What about the new Ipod Nano?

[her34]

instead of just citing playback hours and design, someone should cite the battery capacity of each player

 

[Overkiller]

Originally posted by: Czar
Overkiller
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/accessories.html

I dont consider "nano tubes" or " Ipod socks " good protection for a product that is worth $300 when all is said and done. The 60 i keep in the car is in a type of enclosure that is akin to what cameras are kept in. Something like that but thin and fitting for the nano would be ideal.

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Originally posted by: Overkiller

Originally posted by: Czar
Overkiller
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/accessories.html

I dont consider "nano tubes" or " Ipod socks " good protection for a product that is worth $300 when all is said and done. The 60 i keep in the car is in a type of enclosure that is akin to what cameras are kept in. Something like that but thin and fitting for the nano would be ideal.

The armband seems very exposed also...

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99

Originally posted by: Overkiller

Originally posted by: Czar
Overkiller
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/accessories.html

I dont consider "nano tubes" or " Ipod socks " good protection for a product that is worth $300 when all is said and done. The 60 i keep in the car is in a type of enclosure that is akin to what cameras are kept in. Something like that but thin and fitting for the nano would be ideal.

The armband seems very exposed also...

well you can be sure that if apple wont make it someone else will

 

[svi]

With less moving parts and no disc to spin, the iPod Nano should actually have an enormous advantage over the minidisc players. Let's face it; Apple hasn't exactly been a market leader in terms of battery life.

The gaping flaw in your argument, here, is that you assume the iPod nano must be equal to the Sony in everything but moving parts, and that the nano thus must have higher power consumption. You fail to take into account other parts such as LCD and headphone amplifier (both of which consume a great deal of power on a relative scale), and you completely fail to acknowledge the obvious argument that the iPod nano has next to no space inside its ridiculously tiny frame.

If you can't accept and face this fact it points to fanboyism.

Yes, someone whose primary DAP is an iAudio X5 must be a total Apple fanboy. After all, it can't possibly be true that a rational argument that appears to favor Apple is actually correct.

Here's an interesting tangent: do you really think there's just no good reason for the iPod and iPod nano to have relatively low battery life? Does your brain actually accept that, working with the exact same technology as everyone else and, in many cases, the same batteries, Apple players' battery life is lower because Apple's engineers just suck at their jobs? Have you considered that maybe Apple players have low battery life because of the comparatively low internal volume of their players, as indicated by similar battery lives on similarly sized products (no comparisons are available for the nano, since nothing with that feature set is that size, but the iPod is about as thin as the iAudio X5, and they have about the same battery life)? Regardless of how much you hate a company or their products, anything that appears to be a basic hardware shortcoming is almost always caused by one of the following:

- Monetary reasons. Not the case here, since Apple blows as much on the battery as any other company (open an iPod up and you'll see). (Ex.: Celerons.)
- Not actually a "basic problem"; difficult to resolve. Low battery life IS a basic problem, so that's out. (Ex.: Motherboard and chipset feature sets.)
- Not something the engineers behind the product could have helped without reconfiguring the product in a way deemed disadvantageous. (That's this one.)

It's really Sony's realm. {...} I'm sure if you were to look at Sony's MP3 players of comparable size to the Nano, you would see that they get double to triple the battery life.

1. Sony doesn't have any mp3 players of comparable size to the Nano.
2. Sony flash players and minidisc players typically have hideously underpowered headphone outs.
3. Sony flash players have ridiculously exaggerated battery life specifications.

And that's all there is to say about that, really.

 

[sparkyclarky]

Originally posted by: svi

With less moving parts and no disc to spin, the iPod Nano should actually have an enormous advantage over the minidisc players. Let's face it; Apple hasn't exactly been a market leader in terms of battery life.

The gaping flaw in your argument, here, is that you assume the iPod nano must be equal to the Sony in everything but moving parts, and that the nano thus must have higher power consumption. You fail to take into account other parts such as LCD and headphone amplifier (both of which consume a great deal of power on a relative scale), and you completely fail to acknowledge the obvious argument that the iPod nano has next to no space inside its ridiculously tiny frame.

If you can't accept and face this fact it points to fanboyism.

Yes, someone whose primary DAP is an iAudio X5 must be a total Apple fanboy. After all, it can't possibly be true that a rational argument that appears to favor Apple is actually correct.

