Talk:iPod Nano/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Replacing iPod mini?

Is this replacing the iPod mini? All mention of the mini seems to have disappeared from Apple's site. (Although you can still buy it at their store.) RADICALBENDER★ 18:35, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sure looks like it. Can't even find the mini in the US Store now (aside from refurbs) but it still appears in searches on the UK store. Note they have almost the price points. AlistairMcMillan 19:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The Mini is low in features compared to the rest of the iPod line, because all the other iPods have color. And Apple wants to eventually have all their iPods be flash-based memory, instead of hard drive. --Gary King 20:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. Low in features? None of the iPods had color until Apple added it, if they can add it to the iPod nano then nothing is stopping them from adding it to the iPod mini. And what are you basing your second point on? Any source for that? AlistairMcMillan 21:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

<rant> How daring of Apple to take the mini off the market and then come back offering half the storage capacity for the same price! (I love my mini and I couldn't care less for a color display!) </rant> RodC 02:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

At this stage, with so much market share, they can pretty much do whatever they like to the iPod's feature-set. I wouldn't start worrying until Apple starts doing this to the real iPod line (if they added an FM radio it would be perfect). --huwr 12:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC) :::::

Yes, it is replacing the mini. Don't have a printed source for it, but the video I watched off the release had the slogan "The iPod mini is the world's most popular MP3 player. Tonight, we're replacing it.". :-)

The nano is definetly replacing the mini. I went to a local retailer and they dont stock minis. Oliverdl 07:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please archive this topic? It replaced the Mini a long time ago. --Howdybob 14:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

External links

Is there need to list ten to twelve reviews of this product? It's a MP3 player; is there much more to read about? Thanks! -- Perfecto  14:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a free picture out there that helps show the relative scale of the thing? It would be good to have it on this page. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a picture of a comparison between my ipod nano and my computer mouse. Would that work? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nanovsmouse.jpg --Starladustangel 08:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Source?

"However, early reviewers have noted the iPod nano to have a sound quality similar to that of the previous iPods, citing a lack of bass and tonal clarity when compared to competing music players."

So can we have a source showing that "someone, somewhere" found the iPod nano's audio quality to be lacking? TIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.73.35.136 (talk • contribs) 11:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

This "lack of bass" meme seems overblown anyway. Unless someone can cite a blind listening test, it's just standard audiophile nonsense. Subjective and useless. Qtac 00:32, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The bass response is fine with my iPod in-ear headphones. :-\ this comment should be removed. splintax ^(talk) 04:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The base of say the Sony Walkman is better than the ipod with the same haedphones. Look into the magazine "Stereophile". -kyle jarvis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.64.132.139 (talk • contribs) 05:53, January 19, 2006 (UTC)

"Apple also made a slight change in the design of the front panel. The display in the new models was set into the case, thus resulting in a surface that isn't completely flat."

It would also be nice to have a source on this too. This was never confirmed as far as I am aware. I did hear that this only affected a limited amount of units and wasn't a change in the specification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.110.184.114 (talk • contribs) 16:45, May 3, 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Perhaps someone could upload a photo of the iPod nano in their hand or next to a standard iPod, in order to give the size some perspective? Ayinyud 17:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Pics on this page show them: [1] . I don't know if they may be loaded in wikipedia._JohJak2 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I might do this when I get a decent camera on my hands - mine is only 640x480. If any one thinks these photos are sufficient quality, feel free to upload them - I hereby release them under the GFDL. link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Splintax (talk • contribs) 04:31, September 27, 2005 (UTC)

iPod nano is 6th generation of iPod family

I would argue that the iPod nano is the 6th generation of he iPod family.

1. The first one was the iPod with the mechanical click wheel.
2. Second: the iPod with the added buttons.
3. Third: the iPod with the touch wheel.
4. Fourth: the iPod mini
5. Fifth: the iPod shuffle
6. Sixth: the iPod nano

One may argue that there are even more subdivisions (e.g. iPod photo), but in any case a higher number than where it now says "fouth" in the article. JohJak2 14:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

iPod <== first iPod

iPod mini <== second iPod

iPod shuffle <== third iPod

iPod nano <== fourth iPod

AlistairMcMillan 15:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not another generation of the iPod, just a new model. There have been four generations of the full-size iPod, two of the iPod mini, and one of the shuffle and Nano. If it were another generation of the iPod, it would simply be called "iPod" instead of "iPod Nano". The generations go like this

1) Original iPod, mechanical wheel, firewire connector::

