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 > Nano, once again needlessly restrictions in place...

Nano, once again needlessly restrictions in place...
Thread Tools
trip
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 05:46 PM
 
Nano

I can't believe it. I've been denying it for a while, but it's true ! APPLE now = MICROSOFT!

In another ploy to ensure ipod users only use their software (iTunes) they render the best feature POINTLESS (to many of us).

I can't speak for all of you, but I was dissappointed to discover this new breed of ipod does not allow you to directly load photos from your camera to the nano !

The whole point for many of us is to act as a temporary storage UNTIL we get to a computer (which has plenty).

So what ? Users want to walk around showing ioff postage stamp photos ? I was ready to run down and buy one till I discovered this.... how dissappointing.
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
Weezer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Syracuse
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 06:15 PM
 

Imac Core Duo 1.83/1.5 GB/20 inch cinema, ibook G4 1 ghz
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weezer
Thanks for playing What ?


http://playlistmag.com/reviews/2005/...ries/index.php

Photo accessories

Although the nano has a color screen like full-size “color” iPods, and can store and display photos from your iPhoto Library, it doesn’t allow you to upload photos directly. In other words, the nano is incompatible with Apple’s iPod Camera Connector, as well as Belkin’s Digital Camera Link and Media Reader. To get photos on your iPod nano, you need to enable photo syncing from within iTunes.

Similarly, unlike full-size color/photo iPods, the iPod nano doesn’t support presenting photos on a television—the nano’s headphone jack is audio-only. (The headphone jack on color/photo iPods is actually an audio-video combo jack.) Thus, accessories that allow you to connect your full-size color iPod to a television—such as Apple’s own AV Cable and dock for color iPods, PodsPlus’ Dock with Video Out, and Boxwave’s iPod Photo AV miniSync—will not provide video connectivity. (However, their audio and charging/syncing features should work fine.)
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
Weezer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Syracuse
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 06:30 PM
 
didn't know that

Imac Core Duo 1.83/1.5 GB/20 inch cinema, ibook G4 1 ghz
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weezer
didn't know that
In hindesight I shoulda just posted that article to begin with. I woulda made the same assumption, and in fact did, you had.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 06:41 PM
 
Needless restrictions? The Nano is FULL of components already. Where would they put the extra hardware that the Camera Connector needs? It's NOT a needless restriction, it's a design decision based on the size restrictions of the device. That's all.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Needless restrictions? The Nano is FULL of components already. Where would they put the extra hardware that the Camera Connector needs? It's NOT a needless restriction, it's a design decision based on the size restrictions of the device. That's all.

I wasn't suggesting they incorporate the 3rd party device inside the nano. Iam saying it's completly feasible they could have allowed the old devices to continue to work. It was a business decision on their part not a technical/cost limitation. Dude your brainwashed. Get off the apple glory bandwagon and wake up. They're screwing us.
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
Disgruntled Head of C-3PO
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In bits and pieces on Cloud City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 08:18 PM
 
4 gigs isn't really enough to want to store your pics on anyway. I mean you can get memory cards that big.
"Curse my metal body, I wasn't fast enough!"
     
torifile
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 08:21 PM
 
The nano doesn't support USB host. It's not a needless restriction. It's the chipset they've used. Probably to save space.
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 08:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by torifile
The nano doesn't support USB host. It's not a needless restriction. It's the chipset they've used. Probably to save space.
BS. It was a business decision.
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
kitcho
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 09:15 PM
 
all music players are becoming more and more proprietary. most other competiting mp3 players have such restrictions in place and its not something totally outrageous either. when you finally realize the nano isn't the ultimate digital device and acually just a very small mp3 player then come back.

thanks
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by trip
BS. It was a business decision.
A business decision to make the thing as small as it is. Features take up space-it takes hardware to do anything. So the business decision was to put as much as they could into it.

Don't break out the tinfoil beanie-it is just business, not a conspiracy to keep people from easily putting pictures on their Nanos.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
torifile
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by trip
BS. It was a business decision.
Yeah! Let's leave features out so people buy MORE of them! WTH kind of business decision was that if it wouldn't make some sort of difference in cost or size? In that case, it's not a "needless restriction", but a limitation imposed by real constraints.
     
torifile
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
 
double post.
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 11:03 PM
 
I don't think the Nano was targeted at photographers as much as they would like to think. The Nano was attempt to recreate the success of the iPod Mini and hopefully the sales. The fact that it holds 1,000 songs like the original iPod is kinda cool.

