Print 59 comment(s) - last by drunkenmasterm.. on Sep 3 at 2:43 AM

iPod nano

iPod touch
Apple updates its popular media player lineup

Apple has sold over 275 million iPods since it was first introduced back in 2001. Today, Apple is introducing a new family of iPods to help keep the winning streak alive.

First up is the next generation iPod shuffle. The new iPod shuffle, has the look and buttons of the second generation device and voiceover from the third generation. Battery life is rated at 15 hours. The fourth generation iPod shuffle is a little smaller than the second generation model and comes in five different colors. It will be available for $49 in 2GB capacities.

The new iPad nano, as predicted by case leaks over the past week, is a tiny multi-touch capable device. It has a clip (like the iPod shuffle), hardware volume buttons, VoiceOver, FM radio, Nike+, and a pedometer. The new device is 46 percent smaller and 42 percent lighter. Battery life is listed at 24 hours. Unfortunately, the downsizing of the iPad nano has resulted in the loss of the onboard camera (and apparently, the loss of video playback).

Being that this is a multi-touch device, all of Apple's familiar gestures are applicable to the device. The iPad nano will be available for $149 in an 8GB version and $179 in the 16GB version.

Finally, there is a new iPod touch that is even thinner than the old version introduced last year. Like its iPhone 4 counterpart, it comes with the Retina display along with the Apple A4 processor, 3-axis gyro, front facing camera for FaceTime (over Wi-Fi), and a rear camera for HD video recording and photo taking. The new device promises 40 hours of battery life and will be available in 8GB ($229), 32GB ($299), and 64GB ($399) capacities.

If there's anything disappointing about the new iPod lineup, it's that Apple hasn't bothered to upgrade the storage capacity of any of its media players in addition to the neutering of the iPod nano. It appears that Apple is trying to push more customers to the iPod touch (which Apple admits is currently the best-selling iPod).

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Homerboy on 9/1/2010 1:53:45 PM , Rating: 5
The touch has always been appealing to me... but I would want a fair amount of storage. And the pricepoints for additioanl storage are still just insanely too high to be acceptable.

RE: touch
By MrTeal on 9/1/2010 2:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
Really, the price difference between a 90GB Vertex 2 and a 40GB Vertex 2 is $100 at Newegg, so the $170 that Apple is charging to move from the 8GB to the 64GB is pricey but not highway robbery. Nothing at all like when you upgrade a MacBook to a SSD. The iPods are really the only Apple product that I recommend to friends; iTunes might be bloated crapware but the iPods themselves are overall better than any other PMP.

RE: touch
By Mitch101 on 9/1/2010 2:32:10 PM , Rating: 4
SD slot and let the consumer upgrade when memory is priced within ones budget.

RE: touch
By Iaiken on 9/1/2010 2:39:48 PM , Rating: 5
SD slot and let the consumer upgrade when memory is priced within ones budget.

But then how would Apple charge me $170 for $80 worth of memory?

RE: touch
By MrTeal on 9/1/2010 2:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
Heh, you should be happy that it's only an extra $170. Apple Canada charges $420 for upgrading a MacBook Pro's 4GB of RAM to 8GB, when the difference between a 2x2GB and 2x4GB DDR3 SODIMM set on Newegg is a hundred bucks. Apple is normally all about the accessory price gouging.

RE: touch
By quiksilvr on 9/1/2010 3:02:46 PM , Rating: 3
Tell me about it. But at least they put buttons back on the Shuffle.

As for the Nano...ugh...I hate that design approach completely. The old Nano is much better (albeit overpriced as usual). This would have been a great idea for the Shuffle. You shake it to shuffle the song. And then sell a 4GB model for $49 and an 8GB model for $99.

Then just made the larger screen Nano 16GB go for $149 and leave it at that.

And then have a 16GB Touch for $199, a 32GB Touch for $299, and a 64GB Touch for $399.

And (I know it will never happen) equip every single player with a microSDHC slot.

RE: touch
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/1/2010 3:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
How was the prior nano overpriced? The flash based Zune was about the same price before it was discontinued.

