Talk:iPod Nano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Better comparison image?

Does anyone have a mouse/1st gen nano comparison photo that doesn't show both devices to be filthy?

Gross! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.154.106 (talk • contribs) 17:01, January 11, 2007 (UTC)

- That can be fixed with anyone who has Adobe Photoshop by working with brightness contast and the dodge tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quau (talk • contribs) 11:35, January 18, 2007

- Brightness and contrast doesn't really remove the grease and ear wax from the picture. Brain seltzer 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electronics section...

I read the link, which does indeed say the same things as the electronics section. However, as a hardware engineer and geek, I feel obliged to point out that the information is not completely useful or accurate, possibly to make the larger point of the article that the Game Boy Micro (perhaps a sponsor or advertiser? Just guessing...) is a technologically superior toy.

The discrete-versus-custom-IC debate is common; discrete people (like me) usually focus on upgrades/product lines, reliability, and operational speed, and that long-term the production cost will be lower. For differentiated products where the RAM/EEPROM/Flash is the costly component, discrete is almost always cheaper to build even in astronomical volumes - presumably that's why Apple had lots of profit (see next paragraph of article). Custom ASICs can be cheaper if you _really_ need the space and/or are producing a ton of _exactly the same_ product and have a lot of component cost and complexity; however, neither of these is true for the nano.

Component cost figures are back-of-the-envelope at best, since anyone who is privy to the Apple pricing for the components is not allowed to tell us what the costs are. Depending on stock, you could easily get a discount of 50% or more over retail for a large quantity. (To be fair, the cost of the nano was probably mostly the flash and LCD, both of which were pretty expensive even in volume at the time... but the numbers are obviously way off, since Apple turned a record profit.)

It also strikes me as strange to say that 0603s were a poor choice for 2004/5, as I was using them in designs in 2001 where space was no concern at all! They were even then the cheapest way to get discrete components, at least here in the States. My Palm m100 (2002, $100-ish, IIRC) uses discrete 0603s, for example, in a configuration not unlike the nano of 3 years later. I wouldn't have used 1005s after 2000 since it'd be like pulling teeth to get spares. (Quite possibly that's the reason I've never seen a Game Boy Micro...)

Anyway, the whole electronics section rubs me the wrong way, though I have nothing better to propose than taking it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.95.83 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Vandalism

I have noticed that this page has been recently vandalised and has seen some ongoing vandalism. This page must be locked for editing my non-members and vandalists who are wikipidia members must be penalised. Could a moderator of wikipedia plese have this page locked from editing due to vandalism and consider locking other iPod pages also. The vandalist is clearly persistent and will not cese vandalising the ipod pages. Therefore, I strongly suggest this page be LOCKED FROM EDITING DUE TO VANDALISM. Otherwise it could jeporadise the validility of Wikipedia as a reliable resource.

The Suspected Vandal carries the IP adress : 209.191.223.70—Preceding unsigned comment added by Quau (talk • contribs)

You are taking this way too seriously. The user's contributions show only two accounts of vandalism to this article, though a few other questionable edits. However, we assume good faith, and we do not go around blocking or protecting because of small instances of vandalism. Furthermore, one vandal cannot jeopardize the reliability of Wikipedia as a source; it is quickly removed and anybody who somehow does see it disregards it. If you follow established conventions, such as putting talk posts at the bottom of the page and do not add user talk page templates to articles, you will probably receive a more immediate and positive response.--HereToHelp 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to edit it since this is discussion, but you said my nonmembers instead of By non members :\ FrogEdit (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems counter-productive to undo changes ONLY to spelling. These small tweaks accomplish the following:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.235.114 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hard to control

has anyone noticed how hard it is to use the controls on an ipod nano?! MAYBE this could be in the critisims bit! 82.24.175.199 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, the directional controls are easy enough, but turning it off seems to take a few tries (you hold the button but it ISNT GOING BLANK) FrogEdit (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variable bitrate support

I remember a big issue with the first gen nano, in that it didn't properly support VBR. Was this ever fixed, and/or incorporated into the 2nd gen nano? 172.213.179.95 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a source? I know someone with a first gen nano whose entire music collection was in VBR and I don't remember her mentioning any problems. Unless it was something fixed very quickly after the nano release, I think you might be mis-remembering. AlistairMcMillan 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPod Linux Support

The wording of the phrase "does not support iPod Linux" was disputed recently. I reverted the change because I feel like hardware supports software, regardless of whose job it is. If it is in dispute again, let's use this to discuss. Happinessiseasy 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AlistairMcMillan's deletion of that sentence. It really doesn't belong in the nano article. Happinessiseasy 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iVendy

I don't know if anyone has seen these "iPod Vending Machines" but I saw them in my city's airport and decided to name them iVendies. Has anyone else seen these? D-hyo 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont know if you're still looking at this, after a month, But no Ive never actually seen one, but I have heard about them. I think its a good idea. Do they sell ipods or just the music?