Even the casual photographer would not benefit from the minimal storage size and smaller screen. I see it more as a place to carry around family photos like a wallet. The exclusion of the photo transfer ability was more of marketing decision rather than purely based on money.

I think the difference between Microsoft's monopoly and Apple's potential monopoly is that the iPod and iTunes work together wheras the WMA player and WM9 is a miss/hit. Apple also knows the elements of design and what product will hook the younger generation.

Who knows, maybe Apple will release a iPod Nano version of the camera connector.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2005, 11:22 PM
 
Differentiated product line. It's the same reason you can't get a 12" Powerbook with Firewire 800.
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 02:16 AM
 
SpaceMonkey is right. The nano targets a different consumer than the full-sized iPod.

The full-sized iPods are targeted for users who want access to features such as camera downloads and microphone recording. This is the one you should buy if you want these features.

The nano is targeted for the rest of us who don't give a hoot about downloading photos and microphone recording and simply want a lean and mean music player.

Downloading from a 5-megapixel camera would chew up storage capacity in a 4GB nano.

I personally wouldn't want a multi-functional device.

It's nice to have a camera cellphone but serious photographers bring a full-featured camera.

I like the calculator feature in my cellphone but if I'm doing serious number-crunching, I'm gonna want a serious paper-tape calculator or launch Excel on my computer.

I tend not to gripe about the iPod. If it doesn't have what I want/need, I'll look elsewhere. If I see any of the other iPod-wannabes that offers the features and user-experience of the iPod, I'd go for those guys instead.

It's called "Freedom of Choice."

I don't think Apple will ever release a nano with a camera connector.

When we start packing more features, it will naturally get bigger due to the chip requirements needed to perform such functions. That's why adding a video player into the current iPod will kill the iPod experience. I saw a friend lugging around his Sony PSP with his 1GB Memorystick just to play mp3s. He loves the ability to watch movies he downloads into his PSP but he also rarely uses that feature as well.

Microsoft Office is the perfect example of feature-overload. Most of us would probably use only 5% of the total number of features found in Office. It's simply overkill. To add more features to the nano would be overkill as well.

I'm imagining that Steve Jobs will keep the nano as a music-only player, the full-sized iPod as a bigger capacity jukebox (if he doesn't eliminate it in the future ala iPod mini) and possibly a much bigger video iPod for the living room....
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 02:40 AM
 
Not to mention, if they enabled photo dump functionality, the first thing you'd complain about would be "dang battery is too short lived" or "why did they only make it 4GB?" or "the screen is too small to be usefull for previewing" or...
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
reemas
Senior User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 27, 2005, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by torifile
Yeah! Let's leave features out so people buy MORE of them! WTH kind of business decision was that if it wouldn't make some sort of difference in cost or size? In that case, it's not a "needless restriction", but a limitation imposed by real constraints.
are you joking? in the tech industry this happens very often. most recently a 100 song cap on the ROKR.
     
torifile
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by reemas
are you joking? in the tech industry this happens very often. most recently a 100 song cap on the ROKR.
Read my post again: it would make a difference in cost in either case. Parts aren't free and neither is memory.
     
Helmling
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:36 AM
 
What business decision? What does Apple stand to profit by arbitrarily restricting the functionality of the Nano?

Your argument is specious. The logical conclusion is that the space restrictions limit its compatibility.
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:38 AM
 
With the size of the screen and the amount of space, I elected not to have photos on my 4GB Nano, preferring to leave that to the 60GB iPod where I can hook it up to a TV for slideshows, if I choose.

If there was one thing I'd want in the Nano, is voice memo recording. That would be much more useful than photo dumping on it.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 12:53 AM
 
I usually like my devices specialized. I don't expect my cellphone to take great camera pictures. I leave that to my digital camera. I leave video recording to my MiniDV camera. Heck, my cellphone has "internet" capabilities but it's not the greatest. I'd rather go to a computer for my internet usage.

The Holy Grail - the iPod that does everything except clean the kitchen sink.
     