A microSD card slot would be nice though.

RE: touch
By quiksilvr on 9/1/2010 8:52:11 PM , Rating: 4
Oh yeah, because the whole entire market is divided by Zune and iPod right?

RE: touch
By Taft12 on 9/1/2010 2:43:20 PM , Rating: 1
That's not "the Apple way" but many other media players certainly allow you to do this (go Sandisk!)

An SD slot would really bloat the iPod form factor which IMHO is a real advantage over the competition.

RE: touch
By Treckin on 9/1/2010 4:25:39 PM , Rating: 5

OMFG Im glad someone else FINALLY agrees that microSD is FAR to fat and thick for my slim and sexy phone.

If it were up to me, they would be at LEAST half that thick. That way some 'engineer' wouldn't have to screw up the shiny mirror edge to my 200 dollar mocket mirror so that I can install my own reasonably priced storage.

Also, I think they should make headphone jack inaccessible in the next lineup; who KNOWS what people might jam in there. Best to just seal it off and make people buy new ones.

- Signed, anonymous future Steve Jobs organ organ donor

RE: touch
By Divide Overflow on 9/2/2010 1:44:15 PM , Rating: 5
Give me micro SD slot, a USB port and replaceable battery.
Until then, this is just another piece of proprietary stylish junk.

RE: touch
By headbox on 9/1/2010 2:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
Poor comparison because Apple isn't using 2.5" SSDs in the iStuff.

RE: touch
By MrTeal on 9/1/2010 2:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
Howso? The controller, chassis and likely the PCB is the same between the two Vertex's. The only real difference is the firmware and the amount of flash soldered on the PCB, just like on the different models of the Touch. I never implied that Apple was using a 2.5" SSD at all.

RE: touch
By defter on 9/1/2010 2:58:51 PM , Rating: 4
Are you trolling or just totally clueless?

Music players have very simple and cheap flash controller and very cheap and slow flash memory, since the performance doesn't really matter here.

You can check real flash price here:

64Gb (8GB) of flash memory costs $12.48. Therefore 32GB costs less than $50. Apple is charging $100 for the extra 32GB of memory.

RE: touch
By MrTeal on 9/1/2010 3:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're complaining that they're charging twice as much as the commodity price? I never claimed that Apple was charging the going rate for the extra flash, just that it's not that bad. Of course they're going to charge a premium for the more desirable version of their product, the top end always has higher margins. A 16GB Zune is $180 on Newegg and the 32GB is $240, which is an even higher cost/GB. Apple has a history of completely screwing people over on upgrades, here they're just following the average industry costs.

RE: touch
By RjBass on 9/1/2010 2:49:08 PM , Rating: 3
That is really a matter of opinion. In my opinion I like my Zune HD the best, but then I feel I am one of the only ones who do.

RE: touch
By raumkrieger on 9/1/2010 3:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sticking with my Zune 2.0.
I may only have it half-filled at the moment, but the 80gb is a comforting reminder that I never have to worry about choosing what songs I want to carry around with me.

RE: touch
By invidious on 9/1/2010 4:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
You also dont have to worry about what to do with all the money you could have saved.

RE: touch
By MadMan007 on 9/1/2010 11:16:25 PM , Rating: 2
Saved how, by buying an iPod? lol

RE: touch
By Smilin on 9/1/2010 4:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
You are not alone brave soul.

Few, oh so precious few, know of the awesome experience that is Zune. MSFT may never advertise the thing to educate the iMasses on what they are missing but I for one will know.

And BTW you're going to dig the Zune service controlled via Kinect. That's all I can say atm.

RE: touch
By FlyBri on 9/2/2010 12:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
Too bad you basically need iTunes to use and iPod though. The hardware may be good, but if you're locked to using that POS software (in my opinion), it doesn't matter to me how great the hardware is.

RE: touch
By BruceLeet on 9/1/2010 3:57:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have an 8GB model (3rd gen touch) and my itunes library holds 817 songs @ 6.06GB, all of the songs are converted to 128kbps.

