini hard drive in favor of the flash RAM. Has anyone really paid attention to the speed at which music and pictures load (especially pictures)? Very impressive.

You folks can name me a troll all you want, but I will state the obvious when necessary. Apple makes good products, but they can make poor decisions. I have been around Apple since my first Apple IIe and IIc, so I have seen some of the best and worst of Apple. The most recent screw-up was the ROKR phone idea. Maybe Apple will acutally make their own phone next time versus just adding software to a current phone? Who knows, I could care less about the "convergence" idea. One item for one job is the best policy for quality products.


Wow....I need to shut up. This is what happens when someone does forums before getting coffee on a Sat.
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 11:51 AM
 
Personally, I don't think you're a troll at all. I just think you overvalue battery life (just like so many people overvalue capacity) and devalue the importance of small size. I wouldn't have bought the nano if it were the same size as the mini. I have other things to carry, so the difference in size was the biggest factor for me.

Originally Posted by lamewing
When I mentioned battery life, I was referring to the entire line of iPod products (with the iPod mini being the exception) as having subpar battery life. Just because Apple tells you that 15 or so hours is good enough doesn't make it so, especially when compared to other companies offerings.
By the same token, just because you say 15 or so hours is inadequate doesn't make it so. The bottom line is that, for most people, it is good enough. Of course, if Apple can make the battery life longer while keeping everything else the same, I'm all for that.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by lavar78
Personally, I don't think you're a troll at all. I just think you overvalue battery life (just like so many people overvalue capacity) and devalue the importance of small size. I wouldn't have bought the nano if it were the same size as the mini. I have other things to carry, so the difference in size was the biggest factor for me.


By the same token, just because you say 15 or so hours is inadequate doesn't make it so. The bottom line is that, for most people, it is good enough. Of course, if Apple can make the battery life longer while keeping everything else the same, I'm all for that.
I am not saying that longer battery life for day-to-day usages makes a bit of difference. For folks who recharge everyday this is a non-issue. What I am trying to get across is the point that if a battery has less total life PER CHARGE you will have to recharge it more often, which shortens the life of the product's battery. This forces the consumer to make another purchase that much sooner.

Well (a compromise) the nano wouldn't have had to be larger, just a tiny bit thicker. If this were the case the battery would have been about 3x larger (since it would have sat on the logic board just like in the larger models). This would have still provided a small, lightweight product that would very eaisly slide into a pair of jeans. I have no intention of following Apple's style of wearing it on a lanyard. There is a reason that dog-tags have breakable chains. If they didn't I could have eaisly been killed back when I was in the army. The lanyard idea is a setup for trouble, not to mention it advertises..."steal me"

In regards to capacity, I agree with you. It is very seldom you need to carry all your music with you at once. The nano and mini were great compromises. They provided enough music for several days. Just change it out once a week. I can see the larger players being of use on trips, or if you keep one at your desk at work, etc. which you can dock, but to carry around, 4-6GB is more than sufficient.

The extra space in my X5L is actually used to store video (mostly anime) and data. It does video at 15fps, which is more than sufficient for anime. Now, it will be interesting to see if Apple can put together a video player than does 24 - 30fps. Of course, being that Apple is willing to compromise with the RIAAs nonsense (or just to keep them off their backs) I am curious as to how they will do video copied from a DVD. THAT is a proverbial "can of worms".

What I would like to see across the board is a standard when it comes to powering/charging/transfering data. I don't expect everyone to use the Apple proprietary connector, or the Cowon proprietary connector, for that matter. But I would like to see folks follow Apple's lead in regards to a single cable that does the charging and the data transfer. I know Apple will never allow others to use the 30pin connector (is that patented) as then other players would be able to use Apple specific docks, cables, etc? That actually would be excellent advertisment for Apple, just like those goofy white earbuds.
( Last edited by lamewing; Sep 24, 2005 at 12:48 PM. )
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing
I am not saying that longer battery life for day-to-day usages makes a bit of difference. For folks who recharge everyday this is a non-issue. What I am trying to get across is the point that if a battery has less total life PER CHARGE you will have to recharge it more often, which shortens the life of the product's battery. This forces the consumer to make another purchase that much sooner.
I honestly don't think this is an issue. If the battery lasts two years before needing replacement, that's not reason enough to buy the larger device with a 5 year battery.