Moderator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 08:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
What business decision? What does Apple stand to profit by arbitrarily restricting the functionality of the Nano?

Your argument is specious. The logical conclusion is that the space restrictions limit its compatibility.
the logical conclusion is that Apple will release a Nano Photo in a years time...they cripple products all the time in order to provide an incentive to upgrade later.
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
You all have very reasonable explanations and conclusions. Many of which I really can't argue with.

But it doesn't matter.

Why you ask ?

Because it's not just this one issue... it's a trend.

It's all retarded. When did consumers lose common sense ?

Everywhere I go... everything i purchase is becoming locked to the vendors service.

* Does it make sense that we as consumers should buy a cell phone that can't be used for different providers ? No we can't have that because the cell phone providers don't want to lose your business. They need to make as difficult as possible for you to leave their service. Can I take my phone to a new provider ? NOT! Good, Bad or ugly. It's the same damn cellphones they sell yet they lock them. I know I know... Many of you will say they the "They give you a discount on the hardware" line, but can i pay more and buy a cellpone that I can use their service with ? NO I can not. (Not where I live anyway)

* Does it make sense that digital cable boxes should be locked to the provider ? I spent $500 on an HD box from Shaw cable only to discover they can't offer the content their compitition can. Can I move to a better service ? NOT !

* When Apple starts out building a line of portable music players... Can I choose to play my songs (downloaded from their service) to use in a different device ? or even different software ? NOT! (excluding the HACK we all know about - since we all know they put measures in place to prevents this)

* Apple has evolved. They understand, as I do, that ... and I'll qoute Steve Jobs..."It's all about the software". In other words he's making sure you HAVE to use iTunes. You want to see photos on your new Nano. You HAVE to use iTunes. You want to play their music ? You'll have to use iTunes.

Mark my words. All New IPOD models will require you to use iTunes to import photos - even the big 60gig ones. Why ? Is it because of the Hardware ? NOT.

"It's all about the software"

Wake up people.
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
Randman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MacNN database error. Please refresh your browser.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 01:22 PM
 
Don't buy one then.

This is a computer-generated message and needs no signature.
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 01:28 PM
 
Don't plan to.
I thought that was established already. Was it not ?
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
hakstooy
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 01:40 PM
 
I think it has more to do with the product differentiation.

Personally, I never really got the hubbub over the mini; (compared to the 4G iPod) it held a fraction of the songs, had no extra features and was only marginally smaller. Compared to the color iPod it had far fewer features, even lower capacity and still outsold it like crazy. All while being only marginally cheaper.

I'm sure Apple looked at this and figured, "Hell, it seems that more than extra features or capacity, most people just want something small that can hold a sizable amount of music (I'd bet the researched how large the average consumer's digital library was and I'd imagine that its less than 4 GB), so what if we make the thing A LOT smaller and add a flashy color screen, I bet that will bring them in droves!" (as for the different colors, I'd be surprised if we don't see them return)

I'd be willing to bet that the nano will continue to be driven at the "average consumer" or those more preoccupied with having a music player, while the full-size iPod will be "digital media pod" aimed at allowing the techie people to carry their entire media libraries with them to share and enjoy. I see the next iPod revision being substantial and meant to differentiate it even further from the nano in terms of capabilities.

I think naming this product the "iPod" was a stroke of genius, because it doesn't tie it in with any particular media and instead relates to simply a unspecified small container.
     
mpancha
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by wilsonng
I usually like my devices specialized. I don't expect my cellphone to take great camera pictures. I leave that to my digital camera. I leave video recording to my MiniDV camera. Heck, my cellphone has "internet" capabilities but it's not the greatest. I'd rather go to a computer for my internet usage.

Exactly! Cheers!
MacBook Pro | 2.16 ghz core2duo | 2gb ram | superdrive | airport extreme
iBook G4 | 1.2ghz | 768mb ram | combodrive | airport extreme
iPhone 3GS | 32 GB | Jailbreak, or no Jailbreak
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 02:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by trip
BS. It was a business decision.
I'm so glad that Jon Rubinstein decided to grace the presence of the forums in the guise of trip. Perhaps he can enlighten us on the various facets of iPod design. Wait, trip isn't Rubinstein, is he? He doesn't even work for Apple? MY word. trip, you didn't design the iPod. You're not an Apple employee. You're not a designer or an engineer. So how can you say with any certainty that this was a business decision rather than a technical one. What makes you think you know so much more about iPod internals than the respected members of the forums like ghporter?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 03:05 PM
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++
kitcho
when you finally realize the nano isn't the ultimate digital device and acually just a very small mp3 player then come back.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++

As stated earlier - I do not disagree with many of the responses posted.