Here's an interesting tangent: do you really think there's just no good reason for the iPod and iPod nano to have relatively low battery life? Does your brain actually accept that, working with the exact same technology as everyone else and, in many cases, the same batteries, Apple players' battery life is lower because Apple's engineers just suck at their jobs? Have you considered that maybe Apple players have low battery life because of the comparatively low internal volume of their players, as indicated by similar battery lives on similarly sized products (no comparisons are available for the nano, since nothing with that feature set is that size, but the iPod is about as thin as the iAudio X5, and they have about the same battery life)? Regardless of how much you hate a company or their products, anything that appears to be a basic hardware shortcoming is almost always caused by one of the following:

- Monetary reasons. Not the case here, since Apple blows as much on the battery as any other company (open an iPod up and you'll see). (Ex.: Celerons.)
- Not actually a "basic problem"; difficult to resolve. Low battery life IS a basic problem, so that's out. (Ex.: Motherboard and chipset feature sets.)
- Not something the engineers behind the product could have helped without reconfiguring the product in a way deemed disadvantageous. (That's this one.)

It's really Sony's realm. {...} I'm sure if you were to look at Sony's MP3 players of comparable size to the Nano, you would see that they get double to triple the battery life.

1. Sony doesn't have any mp3 players of comparable size to the Nano.
2. Sony flash players and minidisc players typically have hideously underpowered headphone outs.
3. Sony flash players have ridiculously exaggerated battery life specifications.

And that's all there is to say about that, really.

Well said. I'd dig one of these if I didn't pick up a Rio Carbon earlier this summer

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Just to be clear on the prices, Apple's Nano models, adjusted for the education discount (which everyone can use) and tax...

2GB Nano: $191
4GB Nano: $244

Meanwhile, you can get a generic 5GB mp3 player from NewEgg for $150, and a 5GB Zen Micro is $190.

Personally, I think Apple is all flash (no pun intended) and little substance. The only practical thing going for them right now is the iTunes connection. If you're a heavy iTunes user, I can certainly understand getting an iPod. Otherwise there's really not much point.

Ummm, running with a hard drive based MP3 player ain't the best idea. You run with your 5GB Zen Micro and I'll run with my iPod Nano and we'll see who's player lasts the longest.

my sister has been running with her zen micro for almost a year now, and it still works like it did on day 1

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: svi

With less moving parts and no disc to spin, the iPod Nano should actually have an enormous advantage over the minidisc players. Let's face it; Apple hasn't exactly been a market leader in terms of battery life.

The gaping flaw in your argument, here, is that you assume the iPod nano must be equal to the Sony in everything but moving parts, and that the nano thus must have higher power consumption. You fail to take into account other parts such as LCD and headphone amplifier (both of which consume a great deal of power on a relative scale), and you completely fail to acknowledge the obvious argument that the iPod nano has next to no space inside its ridiculously tiny frame.

If you can't accept and face this fact it points to fanboyism.

Yes, someone whose primary DAP is an iAudio X5 must be a total Apple fanboy. After all, it can't possibly be true that a rational argument that appears to favor Apple is actually correct.

Here's an interesting tangent: do you really think there's just no good reason for the iPod and iPod nano to have relatively low battery life? Does your brain actually accept that, working with the exact same technology as everyone else and, in many cases, the same batteries, Apple players' battery life is lower because Apple's engineers just suck at their jobs? Have you considered that maybe Apple players have low battery life because of the comparatively low internal volume of their players, as indicated by similar battery lives on similarly sized products (no comparisons are available for the nano, since nothing with that feature set is that size, but the iPod is about as thin as the iAudio X5, and they have about the same battery life)? Regardless of how much you hate a company or their products, anything that appears to be a basic hardware shortcoming is almost always caused by one of the following:

- Monetary reasons. Not the case here, since Apple blows as much on the battery as any other company (open an iPod up and you'll see). (Ex.: Celerons.)
- Not actually a "basic problem"; difficult to resolve. Low battery life IS a basic problem, so that's out. (Ex.: Motherboard and chipset feature sets.)
- Not something the engineers behind the product could have helped without reconfiguring the product in a way deemed disadvantageous. (That's this one.)

It's really Sony's realm. {...} I'm sure if you were to look at Sony's MP3 players of comparable size to the Nano, you would see that they get double to triple the battery life.