Chris
     
freudling
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 02:35 PM
 
Check the marketplace for my iPod nano for sale.
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
I honestly don't think this is an issue. If the battery lasts two years before needing replacement, that's not reason enough to buy the larger device with a 5 year battery.
Agreed. Like I said, my original iPod battery, which had a smaller-capacity battery than the nano, is still working almost 4 years later.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 07:24 PM
 
I give up. It seems some folks here cannot understand the basic concept that Apple is taking advantage of its customers in this regard. I guess basic math isn't taught in schools anymore. Also, a nano that is .54 inches thick isn't much of a differnent than one that is .27 inches thick, but it would have given the device a hell of a lot longer lifespan.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 10:45 PM
 
I personally wouldn't mind if the nano was a bit thicker, but you have to understand that being thin and light is *the feature* of the nano as far as Apple is concerned. They went so far as to place the headphone jack on the bottom of the device because they couldn't fit both the screen and the headphone jack on the top and still keep it so thin.

It may be true that this has the side effect of making battery life less than it could theoretically be, and indirectly this will have an effect on the total life of the battery, since they can only be recharged so many times. But do you *really* think that this was foremost in Apple's mind when they designed the thing? No, they were trying to design something that would make people saw "wow!" and by all accounts they were successful.

By the way, I think you are overestimating the difference in total battery lifespan, since a device like the nano is likely to be recharged more often than it really requires. Even if Apple gave it a 30 hour battery life (which, let's face it, is a lot more than most people will need) people will still probably recharge it every day since they like to have a full battery, plus with only 2 or 4GB of storage, people will be swapping out music pretty frequently and the nano will charge every time you connect it to your computer.
     
Commodus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing
I give up. It seems some folks here cannot understand the basic concept that Apple is taking advantage of its customers in this regard. I guess basic math isn't taught in schools anymore. Also, a nano that is .54 inches thick isn't much of a differnent than one that is .27 inches thick, but it would have given the device a hell of a lot longer lifespan.
Only it isn't going to have nearly the same wow factor or portability.

You only 'know' that Apple is doing this to exploit its customers because it isn't building with your exact priorities in mind. You have no real way of proving your case, and in fact it's a claim which would need substantiation to get anywhere. There are plenty of arguments to be made for it being an attempt to stand out from the market more than anythng else.
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 11:56 PM
 
Word.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 24, 2005, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Icruise
I personally wouldn't mind if the nano was a bit thicker, but you have to understand that being thin and light is *the feature* of the nano as far as Apple is concerned. They went so far as to place the headphone jack on the bottom of the device because they couldn't fit both the screen and the headphone jack on the top and still keep it so thin.

It may be true that this has the side effect of making battery life less than it could theoretically be, and indirectly this will have an effect on the total life of the battery, since they can only be recharged so many times. But do you *really* think that this was foremost in Apple's mind when they designed the thing? No, they were trying to design something that would make people saw "wow!" and by all accounts they were successful.

By the way, I think you are overestimating the difference in total battery lifespan, since a device like the nano is likely to be recharged more often than it really requires. Even if Apple gave it a 30 hour battery life (which, let's face it, is a lot more than most people will need) people will still probably recharge it every day since they like to have a full battery, plus with only 2 or 4GB of storage, people will be swapping out music pretty frequently and the nano will charge every time you connect it to your computer.
No, I am not overestimating this. These batteries have a finite number of charges. If you fully discharge and recharge it you have used one (1) full charge. If you use up half of the charge and recharge you have used half a charge. The same goes for 1/4 or 1/8. It is the same end; you get a limited number of charges.

Come on this is just simple math:

Arbitrary number of 100 full charges for two players. One gets 14 hours per cycle and the other 40 hours.

100 * 40 = 4000 hours of playtime
versus
100 * 15 = 1500 hours of playtime

This it the time frame you should see before your battery is down to about 75% efficiency when compared to when you purchased it. If it lasts longer, then you don't have to replace it as quickly.