Actually the above was probably the best response I found. And very true.

I still think it was a business decision on their part.... not intentionally to prevent my usage, as I am sure it's not representative of their target market, but I do think they intentionally decided to further incorporate iTunes requirements as a means to force users to stay with their software. Thus screwing up my personal usage.

Hey, I'm not saying the nano sucks. And I am not saying the world should revolve around me (tho I really would like that) =)

I am saying they broke previous iPOD features that I had an appreciation for. And I think that sucks. And I am saying i thinking they are becoming more like mcrosoft everyday...not just because of this one issue.

I'm allowed to vent right ?
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 03:22 PM
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++
I'm so glad that Jon Rubinstein decided to grace the presence of the forums in the guise of trip. Perhaps he can enlighten us on the various facets of iPod design. Wait, trip isn't Rubinstein, is he? He doesn't even work for Apple? MY word. trip, you didn't design the iPod. You're not an Apple employee. You're not a designer or an engineer. So how can you say with any certainty that this was a business decision rather than a technical one. What makes you think you know so much more about iPod internals than the respected members of the forums like ghporter?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++

You're actually pretty funny. I like you.

"So how can you say with any certainty that this was a business decision rather than a technical one."

I can't. It's my opinion and I believe I am right.

"What makes you think you know so much more about iPod internals than the respected members of the forums like ghporter?"

I don't. It's my opinion and I believe I am right.
"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
Apfhex
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by hakstooy
I'm sure Apple looked at this and figured, "Hell, it seems that more than extra features or capacity, most people just want something small that can hold a sizable amount of music (I'd bet the researched how large the average consumer's digital library was and I'd imagine that its less than 4 GB), so what if we make the thing A LOT smaller and add a flashy color screen, I bet that will bring them in droves!" (as for the different colors, I'd be surprised if we don't see them return)
That's true for me. The smaller they can make it, the more convenient it is for me to carry around. The more convenient it is, the more I'm going to want to use it, and the more I'm going to want to buy it if I don't already have it. That's why I want to replace my Mini with a Shuffle. I don't use any of those other features, I just want music. Ideally I'd have a cell phone with a 1 GB song capacity—it doesn't get any more convenient than that!

If you want the photo capabilities, get the freaking full size color iPod. The nano wasn't created for that. You don't know that they purposely "broke" features in the nano. I think it's likely that it would have been impractical at best to give it the same functionality as the bigger iPods.

By the way, it's not like they REMOVED the features from the nano. It's a brand new product in the iPod series and as such had no previous versions that had that feature.

You can have your opinion and believe you're right, but when you post it on a public forum you are asking people to argue with you, or at least agree/disagree. It's nice when you have something to back up your opinion, too.

Nintendo actually does similar things with their products, like with the GBA which didn't have a backlight. They said it was to conserve battery life (very plausible) but it was needed enough that they made the GBA SP—with the omission of a standard headphone port! You could buy one of their adapters to use headphones. Was there a legitimate technical reason why they did this? There might have been, I don't know. Perhaps they did a study and concluded that not enough people used headphones with the GBA that they wouldn't go through the trouble of solving whatever technical problem there might have been just to please some people. Or maybe it was just cheaper (usually a good thing for the consumer), as it was to omit the component video port from the newer GameCubes (something that *I* care about, but that the majority of people don't).
Mac OS X 10.5.0, Mac Pro 2.66GHz/2 GB RAM/X1900 XT, 23" ACD
esdesign
     
trip  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
"You don't know that they purposely "broke" features in the nano. "

Correct. I should rephrase without using "broke", but u know what i am saying.

"You can have your opinion and believe you're right, but when you post it on a public forum you are asking people to argue with you, or at least agree/disagree. It's nice when you have something to back up your opinion, too."