1. Sony doesn't have any mp3 players of comparable size to the Nano.
2. Sony flash players and minidisc players typically have hideously underpowered headphone outs.
3. Sony flash players have ridiculously exaggerated battery life specifications.

And that's all there is to say about that, really.

You might be surprised by this, but many of your points are very easy to rebutt. The simplest of all is your comment regarding the iPod's size. Sony actually has MP3 players that are *smaller* than the Nano which last over 30 hours on a single charge. Your comments about the Nano's LCD consuming power are valid, however I fail to understand why Apple has not implemented some kind of "sleep mode" for the screen to conserve power when it's in your pocket just playing tunes.

Another good example is the new Sony hard drive based MP3 player. It's substantially smaller than the iPod (probably 30% or so), and it goes for over 30 hours on a single charge, compared with the 16 hours for the iPod.

The only part of your argument which holds much merit is that which states that the Apple products have more power hungry parts, like stronger amps and brighter LCDs. That said, the Sony hard drive based player which I just mentionned apparently has better sound quality than the iPod, and the screen is of equal size. Sony is just very good at getting incredible efficiency from its electronic parts. Apple needs to work on this.

As for your claims of exaggerated battery life specs, I encourage you to read some Cnet reviews of some Sony MP3 players. I have not read anything on there about any exaggerations.

In any event, my apologies for the fanboy comment. I actually own a 3G iPod, yet I'm just fine with bashing Apple for their flaws. :beer:

 

[Mayfriday0529]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Just to be clear on the prices, Apple's Nano models, adjusted for the education discount (which everyone can use) and tax...

2GB Nano: $191
4GB Nano: $244

Meanwhile, you can get a generic 5GB mp3 player from NewEgg for $150, and a 5GB Zen Micro is $190.

Personally, I think Apple is all flash (no pun intended) and little substance. The only practical thing going for them right now is the iTunes connection. If you're a heavy iTunes user, I can certainly understand getting an iPod. Otherwise there's really not much point.

where do you go for educational discount... (i'm a college student)

 

[Overkiller]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99

Originally posted by: Overkiller

Originally posted by: Czar
Overkiller
http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/accessories.html

I dont consider "nano tubes" or " Ipod socks " good protection for a product that is worth $300 when all is said and done. The 60 i keep in the car is in a type of enclosure that is akin to what cameras are kept in. Something like that but thin and fitting for the nano would be ideal.

The armband seems very exposed also...

i know it is. That's why I don't like it...

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Jnetty99

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Just to be clear on the prices, Apple's Nano models, adjusted for the education discount (which everyone can use) and tax...

2GB Nano: $191
4GB Nano: $244

Meanwhile, you can get a generic 5GB mp3 player from NewEgg for $150, and a 5GB Zen Micro is $190.

Personally, I think Apple is all flash (no pun intended) and little substance. The only practical thing going for them right now is the iTunes connection. If you're a heavy iTunes user, I can certainly understand getting an iPod. Otherwise there's really not much point.

where do you go for educational discount... (i'm a college student)

There's a link to it on the Apple Store website...just look carefully.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Do you see how fvcking small the Nano is? Alright, now imagine how small the battery is.

No need to imagine...

iPod nano guts

 

[hans030390]

Ipod 20gb- $250-300
Scroll wheel (constant circles...)
Easy menus
12 hour battery life

Creative Zen Sleek- $230-260
Scroll bar/ touch pad (which you can drag and hold it instead of making your thumb keep circling)
16-18 hour battery life
Very easy menus
Better sound quality
Weighs less than Ipod, same size
New, more style (ipod looks are ugly and old)

Sorry if all of you are teenage girls, but I go for the better mp3 players...not what's popular.
Sorry if you don't agree with me. Enjoy being popular with teh teenage girls

 

[mwmorph]

sigh another thread ruined by fanboy hans.

anyway, i'd wait if i were you for rev.2. apple version 1 products tend to have bugs(ipod mini battery issue and sound quality anyone?). rev 2 usually is much better(i.e., ipod mini doubled battery life, lost the battery charge issue and got better, higher capacity caps for better sound quality.

 

[ai42]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Do you see how fvcking small the Nano is? Alright, now imagine how small the battery is.