Half of which I don't even listen to so I can probably tick off about 400 songs and if you're buying this many songs/albums on itunes or adding your own CD collection I'm sure you can pay the extra dollars for a higher storage capacity.

RE: touch
By MrTeal on 9/1/2010 4:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think most people complaining about the price of the 64GB fill it full of legally purchased music. There might be some, but I doubt there's that many. Even if the split was 80% ripped and 20% downloaded, just the downloads would be thousands of dollars.

This is the Touch though. Someone could easily rip a moderately sized DVD collection and fill 32GB or 64GB pretty quickly.

That's why I like my 160GB Classic; I get to store my entire collection and take it wherever I want. With my previous 2GB shuffle I was having to swap the music out every second day to keep it fresh, and even then I'd get into a mood and want to listen to an album I didn't have. It's really too bad they don't make a touch with the 160GB 1.8" drive. I'd be more than happy to accept the bigger form factor for having the ability to travel with all my movies without needing a laptop.

RE: touch
By Hare on 9/1/2010 4:19:44 PM , Rating: 2
128kbps, uuuuuggghhhhh.

192kbps is adequate for on the go. 160kbps is tolerable, but anything below just sounds awful.

RE: touch
By BruceLeet on 9/1/2010 7:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
With any type of earphones/buds I don't really care for bitrate. But keep in mind they're only converted to 128kbps for my touch, in my computer library all my songs range from 256-320kbps. 320s are converted from FLAC and I listen to my music through HD555s when I'm at my computer. So I get what you're saying...

I convert 128kbps simply to save space on my Touch

RE: touch
By roadking on 9/2/2010 1:33:21 PM , Rating: 2
To be honest, I do not think there ever was a 3rd gen 8 GB Touch. They did sell it alongside the 3rd gen 32/64 GB ones but it really is a 2nd gen.

RE: touch
By MadMan007 on 9/1/2010 11:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I am disappointed that they kept touch cpacities and prices the same and added dumb features for a PMP like the video 'calling' thing. I guess the timing wasn't right but since Apple has to stick to 'their schedule' unlike other CE device makers who just release stuff when they want to there wasn't a chance of getting the new (or near future) process shrunk flash memory in them.

I would have actually seriously considered an iPod Touch 128GB at $400 if it had 3G month-to-month like the iPad (VoIP would make it a possible cell phone replacement too :))and none of the other crap they added and I *really* don't like the way Apple does stuff. Due to the timing I expect that just about every other CE maker will have doubled capacity/$ in the winter or early next year. Maybe Apple will too, or maybe they'll just sneak in those chips and up their margins. If the latter, too bad Apple, no sale.

Ipod touch
By jdavenport608 on 9/1/2010 2:14:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have used the touch. My biggest gripe is that most of the nice features disappear as soon as you lose WiFi connection. Try getting the weather or updating a map without WiFi. If your not connected you lose most of your features. Keeping maps and information resident in the device would be a nice feature. My old HP IPAQ can do that with a sliver of ram a low end touch has.

RE: Ipod touch
By Smartless on 9/1/2010 2:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
That's so you go, Dang, shoulda got an iPhone. I just hope these new devices can take the beating that I think mp3 players should be able to take. My old, old, OLD Rio Cali has been rained out, run over, dropped, fallen on, scraped up, and has survived Windows XP, Vista, and 7.

RE: Ipod touch
By Darkefire on 9/1/2010 4:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
The only costs I incurred for my 2G 8GB iPod Touch were for a cheap charge cable from Best Buy. I literally found it buried in a snowdrift outside my apartment a couple years ago, and the only reason I saw it at all was because we were having a major thaw at the time. I'd guess it was in that pile of snow for at least two weeks, and not only did it still have a trickle of battery power everything still worked perfectly after I dried it off and got most of the grit out of the charge port. I've dropped it, sat on it, fallen asleep on it more times than I can count, and done everything short of deliberate damage and it keeps on chugging. The back case is scratched all to hell (was that way when I found it) so I never bothered to get it a case, and the screen is only just now starting to show a few almost invisible nicks.

