iPod Nano Review

 

The beat went on

iPods iPods iPods! That was the theme of Apple's September 5 event, titled "The Beat Goes On." And as expected, what came out of the event was all sorts of iPod news: the shuffles got new colors, the iPod touch (touchscreen iPod) made its debut, and Apple updated its old standbys, the iPod classic and iPod nano. This review focuses on the latter two in the list, because they both saw the same general changes to physical design and also use the same new UI.

We will go over the physical differences of each iPod separately first and then address the UI as a whole.
 

Third-generation iPod nano

The iPod Nano was the thinner, flash-based, plastic replacement for the top-selling iPod mini, but Apple soon changed that to the anodized aluminum casing of the iPod mini just a year later with its second generation Nano.
 

Apple has continued its pattern of releasing a brand new nano redesign every September since 2005 with the third-generation nano, nicknamed the "nano fatty," "fat nano," and just about every other insulting name people can think of to describe those who are... heftier than others. Indeed, when the rumors of the fat nano originally broke, no one wanted to believe it. "That is the ugliest iPod I have ever seen," one of our staffers commented upon seeing the leaked pictures. But Apple released it anyway—much to some customers' horror—complete with a new UI and video capabilities.

Out of the box

The nano comes in the classic plastic case, complete with all the accessories iPod owners have come to expect: standard iPod connector, dock adapter, headphones, and a little booklet.



Apple has radically altered the look of the nano from its previous iteration. It has lost 0.75 inches in height (now only 2.75 inches tall, down from 3.5 inches from the first and second generations), and has gained almost an entire half-inch in width (2.06 inches wide, compared to 1.6 inches from the older nanos). It has, however, maintained the same thinness as the previous nano model, at 0.26 inches thick. See, the nano isn't fat; it's just big-boned!


First, second, and third-generation nanos

 

A bigger screen 

That nearly half-inch in gained width isn't all for naught—80 percent of that additional width is represented in the nano's screen. The new nano now sports a full 2-inch color LCD, up from the 1.6 inch displays of its two predecessors. The nano is now video-capable, too, with a 320x240 resolution screen at 204 pixels per inch. Upon first hearing this announcement, many users recoiled. "Why would you want to watch video on such a tiny screen?"

But in fact, the screen isn't that bad. Once we got engrossed in watching a movie or TV show, the smallish size of the screen didn't distract us. (We will warn you, though, that 16:9 video is exceptionally small on the nano.) In fact, we think that overall, video on the nano is roughly on par with watching video on a traditional iPod (classic) screen, which was the largest (and only) video-capable iPod on the market previous to the announcement of the iPod touch and the new iPod nano. The iPod nano is now only a half-inch smaller than the screen on the iPod classic.

5G iPod on top, 3G nano on bottom
The jury is still out on whether this was a wise design move by Apple or not. Many observers quickly decided that the new nano design was not only fat and ugly (it probably got picked on at the playground, too), but that it was too fat to be comfortable in the hand when compared to the older nanos. At least a regular-sized iPod has the height and heft advantage to feel substantial enough, but the fat little nano was short, light, and no longer stick-like.
 
From:  http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/the-ipod-gets-a-makeover-a-review-of-the-ipod-nano-and-ipod-classic.ars
 
Please check out our store for the best prices and selection of new and used iPod nano.

Sponsored Links

    Discount Cell Phones
    Discount Merchandise