I don't think I've ever seen them before, but I'd think that they wouldn't put music in them ( how would they download, how does it go to a specific library...) By the way, does anyone else find it strange that Ipods cost less on Apple.com New than on Amazon.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogEdit (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw one once in hotel in Las Vegas. I can't remember the hotel that has the Star Trek rides, but that is where I saw it. Swipe a credit card, punch in the Number and Letter selection that you want (kinda like a candy or drink machine "E9") and out comes your ipod. But I was wondering how you put music on it. I mean, you would have to have a laptop in your hotel room probably. Maybe they should have another machine next to it that allows you to purchase songs and put them on your iVendy ipod right there on the spot. That way, you can get music. Then just go home, login to itunes, and it will automatically download your music that you purchased on the iVendy. FXDWGI (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different Nano

What is this? I've never seen this version of the nano. I saw it on ebay and it appears to have the apple logo on it and everything.

Ebay Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200120301907

Image: [1]

Anyone seen this nano before?

Thoraxcorp 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this is not a discussion forum, for the purposes of nobody wanting to add this product in that is not an official iPod Nano. At a guess I would say it is an imitation fake. Sorry --Andrewjd 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really trying to start a discussion but asking for the article's sake if this is an older model of the nano and if so it would need to be included in the article. Thoraxcorp 08:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant regarding the iPod nano itself, but don't you think these "fake" iPods should have their own article. I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'm not too talented at crerating articles (I can't believe I'm doing this). If anyone wants to, I highly reccomend it. Ppierce365 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd Generation

Can we please get some photos, even if they're mockups? 124.184.16.253 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)greenharpoon

Done.--HereToHelp 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the 3rd Generation can Play Video? Fobluis 15:20, 5 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fobluis (talk • contribs)

Yes. Vincent Pun ^talk 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the case of the 3G nano is plastic with a metallic finish, not a "full-metal design" as previously written on the Ipod nano page. I purchased a 3G nano recently and from what I can gather about the appearance and feel of the casing, it doesn't seem like any sort of metal. The feel of the case when it is tapped is very hollow and dull which made me certain that it must be some type of plastic. Certainly the fact that the backplate scratches so easily is indicative of this.

The durabilty of portable devices such as the nano is of the upmost importance to me and no doubt other consumers and I would be disappointed if the housing was in fact plastic. If anyone has any definite information could you please help to clarify this issue so that no other consumers are misinformed. Thanks. Balancefirst 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement

I think Total iPod Nano Review Mashup by FattyNano external link is an advertisement. Vincent Pun ^talk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (PRODUCT) RED

I've seen this going back and forth, please take some time to review the Manual of Style on capital letters and trademarks. If you change "Product Red" to "(PRODUCT) RED" someone will come back and change it based on those guidelines. Gh5046 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] formats?

I found it kinda strange there are nowhere to be seen the file formats that the nano can play..i had to ask several people in the apple store just to let me know that the nano can play only quicktime videos with aac coding.. however, some of the podcasts i've downloaded are .avi`s , which left me baffled, since itunes wouldn't import any avi videos in the library when i try :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.102.230 (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying they aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia article or on Apple's website? Because we do mention the formats on the iPod article under Software. AlistairMcMillan 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't critic me if this is illegal...but there are free softwares that convert avis and almost every other format to M4p maps or whatever Video files that Nanos play. So if that solves your problem... FrogEdit (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Song capacity

I was wondering how many songs the different models can hold. I'm currently putting a CD's worth of music on my 8GB Nano, and the CD takes up approx. 500MB, and has 10 songs. By my calculations, my 8GB should hold 80 songs. Obviously, this is completely not true, but I was wondering how many songs it's supposed to be able to hold. Sixty-Nine Dot Eighty One Dot Fifty Two Dot Nineteen 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm guessing the cd is an audio cd? Audio cds use uncompressed red book audio (or something), but the iPod uses compressed mp3s, of which a cd could hold several dozen albums worth. Rehevkor 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] iPOD Nano 3rd generation backplate construction

the aritcle says it is chrome, but in fact it is highly polished stainless steel. A while back i corrected it, and now its back to being wrong gain, by stating it's chrome. Can someone correct it...maybe this time the correcttion will stay!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeno333 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And where is ur back up of this? how do you know its not chrome? Wikipedia does not just add things they "think" or "Guess". unless you come up with an answer then im afraid its staying like this.---The Great One 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, where does it say it's chrome, for that matter? (I don't know what it is made of, I'm just making a point -- unless someone can specifically show a reference that says it's either, we'd best stick to "polished metal" or something along those lines.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] song in ad