I don't mind having people disagree/agree. I don't see it as an argument..... since I am agreeing with many of the points everyone makes and not denying alot of this hinges off my opinion.

Simply put I'm just fed up with all of the similar type of, as listed in previous post, "business decisions" that screw alot of us over. Maybe I see it so much i now look for it where it doesn't exist? Maybe.

But I still think I am right.

"The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations". --David Friedman
     
irockdabari
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Lansing MI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 05:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by trip
"You don't know that they purposely "broke" features in the nano. "

Correct. I should rephrase without using "broke", but u know what i am saying.

"You can have your opinion and believe you're right, but when you post it on a public forum you are asking people to argue with you, or at least agree/disagree. It's nice when you have something to back up your opinion, too."

I don't mind having people disagree/agree. I don't see it as an argument..... since I am agreeing with many of the points everyone makes and not denying alot of this hinges off my opinion.

Simply put I'm just fed up with all of the similar type of, as listed in previous post, "business decisions" that screw alot of us over. Maybe I see it so much i now look for it where it doesn't exist? Maybe.

But I still think I am right.


Ok everyone. Now we must all "Barnt" @ trip

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARNT!

You are stupidly arguing the representaion of Apple as a company over 1 single product out of there whole product line.

There is no one here who is sorry that the iPod doesn't kiss your @$$ and do exactly what you want it to.

Get over yourself, and have great day.

iMac G4 800Mhz 256 MB, 12" iBook G4 1.0 Ghz 768 MB, 12" PowerBook G4, 1.5 Ghz, 1.25 GB RAM
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 08:55 PM
 
This is probably the most stupid thread in the entire existing universe... So I intend to post incase it goes down in history as such.

Output to the TV, and input aka camera requires an extra chip. extra chip = extra space = bigger ipod.
If you don't like the Nano don't buy it. If you need these photo options then you don't need a Nano, you need a normal iPod.

Don't scream big, bully company when they actually do offer an mp3 player with the features you want. And second it's a f*cking mp3 player, shut up you whiney b*tch
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 28, 2005, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by inkhead
This is probably the most stupid thread in the entire existing universe... So I intend to post incase it goes down in history as such.
No, the most stupid thread ever in the universe is one that starts "The Apple Store is DOWN!!!"

Originally Posted by inkhead
Output to the TV, and input aka camera requires an extra chip. extra chip = extra space = bigger ipod.
If you don't like the Nano don't buy it. If you need these photo options then you don't need a Nano, you need a normal iPod.

Don't scream big, bully company when they actually do offer an mp3 player with the features you want. And second it's a f*cking mp3 player, shut up you whiney b*tch
I'd agree except for the vehemence of your reply. Don't take the complaints personally. And while I firmly believe nobody is getting "screwed over," I think Apple should know what customers want. This deal with Apple "surprising" everyone with new products instead of building interest in something that addresses an expressed desire in the community is jarring. If people wanted a prettier yet small iPod to replace the monochrome-display iPos Mini, then the Nano is just the ticket. But was there a clamor for that?

And finally it all comes down to one thing. Is an iPod of ANY KIND a real NEED? Nope. I don't think anyone is going to go hungry, fail a test, lose a job, or be put out on the street homeless because they don't have a tiny little music player. So if you think the Nano is missing what you want, TELL APPLE ALL ABOUT IT. Whining here about being cheated because this new product isn't the perfect thing you dreamed about gets you exactly nothing. Get over it.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Zim
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cary, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 29, 2005, 10:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by Helmling
What business decision? What does Apple stand to profit by arbitrarily restricting the functionality of the Nano?

Your argument is specious. The logical conclusion is that the space restrictions limit its compatibility.
How is that logical?

If you go to

http://ipodlinux.org/Generations

and look at the chipsets included in various iPods, find me the USB-host chipset in any previous iPod? (this feature does not take MORE space (in the traditional sense)...its a matter of whether its included in that one chip, or increases the die size by some non-customer-noticable amt)

The PP5020 supports USB host, it is unclear (from lack of public data sheets) whether the PP5021 does. If it does, then Apple is being an a$$ by not enabling it. If the PP5021 does not support it, then it makes sense not to add it, esp in a product with such a small form factor.