Yes, I do think Apple very much considered this. They know they have about 85% of the hard drive mp3 market...and soon to have a comperable number in the flash department. They NEED to keep the cycle going, and since they are currently the top dog they will provide the minimum needed to keep the masses happy. This is a flawed business model in that Sony experienced the same thing. Sony was on top for a LONG time and now they have competitors stealing so many areas in which they used to hold a controlling position. Apple, Samsung, Mitsubishi all have taken much from Sony. Why? Because Sony became cocky and stopped providing the best that they could and instead gave "just enough". If Apple doesn't watch themselves, they will find their (not referring to their computers and OS) dominace toppled.

This "feature" of being thin and light sounds good, but like I said earlier, they could have made it .54 inches thick (2x the thickness) and have provided so much more of a lifespan to their product.

Come on folks...so many Mac folks call Windows users sheep because they cannot think for themselves and instead just take what MS gives them. YET, so many Mac folks cannot see the truth when it bites them in the arse. I am not saying Apple is the PURE CONCENTRATED EVIL that was sat inside the toaster oven in Time Bandits, but they are doing as disservice to their supporters.
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Commodus
Only it isn't going to have nearly the same wow factor or portability.

You only 'know' that Apple is doing this to exploit its customers because it isn't building with your exact priorities in mind. You have no real way of proving your case, and in fact it's a claim which would need substantiation to get anywhere. There are plenty of arguments to be made for it being an attempt to stand out from the market more than anythng else.
Dude,
Making a 4gb flash player that is only .54 inches thinck (2x the current nano) AND about 45 hours of battery life for the price of $250.00 WOULD make them stand out. Also, I don't need to "prove" my comment. I am not submitting a hypothesis into a scientific journal. But, nonetheless, come on!!! So you are saying that Apple instead would want folks to keep their players as long as possible and not need to update them for 5+ years? I think if you cannot see what I am saying you are blindiy buying whatever Apple says.
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 12:53 AM
 
I just think you are focusing on the wrong issue, really. I'm not a battery expert, but things aren't as simple as you're making them out to be. From what I've read, lithium ion batteries (no matter what the capacity) have a shelf life. This means that even if a battery is never used, it can go bad after 3 or 4 years (of course there are other variables). So I don't think your equation of "more run time" = "more total battery life" is accurate. There's more to it than just "number of hours of use per charge cycle."

If you want to get mad at Apple, get mad at them for not making the iPod batteries user-replaceable.
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 01:01 AM
 
Apple's pricing structure and product features will always be hotly debated. How come it doesn't have features X, Y, and Z when Creative or Samsung has something fairly comparable? That question comes out for every Apple product since the beginning of Apple's existence. The PowerBooks, iMacs, and the iPods are the current targets for the naysayers.

Heck, $599 for the 60GB iPod photo was a bit hard to swallow. Some people bought into it and others waited until it came down to the current $399 price mark.

If we're willing to pay for the iPod nano, that is our personal choice. If we decide not to buy the nano because it doesn't fit our criteria, we have the freedom of choice to look elsewhere.

It is a flawed business model that I can't get more miles-per-gallon in my car. It is a flawed business model that my car doesn't run on hydrogen and produce water as a waste-product. It is a flawed business model that the Intel/AMD/PowerPC computer I bought 2 years ago can't play the latest Quake or Doom. Yep, the simple math doesn't add up.

In a less-than-perfect world, some of us will never be happy with the advancements in technology.

Personally, I'm just amazed at what we have. I remembered AM radio, 8-tracks, and LPs. I remembered being wowed by the Sony DiscMan and MiniDiscs and the thoughts of being able to make personal mix CDs to carry around. I remembered the first time I laid my eyes on my ultimate "toy" - the Sony 100-CD changer. That was a huge step for me! All my music in my 100-CD changer. I could daisy chain up to 4 of these bad boys and never have to find that missing CD.

I remembered when I bought my first iPod. I am glad to see the iPod nano and the promises that lay in the future.

We have to remember that this is the first generation iPod nano. This is just the beginning of the iPod nano. It certainly is a step-up from my first-generation iPod 5GB which was black and white and was considered light for its day.

I remembered when the first-generation portable CD player was $400 a pop. My friend bought a first-generation DVD player for $900 when it first came out. Now we can find DVD players for $50.