Hey! What's that song called in the new ad for this? It's this woman and I don't know if she's a solo singer or in a band and the ad has part of the song's video and there are all these people in different coloured t shirts and they do a big dance routine. Thanks :)

Dustin ॠ04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The song/video is "1234" by Canadian singer/songwriter Feist from her album "The Reminder". Both the song and the video are available from the iTunes store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.209.110 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purple

I may be mistaken but I always thought there was a lavender nano! i think they were never realeased. can you comfirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptimes (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Information for 3rd Generation

I think we should add more information about the 3rd Generation Nano, like the other generations, like endurance, critical reception, etc. 71.110.66.18 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more information+ sound quality

yes don't forget sound quality. people really need to ride apples arse on this issue. their sound quality issues shouldn't be hidden anymore. they should be prodded into improving their product..frankly the only negative for many people who won't buy one is the sound quality issue. i guess they dont care right now because they are making out like bandits anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.112 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Find some good sources, and it can go in the article. Otherwise, you just come across as a troll. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2000 or XP

Isn't the third generation work on XP, not 2000. That's what it says in the main i-Pod article. Anybody know? GEM036 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4th Generation?

Is a 4th Generation nano likely to be released in September? It could be assumed from looking at past releases that this will be the case, but I cannot see a necessary reason why they would need to update so soon this time around. Hayden120 (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Per MOS:TM, we should present the product name as "iPod Nano", not "iPod nano". There is examption for the initial "i" because it is a distinctive mark of the product and there's an exemption for improper caps in the first two letters, but "Shuffle" should be capitalised per standard title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Following comments moved to Talk:iPod Touch. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 4th Gen Nano is now out: http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/ FXDWGI (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move discussion

An archive of the discussion can be found at Talk:IPod Touch#Requested move. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ADD THE 4G iPod nano IMAGE OR I WILL TAG THIS ARTICLE OUTDATED....

I DON'T CARE if it violates the rules, but PLEASE FOR GOODNESS SAKES, PUT THE iPod nano 4G IMAGE ON...

IF IT'S NOT FREE, MARK IT TEMPORARY UNTIL SOMEONE TAKES THE IMAGE OF IT THEMSELVES.....

OTHERWISE, DELETE THE IMAGE, OR I WILL MARK IT OUTDATED..... Bentoman (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it that serious an issue to have a G4 image as the main image? Lemmie answer that for you; the answer is no. Relax, it's just an iPod, when someone makes one an image will be added. Otherwise policy will be enforced and a free image will be used. Thank you for your input! Rehevkor ✉ 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization

I don't see why all the iPod articles were changed to uppercase. These are NOT their official names. If they must be this way due to some Wikirule, at LEAST have the right case used within the article-- i.e. iPod nano, iPod classic, etc. Tamajared (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 4th Gen iPod

The 4th generation part of this article really needs to be cleaned up. It places titles incorrectly and seems to have information copied from a different source.rct2guy (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Purple 4th-Gen iPod picture

Some editors seem to have doubts that the photo of the 4th-gen iPod in this article really is the purple version, and insist on repeatedly relabelling it as "blue". As the person who actually took the photo, I can vouch that it is indeed the purple version. I also took a photo of the blue version in the shop on the same day, and that is much lighter in colour. As I have indicated in the description of the image itself and in a hidden comment in the article, the bluish tinge that seems to be confusing some people is simply caused by the fluorescent lighting. Hopefully someone can upload a better quality and less "controversial" image in the near future, as this one seems to attract a lot of unhelpful edit-warring. --DAJF (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromise I will try, remove the color from the caption. Is the color material to the picture? Jons63 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done I have also removed the hidden comment. --DAJF (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly an error....

Well, I know that the stadardized way of listing pixel ratios is (width x height). However, it's backwards with the 4G iPod Nano. Even though Apple says it's 320x240, that would make for an awkward pixel format. I'm sure that it might be an apple oversight that it is 240x320. I say this because the screen, like the iPod Touch, is taller than it is long. So, it wouldn't make sense to have more pixels across than it would tall....Gyrferret (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)