I despise Apple and generally hate their OS and products (jailbroke my Touch as soon as I could), but I will begrudgingly give them a big thumbs up on their build quality. When mine finally gives up the ghost, I'll definitely replace it with another one.

RE: Ipod touch
By PrinceGaz on 9/1/2010 2:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Have you tried installing some third-part apps (many of which are free) which provide the offline functionality you are after? The whole point of the iTouch is you can customise the apps to your liking.

RE: Ipod touch
By Taft12 on 9/1/2010 2:44:37 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, that's why an iPod Touch is so nice - you don't have the baggage owning an iPhone comes with (primarily the monthly bill!)

RE: Ipod touch
By xti on 9/1/2010 3:28:02 PM , Rating: 1
if the bill is a problem, then why get a smart phone? let alone "flashy" one...?


RE: Ipod touch
By raumkrieger on 9/1/2010 3:20:29 PM , Rating: 3
I would suggest go Android, but this might be the wrong place. After all, shine > functionality.

iPod Classic?
By marsbound2024 on 9/1/2010 2:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Guess they are not going to revamp the Classic, eh?

From Engadget: "10:21AM "This year we've gone wild. We have all new iPods this year for every single model of iPods. The biggest change in the lineup ever.""

What does that imply? The Classic not part of the lineup anymore? An unintentional lie? I'm curious.

RE: iPod Classic?
By Taft12 on 9/1/2010 2:48:15 PM , Rating: 2
Probably being phased out?

The spinning mechanical hard drive is quite antiquated in an MP3 player in this day and age and the form factor is nearly the same as the iPod Touch which surely outsells the Classic by a large margin.

RE: iPod Classic?
By Veerappan on 9/1/2010 3:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
Antiquated and fragile, yes.

Higher capacity at a cheaper $/GB ratio than flash-based storage, yes.

RE: iPod Classic?
By Taft12 on 9/1/2010 4:42:04 PM , Rating: 4
To be fair, $/GB is a topic best avoided when talking about Apple products...

iPod Giganto
By KIAman on 9/1/2010 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised Apple hasn't figured out how to market an iPod in the body of the iPad yet.

More monies!!!

RE: iPod Giganto
By nafhan on 9/1/2010 2:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Just in case you're not being sarcastic... that's what the iPad is.

RE: iPod Giganto
By FaceMaster on 9/1/2010 3:27:30 PM , Rating: 1
Just in case you're not being sarcastic... that's what the iPad is.

No it isn't. The iPad is a revolutionary new device that completely redefines what is to be expected from a portable device, while raising the bar to a previously unknown level. The iPad combines the functionality of a palmtop with the outstanding level of polish that users have come to expect from Apple products. The iPad delivers an unprecedented user experience thanks to its beautiful body, touch-sensitive surface and enough depth to satisfy every customer.

RE: iPod Giganto
By Smilin on 9/1/2010 4:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
I jizzed just a little and threw up in my mouth just a little (unrelated).

First decent iPod event in years
By KoolAidMan1 on 9/1/2010 3:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
The iPod events have been snoozers for a long time now. This one was actually decent. The new nano is super cool, and the price on the iPod Touch is really great given that you get everything that is in the iPhone (>300 PPI display, two cameras, fast CPU) minus the 3G antenna and cell phone capability. The Roku is dead in the water with the new AppleTV at $100, that price surprised me as well.

Don't think I'll be getting any of these, maybe a nano for jogging/travel, but pretty good compared to the last few years.

RE: First decent iPod event in years
By Smilin on 9/1/2010 5:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
The reality distortion field on the retina display has worn off. What I now see:

1. OLED looks better. Much better.
2. High resolution is good. Resolution beyond what the eye can see is utterly stupid. Really. It does something that is of no value . Let that sink in.

Picture Wayne from Waynes world standing next to a speaker nodding his head with that goofy grin while tapping his foot. "Excellent" he says, but you hear nothing. "My new speaker plays sounds that you can't hear". WTFBBQ?