I thought the full-sized iPods were the end-all-be-all of mp3 players. Yes, everyone has something to poo-poo about the iPod. Yes, there were stumbles like the battery situation which has been rectified by the recent settlement. Yes, these things are easily scratched.

The iPod will evolve over time. Apple learns from its mistakes and will improve upon it.



Meanwhile, there are plenty of mp3 players that should satisfy lamewing's criteria about price, battery, and features.
     
Jaret
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Kingman,AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by lamewing

Come on folks...so many Mac folks call Windows users sheep because they cannot think for themselves and instead just take what MS gives them. YET, so many Mac folks cannot see the truth when it bites them in the arse. I am not saying Apple is the PURE CONCENTRATED EVIL that was sat inside the toaster oven in Time Bandits, but they are doing as disservice to their supporters.

Mac people didn't make the iPod so popular, the sheep did. That said, I like the ipod, I'm willing to accept the sacrifices for the benefits, and I bought the nano as my latest iPod. For what I wanted, it was the best. No point in arguing what Apple should have done, nor what Apple's customers should do. Apple's done what they've done, and the market will decide their fate. If the nano was a mistake, the sales (or lack thereof) will show it. You can rest assured Apple will then be listening. But, if they sell, you're wasting breath.
     
volcano
Senior User
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Austin, Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 04:58 AM
 
One thing that should be mentioned here: Apple rates the battery life of each individual iPod when using it under normal conditions. By this, they mean skipping songs, scrolling through multiple playlists with the backlight on, adding songs to your 'on-the-go' playlist, changing EQ settings, etc. That being said, my 20GB iPod w/ color display has lasted well over the stated 15 hours when I just play a playlist or two I created, which is what I tend to do most of the time anyway. As for 'other' companies, most of them rate their battery life under minimal conditions and those numbers aren't evaluated for real-life situations.

But you're right. Don't buy the Nano - it's not for you. Apple has a centralized theme for every iPod revision - and this time, they concentrated on one thing: size. The original iPod mini only had 8 hours of battery life, so when they revised it over a year later - they had to do something to make it even more appealing to the masses: and that's where the amazing 18 hour battery life came in; not to mention the added bonus of a 6GB model added to the lineup.

Also, have you thought about the extra battery consumption due to the display itself? Granted, it's .3" smaller than the mini, but the mini didn't have a color display - hence the 18 hour battery life. I'm impressed for something so small and so vibrant that the Nano even has 14 hours to begin with. But in the end, I would sacrifice a supposed "drop" in battery life for a sleeker iPod that is substantially smaller and has a color display.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 25, 2005, 08:04 AM
 
Imho,

Because of it's size, and appearance, the iPod nano has almost reached the status of "jewel".

I love the little thing so far very much. Great battery life (12 hours and a few minutes so far) even though I have several settings up. I am using er6is with them and carry the whole thing in the etymotic er4 pouch. Sound is great and it looks beautiful.

This is almost a jewel. Other iPods are too big, or look too "functional" (i.e. Shuffle). With a black and white screen, that thing attractive, obviously, but it add to the "preciousness".

My 2 cents.
"Criticism is a misconception: we must read not to understand others but to understand ourselves.”

Emile M. Cioran
     
csimmons
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by madking
I seriously do not understand all the hype surrounding the iPod nano. Just went to the Apple store to see for myself. I have to say, for an Apple product, it is ugly. The screen is too small, the click-wheel is placed too low, the thing feels like cheap plastic toy.
-snip-

Would you mind giving me the number of your dealer? That must be some good stuff you're smoking.


The nano is one of the best looking MP3 players, as well as one of the best looking Apple products, on the market, at least in my opinion, and I have many iPods.
     
thom
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by TerryJ
That said, anyone want a great deal on a spotless 20GB photo? hehheh.
Whats a great deal? email me or call 785 317-8466
     
kitcho
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 03:00 PM
 
i cant believe people are complaining about 14 hours of battery life. my hi-md minidisc player even though it said 25 on the box only got about 10-12 with heavy usage with the volume up and eq on. 14 hours is alot. im exchanging my broken minidisc player today for an ipod nano and im really looking forward to it. ive played with a few peoples and indeed, this is the must have gadget. despite the claims that peoples screens are cracking ill still give it a whirl.
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by kitcho
i cant believe people are complaining about 14 hours of battery life. my hi-md minidisc player even though it said 25 on the box only got about 10-12 with heavy usage with the volume up and eq on. 14 hours is alot. im exchanging my broken minidisc player today for an ipod nano and im really looking forward to it. ive played with a few peoples and indeed, this is the must have gadget. despite the claims that peoples screens are cracking ill still give it a whirl.
Your HiMD player will get 25 hours if you use both the internal battery and the AA battery case. Crappy way to advertise.

Also, before HiMD (which requires the laser to heat the optical disc even when reading data - hence the poorer battery life) MDLP MD recorders could play 50 hours or so and the MDLP players could handle over 100 hours. 14 hours in NOT a lot of life. You only think this because current models of devices (for the most part) get this amount of battery life.

About the screen cracking. There does seem to be a number of folks who have this problem. This is the reason folks shoudl stay away from first gen hardware, unless they are willing to take the small chance of a hardware failure. Overall, the problem isn't that pervasive. Just buy it at a Beast Buy with a replacement plan. That way, no matter what you do, you can return it in three years for a replacement at a cost of about $50.00
     
kitcho
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 07:05 PM
 
i work at beast buy and there are tons of stuff not covered under the "replacement plan" kinda a waste of money if you ask me... spend that 30 or 40 bucks u would of spent on the replacement plan on a case.
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by kitcho
i work at beast buy and there are tons of stuff not covered under the "replacement plan" kinda a waste of money if you ask me... spend that 30 or 40 bucks u would of spent on the replacement plan on a case.
Everything on the iPod, except for intentional misuse is covered by the replacement plan. A case isn't going to stop a screen from cracking when the problem lie with a manfacturing defect. I had a nano for about 2 weeks and there is no reason, even when kept in your front jeans pockst, that the screen would crack.

I have used my replacment plan 4 out of 5 times. Even when used to replace a camera battery after 2.5 years, it balanced out (the batteries were as expensive as the plan). All the replacement plan does is act as insurance, but (depending on how your luck is) the idea of insurance is fine by me.
     
ben.mcguire
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 11:09 AM
 
I was in London yesterday so i popped into the apple store. The nano is SO SMALL , it looks small in the pics but not that small. At first glance it doesnt look real! I can now forgive apple for sacrificing capacity over size! I had to put it down and run out of the shop to stop me buying one
     
kitcho
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 03:51 PM
 
as an employee, i see people get rejected everyday even when they buy the service plan. infact, id hang onto your old brochures as the new ones theyre rolling out now state that "weather, and enviromental conditions which consist of but are not limited to: moisture, extreme temperatures, etc" i would seriously be careful about what you say to them at the return desk. it needs to be UNINTENTIONAL and UNRELATED to several factors such as abuse, misuse, enviromental conditions and anything that could be deemed as such. i dont know why im telling you this but if you follow what ive said youll get a replacement every time. i still didnt buy the plan though. a hardcase and TAKING CARE of my ipod will be my service plan.
     
lamewing
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by kitcho
as an employee, i see people get rejected everyday even when they buy the service plan. infact, id hang onto your old brochures as the new ones theyre rolling out now state that "weather, and enviromental conditions which consist of but are not limited to: moisture, extreme temperatures, etc" i would seriously be careful about what you say to them at the return desk. it needs to be UNINTENTIONAL and UNRELATED to several factors such as abuse, misuse, enviromental conditions and anything that could be deemed as such. i dont know why im telling you this but if you follow what ive said youll get a replacement every time. i still didnt buy the plan though. a hardcase and TAKING CARE of my ipod will be my service plan.

THat is why a person should use their intelligence and common sense and read ANY legal document before signing it. You don't have to buy the extended plan right away, you have 30 days. Spend a few mins of that month to read it and understand what is put forth in the contract. When you go in, make sure to answer the questions and not divulge any extra information which would be used against you. Also, if you feel you are still in the right and ANY company/person does something to take advantage of you....you take them to court.

BUT, I would expect if you left your machine in your car under extreme heat or cold, left it in the rain etc, that the plan would be null and void. That is common sense.
     
nudaniel
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2006, 06:07 PM
 
black is pretty sweet. except it gets scratched sooooo eaisily and 14-hour battery? MY ASS
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,