There are 2 huge goals in this chip design sector (I do chip design and have friends worknig for them)

- increased consilidation of functions into one single chip
- increased battery life

I think functionality is less than a main goal at this point.. most features that will be useful in the short term are already implemented in the raw chips (just look at what most non-Apple portable devices offer.. most of them run on chips from the same companies). Its a matter of what the companies that use them want to enable, and/or use/re-use the reference-design code that the manufacturers supply.

As evidenced by Jon Rubensteins many public remarks lately, he takes a purist view of the iPod as mainly a one-task device. Personally I find that regretable as I carry far too many one-task devices (iPod, cell phone, digital camera, PDA, walkman (for FM/AM), etc). I can't afford to carry all my "ideal" one-task devices at once (I'd need a tool belt), and the iPod is the 1st thing I leave at home. My reality is that 2-3 less-than-ideal multi-function devices would be much more useful to me. A slightly bigger iPod that also had FM would be wonderful (whack, there goes one extra device). A cellphone with a iPod Mini HD + iTunes would be wonderful (my cell phone is the 1st thing I carry with me).. of course Apple has to not "cripple" it with artificial capacity limits (as they did with the ROKR)

Would these converged devices be as good as each individual device? Prob not. That doesn't mean they would be bad. In fact they could be quite decent. And quite decent is infinitely more usable vs. a device that is left at home.

For all the purists out there, I ask you this... in your home stereo setup, do you own a receiver, or separate
tuner + amps + pre-amp? If you own a receiver, then I'm sorry you've let your standards slip and settled for such a mediocre combination device. </sarcam off> Or maybe you can grasp the point that one device can do several things "acceptably".

Mike
     
KSE7696
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:34 PM
 
If I see something I like, but it doesn't have the features I am looking for... I just don't buy it. Plain and simple. I don't sit back and whine and complain just because something I like the looks of doesn't suit my needs. I just simply do not buy it and move on. If I see something that is really cool, but I don't think it's worth the money to me... I don't buy it.

If Apple releases a product that looks really cool and you want one really really bad, but it doesn't have what you are looking for in features.... DON'T BUY IT! Just move on and look for something else.

It's time to grow up... you're not in grade school anymore. LOL... if you are.... it's still time to grow up It doesn't take someone with a high IQ to figure some of this out. It just takes some "will power"

Anyway... that's just my 2¢ about all of the whining because Apple didn't do this or Apple didn't do that.

Sorry... I just had to vent
C-ya,
Kevin
     
KSE7696
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Indiana, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 01:43 PM
 
And one other thing. How are you getting "screwed over" if you do not buy a their product??? You didn't loose any money out of it!!! Looking is FREE! Who says you HAVE to buy it?

Save your money and buy something that does suit your needs.

Sorry.... I"m done venting now
C-ya,
Kevin
     
Commodus
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 1, 2005, 02:15 PM
 
I honestly don't think people need to care about direct-to-camera connections. The people who are most interested in their MP3 player as photo storage probably don't want something with the same price and storage as the memory card they probably already have in their camera. And if you're using a point-and-shoot camera, the relative cost of the nano would make it more logical to just get another memory card! That's what a lot of pros or semi-pros do anyways, as they'll often need a backup card as it is.
24-inch iMac Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz
     
havocidal
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2005, 09:28 AM
 
but i do want a photo capability on my nano (=
there are ppl who don't need/want it but there are others who do...
     
Zim
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cary, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2005, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Commodus
I honestly don't think people need to care about direct-to-camera connections. The people who are most interested in their MP3 player as photo storage probably don't want something with the same price and storage as the memory card they probably already have in their camera. And if you're using a point-and-shoot camera, the relative cost of the nano would make it more logical to just get another memory card! That's what a lot of pros or semi-pros do anyways, as they'll often need a backup card as it is.
2 years ago I was VERY interested in this feature... when CF cards cost $100 (for 256M), it made a tremendous amt of sense to use the iPod as "portable storage" vs. buying spare CF cards. Now that CF/SD cards are really cheap, this feature has much less value (to me), altho it still would be something "nice" to have (vs. having to waste an hour wrestling with a Windows XP machine in an internet cafe to burn your pics to CD while on a long trip). Apple missed the window of usefulness for this feature. I'm just afraid they will continue to miss these windows of opportunity to add other features (FM tuner, etc).