2) 2nd generation, touch wheel, mechanical buttons, firewire connector::

3) 3rd generation, touch buttons and wheel, dock connector::

4) 4th generation, click wheel::

Simply put, Apple doesn't sell different generations of iPods at the same time. Therefore, since Apple sells the Shuffle, Nano, and full-size iPod, they all have their own particular lineage as far as generations::

Goheels681 15:08, 25 September 2005 (EST)

The picture of a "first generation iPod" shown is actually a second-generation iPod. It has the touch wheel, while the first gen iPod has a mechanical scroll wheel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.246.28 (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

This article is about the "iPod nano". All generations of the iPod nano have had touch wheels. You are thinking of the first generation "iPod", which had a mechanical scroll wheel. We have a separate article for the iPod. AlistairMcMillan 00:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. there are established conventions for the iPod generations, and we intend to follow them.--HereToHelp 00:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Scratch/LCD breakage issue

It appears that this needs to be discussed how the issue should be handled...

Considering no official statements have been made by Apple, and also considering this issue has only sprung up since this previous weekend(at time of posting) I don't think this wiki needs to cover it like a news site would.

Feelings? Comments? Questions? Matt Yohe 01:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This should definitely be discussed, since many iPod and technology blogs/sites have been reporting the problem with regularity. Wikipedia should be reporting the device fairly, whether it's the awards it receieves or the potential recall from a manufacturing problem.

• Engadget - iPod nano screen flaws?
• iLounge - iPod nano screen complaints abound
• Gadget Spy - iPod nano not up to scratch

--Madchester 01:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree the issue should be discussed, but not in the way that it was being discussed previously. The section said things to the effect of "Apple was not contactable to comment on the issue", which is definitely beyond the call of an encyclopaedia. I would like to see something proper written about the issue, and not simply a "rag on the iPod" section, like before. --huwr 04:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Good to see this section has been improved. I've updated it with the release from Apple. Barefootguru 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm under the impression that there's two issues at hand: the screen cracking and the fragile/scratched up plastic casing. Reading around, it seems that the casing is less durable than say a iPod mini... cuz some owners of the black model seem to been complaining that the finish is too easily scratched. --Madchester 14:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Scratches just show up better on a black surface. Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 16:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I had made it clear there were two issues, but not that scratches applied to the whole nano (instead of just the screen). Have clarified now. Barefootguru 19:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Apple's commented on this (http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/09/27/nanoscreen/index.php). I've fixed the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.82.37 (talk • contribs) 01:36, October 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was already linked, and have removed that whole section. 64.12.116.136 had added text which was already present. Barefootguru 03:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to add this photo go ahead, it (and the one I added on the article page) came from a deleted AFD page. Rx StrangeLove 04:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Reaction

However, after one week of sales, iPod nano sales are generally lower than expected with only the 4 GB black model selling strongly. AppleInsider's own investigation found that two of the Apple Stores in California had only sold a few hundred iPod nanos, out of a stock of over 1400, by Saturday September 10. [8] Despite this, outside the US, iPod nanos are under heavy demand, with many stores selling out their entire stock within minutes.

Does anyone have updated information on nano sales? RodC 22:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Expected Life

What is the expected life of the flash storage on the Nano? I would expect this to be expressed as some number of resyncs.

How does the expected life of the flash compare with the expected life of the battery? Funkyj 21:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think anyone has done any kind of supposition into the expected life of the flash. Seeing as it could last up to 10x longer then a HD based iPod I don't think it will die for years. Surely long after the iPod has chewed up several batteries.Gateman1997 22:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see where you get "up to 10x longer...". Flash memories, while much more rugged than HDs, wear out after being written too many times (this is not a problem with HDs. See the article on flash memory). If an application is write intensive (e.g. writing syslog entries once a minute) then flash wears out much faster than a corresponding HD. If we write to the backing store once a month but read from it daily then yes, an HD's mechanical parts are more likely to fail before the flash memory wears out.

I'm sure that before apple started building thousands of these things they determined the expected lifetime of the iPod Nano flash. Obviously resyncing my iPod Nano once a day is not particularly write intensive but I am curious what it's expected life is. Funkyj 21:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The 10x comes from the fact that HDs ususally suffer from their heads wearing out much much sooner then a flash memory runs out of rewrite cycles.Gateman1997 00:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Gateman1997. A quick googling for HD MTBF shows me that 300,000 hours is a common laptop HD MTBF. This translates to about 35 years. Sure, I've seen cheap HDs crap out after a few months or years of service so I'm not sure how to reconcile the advertised 35 years MTBF (what kind of standard deviation I wonder) with my actual experience. I agree that with an iPod Nano, the write usage is going to be fairly low so it will be a long time before the write limit is hit.

I believe that, from a practical standpoint, the Nano will last longer than a HD based player. What I'm curious about (and probably will not get) is the actual engineering analysis of the expected life of the Nano's flash and the same analysis for a HD based iPod. Perhaps some kind soul at Apple will stumble across this comment and take pity on my curiosity. Funkyj 18:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

iPod nano NOT compatible with Windows Media Center 2005?

I have heard from a few friends with iPod nano and a Media Center PC that the iPod nano doesn't work with this. I've looked and asked other friends, but I don't get definitive answers. Anyone know the truth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.208.17.115 (talk • contribs) 17:00, October 4, 2005 (UTC)

Try the tech specs. Took me all of a minute to find:

iPod System Requirements

Windows XP SP24 and Windows 2000 SP4. This includes Windows XP Media Center and Windows XP Tablet PC Edition.

Barefootguru 18:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

iPod nano not compatible with some (rare) vbr mp3 files encoded with LAME

Can't be arsed to get any links for you, but you can google it. There are several discussions going on about this on various web forums, so couldn't there be a mention of this? Also, a Finnish computer magazine, MikroBitti, mentioned this in its review of the iPod Nano (November issue 2005). The web forum discussions I've read also mentioned something about similar behaviour in some other iPod models. People are saying that the files in question are played, but the playback will skip slighty in places where the variable bit rate switches abruptly. I don't have personal experience of this, as I don't own an mp3 player of any kind. Thanks for your time. -- Mikko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15:12, November 6, 2005 (talk • contribs) 85.76.40.75

No prior notice

Okay which bit is "patently untrue"?

"there was no prior notice of the mini being discontinued"? Because as far as I can remember Apple don't pre-announce when products are going to disappear. They only announce that new ones are coming out. The one exception that springs to mind is their operatings system.

"there was no prior notice of ... the nano being introduced"? Since when do Apple give people notice that they are going to bring out a new product?

How is this, "The announcement of the nano took the press completely by surprise since there was no prior notice of the mini being discontinued or the nano being introduced.", in any way notable? AlistairMcMillan 06:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• The statement in the article refers to the fact that there was no prior notice of the nano being released and the end of the mini's life cycle in the press (rumor sites or otherwise). Normally sites such as macrumors.com or think secret in addition to more "reputable" sources such as reuters gain access to upcoming product details early despite no "official" notification of them such as the case of the mac mini. The Mac mini's existance was revealed weeks before it released on both rumor and reputable news sites (as has every other major product release by Apple in recent years). The nano however as a replacement for the mini was an uncharacteristic shock as NO rumor or reputable news site even suggested that might occur.Gateman1997 07:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll find that rumour sites had been talking about an iPod that was flash-based, but including a screen unlike the shuffle, for a while before the nano was announced. I think you'll also find that whenever a "reputable" source reports on an upcoming Apple product, they have picked up the story from Apple news sites. Anyway I agree, the nano replacing the mini was a shock to everyone, but the sentence you just restored says a lot more than that. If that sentence was re-written to reflect the "nano replaces mini" thing only, would that be agreeable? AlistairMcMillan 08:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to rewrite it to reflect that specifically I would be agreeable to that.Gateman1997 10:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Linux

I added a mention of how the iPod nano works with Gtkpod on Linux. I didn't go into finer details as GTkpod wont do photo etc. as this article is about the Nano and not Linux. But I thought anyone reading the article and going to purchase it, might like to know it will work across all three main OS'es. --Duey Finster 22:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardware specifications

Is it permissable to add more details on the device's hardware and can anyone verify, for example the CPU is ARM architecture based, but is it ARM7TDMI like other iPods?

Also, are there any legal issues with adding some detail on it to wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.23.229.124 (talk • contribs) 11:39, February 12, 2006 (UTC)

Video hack

It'd be nice to have more information on the firmware hack for playing videos. Shawnc 23:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Scratch lawsuit results?

So what happened with the scratch lawsuits? I can't find it anywhere. --Howdybob 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's some interesting new info about the lawsuit. [2] According to Jason Tomczak, the plaintiff named in the suit, the suit was filed without his knowledge or permession, and he is now in a legal battle of his own with the lawyers that filed the suit. - Indecision 09:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)