Apple's iPod nano shenanigans
Summary: Something's going on with the iPod nano and I can't put my finger on it. It's almost too lame to be an Apple product. Could it be a smokescreen to divert attention away from another product?
Lost in the hype of the iPhone 5 announcement was a less memorable product, the new seventh-generation iPod nano.
Unlike the big star of the event, the new iPod nano is a nothing upgrade to a dead-end product. It doesn't have iOS, apps or WiFi, so there's no way to consume music from the cloud (Spotify, Pandora, Sirius, YouTube, etc.) The only music supported on the iPod nano is whatever you sync from iTunes -- via a cable, no less. Which is Lame.
The Verge's Nilay Patel called it "an impulse buy holiday present that almost makes it seem like you care about the recipient."
Unlike the iPhone and the iPod touch, the iPod nano is a product looking for a problem to solve. Someone looking for an inexpensive music player, could easily pick up a $49 iPod shuffle instead.
Patel put it even more succinctly when he said that "anyone thinking about spending $149 on the iPod nano should tap-dance on street corners until they make the extra $50 it takes to buy the entry-level iPod touch instead."
(Patel got the price wrong, the entry-level iPod touch costs $150 more.)
I'm also a little bitter about the 7th-gen iPod nano because it completely killed the growing and fun iPod-watch industry.
There are two potential reasons why Apple eliminated the square iPod nano form-factor:
1) It cares more about selling (and renting) movies that it does about giving you the time of day, or...
2) Apple's building its own iWatch and doesn't want to compete against itself.
The latter is a conspiracy theory raised by gdgt's Peter Rojas that I happen to like. Maybe it's just wishful thinking?
It's easy to imagine all the things that an iWatch could do: it'd be the perfect accessory for an iPhone or iPad. Bluetooth 4.0 could make it a satellite screen for your larger iOS device (which could stay in your pocket or bag) while it displayed things like Tweets, Facebook posts, text messages, emails or the currently playing track. If Apple sold it for $99 (granted, a long shot) it would sell one with every iPhone and iPad sold.
Apple's already innovated the hell out of the palm, now it's time to tackle the wrist.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Fidgeting
I think they haven't really known ever what to do with it. People who exercise at the gym use the shuffle, because of the built in clip. Others use the Touch. The nano never really seemed to fit in except for the last one which could be worn as a watch. The fact that they acknowledged that in one of their keynotes and even released extra watch faces for it shows they weren't oblivious to what was making it popular. It's kind of ended up looking a bit like an mp3 player from a cut-price own brand company.
Nobody Buys Dedicated Media Players Any More
And this just throws into sharper relief the irritating restrictions of Itunes not letting you freely move media between devices.
people who...
people who...
becuase...
hey flash
Or for the kids who's parents won't buy them an iPhone
I'm not sure that is entirely true
Plus Apple is promoting the touch as a camera, to boot.
Huh?
Couldn't be more wrong! There was no other company more prepared than Apple. Actually you could argue that Apple's popular iPhone had a large part in the slowing of sales of dedicated music players in the market. Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007 as a true "convergence" device: A phone, iPod and internet device in your pockets.
The idea then was you no longer needed 3 separate dedicated devices, when you could buy one ultimate smart phone (iPhone). Apple knew they would be cannibalizing some sales of the iPods when they introduced the iPhones in 2007. The company even admitted such back in 2009 at an earnings call - “We expect our traditional MP3 players to decline over time,” Oppenheimer said during Tuesday’s earnings report conference call, “as we cannibalize ourselves with the iPod touch and the iPhone.”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/150457-apple-cranks-out-another-solid-quarter
So Apple did not get caught flat footed, it was quite the opposite actually. They were ahead of the market in introducing not only the iPhone which they knew was going to cannibalize some sale of the iPods (convergence device) but they also released another popular transitional device, the iPod Touch a few months later. The [iPod] Touch quickly became the best selling iPod.
I still remember the iPod touch announcement. It came a few days
Exactly!
I wondered if it is for Gym users?
It's possibly just maintaining those users?
I'd be borderline about buying one if I felt nervous about using my iPhone during workouts, but had the cash to spare. I guess I am borderline except for the cash.
I can only assume the cable sync is a cost question, considering their intent to go wireless.
Or maybe it's for kids?
Sometimes having the screen is better than not. A button only interface is not right for everyone.
So yeah I don't quite know except there is probably a user base out there, and the line may not be dead yet.
The iPod Nano has always looked a bit misplaced to many of us but it must have been selling.
Most probably
Get a girlfriend!
Wow!
Who's angry?
:-)
It's Actually Spelled "Shenanigans"...
Misspellings aside, this might be the ugliest thing to come out of Cupertino in, well, ever. The circle icons are horribly out-dated and as someone else said, this looks like a knockoff or cheap MP3 player from some Chinese house-brand. If they were just trying to get the Lightning connector out there, they could have left the Nano the same and added in the connector. Then put in a Wifi chip for syncing music OTA. No one wants to watch movies or play games on a 2" screen so an App store would have been useless. I guess you could get dedicated Nano weather apps, etc. but really, it's a music player.
The form factor doesn't bother me as much as the colors and the lame display with the round icons. It doesn't look like an Apple Device. I expected metal and glass. Grays and whites. Not early 90's pastels and rounded early-2000 Sony-esque icons.
If they are preparing for an iWatch, they should have just left the Nano alone. But instead, they killed off an entire market for watch bands, etc. The good thing is, I'll probably be able to get one extremely cheaply now. My only reservations before were pricing. I should be able to pick up a Nano at Christmastime for under $100 and a watch band even less than that. SCORE!
Still, I have to say that this one was poorly done, Apple.
Intentional misspelling
Read it again to see if you can figure out why.
:-)
Who is this idiot?
Did you read your own article again and couldn't justify your intentions?
If you can't spell and can't use a spell-check, you shouldn't write articles.
Now go ahead and post your defensive, arrogant response to my comment...
An editor at ZDNet did that!
Seriously?! Over a headline?
An editor here at ZDNET changed my headline to "Apple iPod Shenanogans" (the 'Apple iPod' part was added for clarity), then his spell checker changed it to Shenanigans. Then I changed it back. Do you really think that there's some sort of a conspiracy here? Honestly?
You're claiming that I made a typo, ignored the giant red line under it, and fabricated a story that I was trying to use the word "nano" in the headline to justify a typo?
ROTFL! (That's a good one!)
You are a textbook troll my friend!
:-)
Ok, back to the "regular" spelling
- Jason