As I have said from iPod 2G, Apple is working hard to become the Palm of the mp3 player market. The device we see today is appreciably the same as the 1st gen iPod in what it does. Yes we've changed click wheels 5 zillion times, yes it smaller, yes it has more space, but if it didn't then they already would be the Palm in this space (ie. started then squandered the markey thru a lack of innovation).

Mike
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 2, 2005, 05:35 PM
 
we'll probably have to wait a couple more years before seeing photo transfer capabilities on the nano. otherwise, stick with the full-sized ipod.

maybe there will come a day when the iPod nanos will have ejectable flash chips so that we can swap chips in and out of the nano.
     
iLikebeer
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: /OV DRK 142006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2005, 04:36 PM
 
A few other missing features:
-they should have a model with different colored LED flashlights.
-incorporate a lighter into the iPod. You won't have to carry a lighter in your pocket that could scratch up the nano and if a hot girl asks for a light, you get to show off your iPod.
-the swiss army knife plastic toothpick embedded in the case.
-there are hundreds of possible features that Apple has left out and would be easy to incorporate without adding to the cost, weight, or size.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 7, 2005, 11:31 PM
 
The nano isn't much bigger than a decent (and cheap) flash card; SD is up to 1GB, CF is up to 4GB (or is it 8 now?).
     
wilsonng
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Guam USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 8, 2005, 01:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by havocidal
but i do want a photo capability on my nano (=
there are ppl who don't need/want it but there are others who do...
The nano can show photos.... But if you're talking about downloading photos, not a chance.

I'm sure there are people who want this feature, but how often do they ever use it?

I agree with Zim. The folks who would use the photo transfer capability (the semi-pro and pro photographers) are smarter by buying extra memory cards. It's more economical. My photographer friend carries several memory cards in his gearbag because he said it's ridiculous to use the iPod photo for downloads. It's too slow for him. It's only the amateur wannabe photographers that want the wow feature of transferring photos to their iPods.

There are other devices out there that can act as a photo transfer device. I saw some on J&R's web site with a 40GB hard drive. Better to get that than an iPod. iPod's primary mission is to play music. Its secondary mission is to act as a hard drive. Apple's advertising reflects that.... Music first, everything else is just the sprinkles we put on the ice cream.

Carrying an extra memory card isn't gonna break anyone's back or wallet. The iPod nano as a photo transfer device? It's kind of expensive to be using it for that purpose when an extra memory card will be more economical and wiser.

The folks who do need photo transfer capabilities usually bring their laptops and USB memory card readers. It makes more sense than using an iPod. I've heard it takes longer to use the photo transfer to iPod device than it is to use a USB memory card reader and a laptop.

Another example: most of us have Microsoft Office but we never use 95% of its features. Sure it's nice to have but in the long run, we just end up buying stuff we don't need.


If you're adventurous enough, install linux on your iPod and then make a program to get photo transfer capabilities. If you really want photo transfer capabilities on the nano bad enough, this would be the avenue to take.

I don't see any competing flash players that have photo transfer capabilities. The only competing mp3 players that have photo transfer capabilities are the hard drive players.
( Last edited by wilsonng; Oct 8, 2005 at 02:06 AM. )
     
Zim
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Cary, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2005, 09:02 AM
 
Actually I'm going to slightly contradict myself... for photos I think prices on CF/SD/etc cards have made this more of a nice feature than a needed feature... but for someone taking movies on these cameras, geebeing able to USE that 40G of storage you paid for makes all kinds of sense.

*IF* the main chip (Portal Player/Sigmatel) supports USB host then yes, Apple SHOULD support sucking in the card contents so you can erase the card and re-use. Every study has shown that few people use the space on the larger iPods (even I only use 20 out of 30G).

If I paid for X quantity of storage, it would be nice if it was as easy to use as possible without needing to bring a laptop along or visit an internet cafe.

As I've said for 3 years now... give me 2 co-op students, 6 months, access to the iPod source code, and 40 man-hours of access to the iPod SW group, and it would be amazing how many useful features could be added. Apple is keeping this device overly simplified to its detriment.

Mike
     
   
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 05:43 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.,