No need to imagine...

iPod nano guts

I find it VERY intresting to the fact that the memory chip is on another module. So it would be conceivable to perhaps upgrade your Nano (probbably aftermarket upgrade) to a higher capacity as technology progresses and flash gets cheaper for higher capcities.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: hans030390
Ipod 20gb- $250-300
Scroll wheel (constant circles...)
Easy menus
12 hour battery life

Creative Zen Sleek- $230-260
Scroll bar/ touch pad (which you can drag and hold it instead of making your thumb keep circling)
16-18 hour battery life
Very easy menus
Better sound quality
Weighs less than Ipod, same size
New, more style (ipod looks are ugly and old)

Sorry if all of you are teenage girls, but I go for the better mp3 players...not what's popular.
Sorry if you don't agree with me. Enjoy being popular with teh teenage girls

And this has to do with Nano how?

Creative Zen sucks BTW. If you were going for iPod alternative you should've gotten iAudio like the X5 or U2. There is no current alternative to Nano. None. Be prepare to wait months/year until other companies come out with their copycat products.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
sigh another thread ruined by fanboy hans.

anyway, i'd wait if i were you for rev.2. apple version 1 products tend to have bugs(ipod mini battery issue and sound quality anyone?). rev 2 usually is much better(i.e., ipod mini doubled battery life, lost the battery charge issue and got better, higher capacity caps for better sound quality.

I am waiting for rev 2. That's why I only ordered one white Nano. I will order the second black Nano when rev 2 is released a year from now. I'll simply give my rev 1 to my wife and then take the rev 2.

 

[crisscross]

I was thinking of getting a new cell phone, but this changes things....

 

[Hacp]

The zen sleek acutlaly looks pretty good. But I agree. Currently, you'd be hard pressed to find a 2-4GB flash player of the Ipod Nano's size. And also, look at the shuffle. APple stated 15 hours of battery life I think, and people get 18 hours regularly. Personally, anything over 20 is overkill and thats what my mini gets. I can probably live with 15 hourst also.

 

[svi]

You might be surprised by this, but many of your points are very easy to rebutt.

You might be surprised by this, but the engineers behind these DAPs are a hell of a lot better at what they do than you are. Many of them understand advanced concepts beyond even you, such as "volume".

The simplest of all is your comment regarding the iPod's size. Sony actually has MP3 players that are *smaller* than the Nano which last over 30 hours on a single charge.

I think I've found the source of the problem: you don't know what "smaller" means. Well, let me try to explain things to you. If one object is smaller than another, that means that its size is less. Size is determined by three numbers: height, width, and depth. An object with less height (a "shorter" object-- am I going too fast for you here?) might not actually be smaller than another one if it is wider and/or deeper.

Moving on. The problem here is internal volume. How much you can cram in an device is determined by the volume of the parts and the internal volume of the device-- how much space the parts take up, and how much space you have. Internal volume is determined by the dimensions of the device and the thickness of its casing. If one device has lower internal volume than another one, it has less space for the components inside. A very thin device like the iPod nano has lower internal volume than you might suspect from its height and width, and the click wheel and large screen take up much more space (comparatively) than the average flash player due to their size and the depth of the player. (Contrary to what some believe, DAP screens are quite thick in proportion to many of the other parts.)

Another good example is the new Sony hard drive based MP3 player. It's substantially smaller than the iPod (probably 30% or so), and it goes for over 30 hours on a single charge, compared with the 16 hours for the iPod.

That's neither a good example nor a relevant one. Relevance: this discussion is about the iPod nano. The iPod nano is not the iPod.

That's really about that, but it'd be a cop-out if I didn't explain why the example was bad as well as irrelevant. The new Sony hard drive player you mention does not go anywhere near the claimed Sony battery life unless you use ATRAC3 / ATRAC3+ for all your music needs, and nobody with a forebrain uses ATRAC3 or ATRAC3+. The NW-HD5 is also cheaply made, has a weak headphone out, and, shockingly, has an even smaller feature set than the iPod Color-- all of which have some role in explaining the remaining difference in battery life.

Sony is just very good at getting incredible efficiency from its electronic parts. Apple needs to work on this.

Sony's devices have weaker headphone outputs, generally chunkier batteries, less accurate specifications, and/or a host of trade-offs. The X5L has much higher battery life than the X5, but that doesn't mean that Cowon is better than Cowon at producing efficient DAPs (note that that statement is nonsensical), it means it uses a LARGER BATTERY. To spell it out: the fact that one DAP has a longer battery life than another does not mean you should jump to the conclusion that the first DAP's manufacturer and engineers are better. Other factors are almost always at play.