Yet when Steve Jobs tells you the iPod displays things you can't see everyone goes "ooooh, aaahhh" like that's a good thing.

By KoolAidMan1 on 9/2/2010 2:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
I completely disagree. I have yet to see an OLED that looks better than IPS. The best Android handset doesn't compare with the iPhone 4's display. Too dim, colors aren't as vibrant, etc etc. And resolution beyond what the eye can see isn't stupid, it is necessary. How else are you to smooth fonts without anti-aliasing?

To discount the value of ultra high res displays is living in the past. Take off the fanboy blinders, it makes you miss out on amazing technology.

What No Ipod Classic update ?
By Migraine on 9/1/2010 2:26:16 PM , Rating: 3
Well I all ready have 32 gigs on my Android Phone and since the Battery is going on my Ipod classic and apple wants like half the cost for a replacement...I was going to look in to a new Ipod classic as I thought for sure you would update that as well , as I like having all 400 cd's in my pocket.
I will just use my phone now As my android Phone has the same storage as a touch and with the 2.2. upgrade it now does 720p video recording as well... so long apple! the classic Ipod is about all you made that I liked so I do not need a thing from you any more rot in peace! ...

By BruceLeet on 9/2/2010 5:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
They didn't call it a 'Classic' for nothing, it's specs are not to be changed.

what a waste
By zmatt on 9/1/2010 5:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
The nano looks pointless to me. Why would I trade a camera and video playback for a touch screen that is too small to even use well? Small touch screen really don't work, the bigger the better. Apple did the opposite here and they again lost functionality. I'll keep my Samsung, not that i was even considering an iPod anyways.

RE: what a waste
By dewlim on 9/2/2010 1:29:08 AM , Rating: 2
Do you actually play video on Nano? Do you want to go blind one day?

Not a new iPad
By nafhan on 9/1/2010 2:04:57 PM , Rating: 3
The new iPad nano
Should probably say the new iPod Nano. That really threw me for a second until I looked at the picture.

FLAC audio format?
By vailr on 9/1/2010 3:15:26 PM , Rating: 3
Flac audio format support would be welcome for the iPod Shuffle. Why no 4 Gb Shuffle model? The 3rd generation 4 Gb Shuffle can still be found on Amazon for $67. But: it doesn't support the flac audio format.

By damianrobertjones on 9/2/2010 3:45:37 AM , Rating: 3
6 services, Bonjour, Mobileme, iTunes, other startups, constantly having safari pushed via updates.

No thanks.

Plug in, drag, drop or sync with WMP.

I prefer freedom thanks.

Release date?
By KentState on 9/1/2010 2:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Anything about a release date? I didn't see it in the article.

By bravacentauri83 on 9/1/2010 3:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
I was HOPING the new iPod would have at least 100GB. I don't care about the features, and I don't care if it was going to cost a lot more. Now I'm gonna have to wait another year.

Thanks Steve.

The New Touch
By BruceLeet on 9/1/2010 3:45:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'll definitely be getting this solely based on the Facetime and 720p recording, seeing as my ISP doesn't impose any bandwidth caps whatsoever it seems like I'd really enjoy it.

720p recordings to Facebook/Youtube and pictures for Dailybooth/Twitter and hopefully Y! Messenger/Skype will make use of the front facing camera. And I hope it can also function as a webcam while plugged in to your PC.

You know...
By vertigo1 on 9/2/2010 10:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
Apple are usually well known for selling innovative products that do simple things well and in a clever way... but this is is peddling the same crap in different form factors!

Give us something new for our hard earned monies Mr White Dream Factory!



By drunkenmastermind on 9/3/2010 2:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the downsizing of the iPad nano has resulted in...

iPod? No thanks
By AstroGuardian on 9/1/2010 3:43:53 PM , Rating: 1
I would rather buy some other Chinese crap aside from Apple which is 50$ and plays MP3 on a cheap SD Micro card...
And wait! I don't wanna see Steve's ugly face.... ever again!

iPad Nano for $149??
By MDGeek on 9/2/10, Rating: -1
"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki