So the new iPod line-up is out today. Very welcome upgrades across the board by me. The Shuffle gets buttons and the Touch grows a set…of features. Whateva. Social networking also made its way into iTunes. I have yet to use it, but usage from a web browser would be welcome by me.
But this post isn’t about me. It’s about two things; the iPod Nano, and the first of Harry McCracken’s list of ten questions after the September first keynote; blockquoted for your convenience:
Is the main message of the new Nano that the old Nano was irrelevant? It’s basically got two new features: It’s way small and it has a touch-screen interface. But it has a smaller screen than its predecessor (1.54″ vs. 2.2″). It doesn’t have a camera anymore (looks like it’s official that the camera-enabled Nano never killed the Flip). I assume it can’t play video. The pedometer is presumably gone. It’s essentially a different device–more like a Shuffle with a screen than a more fully-evolved Nano. If you want video and a camera, Apple is saying, buy an iPod Touch–a larger, pricier, more complex gadget. It’s logical advice for a lot of people, but is there nobody left who wants a fairly feature-rich iPod with the simplicity of the old interface?
These were my sentiments exactly. The fact that you now have to plunk down $200 or over to get a new-gen device that plays video is a bit of a downer to say the least. The complexity is not lost; you can still buy an iPod Classic, but buying a fifth-gen iPod Nano will be cheaper (then and now) and less complex. Believe it or not, there still is a market that wants a cheap flash storage based player that plays video. There are other options, though. Just sayin’.
Brandon Backlin
haha