On a side note, there are only two things Sony products are known for, and "incredible efficiency" is not one of them. I'll say no more, lest I offend some happy buyer.

As for your claims of exaggerated battery life specs, I encourage you to read some Cnet reviews of some Sony MP3 players. I have not read anything on there about any exaggerations.

Golly, you're right. If CNet doesn't mention flaws in a product or exaggerations in its specifications, they must not be there!

 

[SickBeast]

And what of Sony's new HD based player that doubles the battery life of the latest iPod which is 30% larger by VOLUME??

Give me a break dude, everyone knows that battery life has been the achilles heel of Apple's MP3 player line from the outset.

 

[svi]

And what of Sony's new HD based player that doubles the battery life of the latest iPod which is 30% larger by VOLUME??

See above. If your scroll button is broken:

"That's neither a good example nor a relevant one. Relevance: this discussion is about the iPod nano. The iPod nano is not the iPod.

That's really about that, but it'd be a cop-out if I didn't explain why the example was bad as well as irrelevant. The new Sony hard drive player you mention does not go anywhere near the claimed Sony battery life unless you use ATRAC3 / ATRAC3+ for all your music needs, and nobody with a forebrain uses ATRAC3 or ATRAC3+. The NW-HD5 is also cheaply made, has a weak headphone amplifier, and, shockingly, has an even smaller feature set than the iPod Color-- all of which have some role in explaining the remaining difference in battery life."

Give me a break dude, everyone knows that battery life has been the achilles heel of Apple's MP3 player line from the outset.

Oho, two logical fallacies for the price of one: an appeal to popularity ("everyone knows ...") and a hasty generalization (if it applies to the iPod _____, it must apply to Apple's mp3 player line and thus the iPod nano!).

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: svi

And what of Sony's new HD based player that doubles the battery life of the latest iPod which is 30% larger by VOLUME??

See above. If your scroll button is broken:

"That's neither a good example nor a relevant one. Relevance: this discussion is about the iPod nano. The iPod nano is not the iPod.

That's really about that, but it'd be a cop-out if I didn't explain why the example was bad as well as irrelevant. The new Sony hard drive player you mention does not go anywhere near the claimed Sony battery life unless you use ATRAC3 / ATRAC3+ for all your music needs, and nobody with a forebrain uses ATRAC3 or ATRAC3+. The NW-HD5 is also cheaply made, has a weak headphone amplifier, and, shockingly, has an even smaller feature set than the iPod Color-- all of which have some role in explaining the remaining difference in battery life."

Give me a break dude, everyone knows that battery life has been the achilles heel of Apple's MP3 player line from the outset.

Oho, two logical fallacies for the price of one: an appeal to popularity ("everyone knows ...") and a hasty generalization (if it applies to the iPod _____, it must apply to Apple's mp3 player line and thus the iPod nano!).

Ok, so the new Sony player only gets 20 hours of battery life compared to the iPod's 16 using MP3 playback, yet it's 30% smaller. That still means it's more efficient in my books...

Methinks you work for Apple and that you didn't find the new Sony players or the existing iPod line "relevant" because they did not co-incide with your argument. Oh well.

 

[svi]

Ok, so the new Sony player only gets 20 hours of battery life compared to the iPod's 16 using MP3 playback, yet it's 30% smaller. That still means it's more efficient in my books...

"The NW-HD5 is also cheaply made, has a weak headphone amplifier, and, shockingly, has an even smaller feature set than the iPod Color-- all of which have some role in explaining the remaining difference in battery life."

Methinks you work for Apple and that you didn't find the new Sony players or the existing iPod line "relevant" because they did not co-incide with your argument. Oh well.

Yes, that's it. I work for Apple. The rational argument I appear to have raised is merely a facade intended to confuse you into thinking I must have some kind of point you can't counter, when in reality I am using my standard-issue hypnosis kit on you to make you love all that is Apple.

You can actually take something away from all of this. See, product engineers do know what they're doing most of the time. They don't get hired and paid to fail at solving problems that random forumgoers could easily solve by themselves. If you think a product has an obvious, easily fixed shortcoming, you are almost certainly wrong.

 

[Excelsior]

lol @ SickBeast.