Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Apple exploring shrunken audio jacks for even smaller iPods
    Apple exploring shrunken audio jacks for even smaller iPods
    AppleInsider | Apple exploring shrunken audio jacks for even smaller iPods
    In its continuous pursuit to create smaller, more compact devices, Apple has shown interest in creating headphone jacks for iPods and iPhones that will take up even less space inside a device.

  2. #2

    SweetCosmicPope's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 16, 2009
    Location
    Baytown, Tx
    Posts
    373
    Specs:
    Late 2009 Macbook Pro 2.26, 160gb HD, 2gb RAM, OSX 10.6; Emac 1.42ghz 80gb HD 2gb RAM OSX 10.5
    I've been curious to know how well the new smaller nanos have been selling.

    I went with my wife to multiple apple stores to see if they still had any 5th gen nanos in stock. Every last one of them indicated that people keep leaving when they hear that they only have the new smaller ones. We ended up ordering one at amazon.

    I'm not sure smaller is better for the bottom line if the Houston apple stores are any indication. Now, if this space-saving could make room for extra features such as bringing back the camera and video playback, this could be good.
    "That's Peter Graves scat! I'd know it anywhere!"

  3. #3

    iggibar's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    4,079
    Specs:
    4.1 Mac Pro. 15" MBP. 13" MBP. 17" PB. PM G5. iPhone 6S+ 64gb Gold. Apple Watch 42mm.
    I still like the previous gen with the camera. I don't need touch screen on a nano! The upside to the new gen is that they make the previous gen cheaper. 100 bucks for a refurb is too good of a deal imo! I bought one for my dads birthday last year, and I still like it, even though it's the version without the camera.
    “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

  4. #4


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Are people not getting the new nanos cause they don't like them or cause the old generation are just as good but cheaper?

    To me the current nanos are like holding a matchbox in your hand. You almost have to old it in your fingers as it's too small for the palm if your hand. But the old nanos you can hold in the palm of your hand and the click wheel you can use with your thumb. I think the new nanos are better though as a camera on a nano - really people that's s gimmicky. On the touch though it's a good idea.

    Amyways I think the new smaller audio jacks are simply to make the nano/shuffle even thinner. I can see the day where the shuffle is just as thin as a piece of glass and on the back is a pice of velcro or similar and you just slap it on your shirt or pants or bag. And the difference between the nano and shuffle would be GB capacity and the shuffle would be a click wheel whereas the nano would be a touch screen.

    To me the two things holding the nano/shuffle back from being even thinner is the audio jack/dock connector and the clip. Fix those and you'll have one ultrathin device.

  5. #5

    iggibar's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    4,079
    Specs:
    4.1 Mac Pro. 15" MBP. 13" MBP. 17" PB. PM G5. iPhone 6S+ 64gb Gold. Apple Watch 42mm.
    I believe size factor and comfort will show that the new nano will not be as successful as the previous gen. The previous gen was a hit because it pretty much captured the athletics department. Literally, everyone I know who goes to the rec center to work out/everything else, has a version of the previous 2 gens of the nanos. It was easy to use, and you could just slap it on your arm, while knowing where the physical buttons were. With this, if you don't use the buttons on the earbuds, you have to use the screen. It feels kind of awkward to hold too while trying to use the touch screen.

    But, back to the topic, about them requiring things to be even thinner with their ipods, but am I the only one who prefers them to not be so thin(only talking ipods here!)? I miss my ipod video 30gb...because I knew I was holding a brick. Soon enough, we;re probably going to have implantable mp3 players!
    “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

  6. #6


    Member Since
    Sep 28, 2010
    Posts
    5
    Everything should have a 3,5mm jack. Personally I think it's annoying if you need adapters if you want to hook up something else.

  7. #7


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Quote Originally Posted by idrinorbarsaku View Post
    Soon enough, we;re probably going to have implantable mp3 players!
    Well similar technology I have been reading up on in in development in 2 industries. The first is medicine. For really tiny microchips for implanting into the body to cure many conditions. And the 2nd is the clothing industry. You'd have the chip woven in the fabric. Almost like a smart fabric And I'm sure one day you could buy a shirt with an MP3 player woven into the fabric and a pair if wireless headphones would be all you'd need to listen to your tunes.

    Sure that's really nothing to do about shrinking the audio jack. But still it's all miniaturisation of the products we know and love.

  8. #8

    SweetCosmicPope's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 16, 2009
    Location
    Baytown, Tx
    Posts
    373
    Specs:
    Late 2009 Macbook Pro 2.26, 160gb HD, 2gb RAM, OSX 10.6; Emac 1.42ghz 80gb HD 2gb RAM OSX 10.5
    Quote Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
    Are people not getting the new nanos cause they don't like them or cause the old generation are just as good but cheaper?

    To me the current nanos are like holding a matchbox in your hand. You almost have to old it in your fingers as it's too small for the palm if your hand. But the old nanos you can hold in the palm of your hand and the click wheel you can use with your thumb. I think the new nanos are better though as a camera on a nano - really people that's s gimmicky. On the touch though it's a good idea.
    I honestly don't know. I know in my wife's situation, she didn't like to lose the camera and video playback, and using the tiny touch screen was kind of awkward.

    I think the touch screen idea was neat, but I think they should have integrated it into the previous hardware and kept the camera and playback.

    I'm not exactly sure what purpose having a small touch screen does, especially when it takes away alot of the functionality that it previously had. Just adds a few "oohs" and "aahs."
    "That's Peter Graves scat! I'd know it anywhere!"

  9. #9

    iggibar's Avatar
    Member Since
    Apr 20, 2009
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    4,079
    Specs:
    4.1 Mac Pro. 15" MBP. 13" MBP. 17" PB. PM G5. iPhone 6S+ 64gb Gold. Apple Watch 42mm.
    Quote Originally Posted by SweetCosmicPope View Post
    ...but I think they should have integrated it into the previous hardware and kept the camera and playback.

    I'm not exactly sure what purpose having a small touch screen does, especially when it takes away alot of the functionality that it previously had. Just adds a few "oohs" and "aahs."
    ditto!
    “If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself but to your own estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.” Marcus Aurelius

  10. #10


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    I know what it does. It makes people who want the camera to cough up the cash for the touch. Apple sucked you in with the camera in the old Nano. And now to have the camera you have to upgrade to the touch. So Apple get even more money from you. Sneaky tactics I do not particularly like. But hey Apple are out to make money like any other company I guess.

  11. #11

    cwa107's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 20, 2006
    Location
    Lake Mary, Florida
    Posts
    26,842
    Specs:
    15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD
    It's funny - I bought a Nano just a few weeks before the new touchscreen version was released. When I saw the new one, I had absolutely no regrets. Bigger screen, more functionality and now a lower price. How can you go wrong?

    Smaller is not always better. I think Apple hit the sweet spot with the last generation. The clickwheel was functional and simple for what is a functional and simple device. A tiny touchscreen is worthless to me. If I really wanted that kind of an interface, I'd step up to the iPod Touch.
    Liquid and computers don't mix. It might seem simple, but we see an incredible amount of people post here about spills. Keep drinks and other liquids away from your expensive electronics!

    https://youtu.be/KHZ8ek-6ccc

  12. #12


    Member Since
    Jan 27, 2007
    Location
    *Brisvegas*
    Posts
    5,658
    Specs:
    17 inch 2 GHz C2D imac (5,1) with 3GB DDR2 RAM, X1600 (128MB memory) GPU - OSX 10.6.3
    Quote Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post
    Smaller is not always better. I think Apple hit the sweet spot with the last generation. The clickwheel was functional and simple for what is a functional and simple device. A tiny touchscreen is worthless to me. If I really wanted that kind of an interface, I'd step up to the iPod Touch.
    But what if you want that interface but can't afford or do not want to pay the touch prices? Then the new Nano is better for you. The old Nano's camera only took video and no still pictures. That was the deal breaker for me. I really wanted a still camera in there. To me having radio is more important then a video only camera. The touch screen to me is no more important than the old click wheel as both seem to work just fine.

    I'm sure the new Nano will have it's market. But it's sales figures will really tell how successful it'll be.

  13. #13

    CrimsonRequiem's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jul 24, 2008
    Posts
    6,004
    Specs:
    MBP 2.3 Ghz 4GB RAM 860 GB SSD, iMac 3.4 GHz Intel Core i7 32GB RAM, Fusion Drive 1TB
    I also liked the older Nano. The one with the click wheel and it just plays music. Simpler is better. I don't really see the need to add extra features to it that just gums it up and it's also not very practical at that size as well.
    死神はリンゴしか食べない。

  14. #14

    SweetCosmicPope's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 16, 2009
    Location
    Baytown, Tx
    Posts
    373
    Specs:
    Late 2009 Macbook Pro 2.26, 160gb HD, 2gb RAM, OSX 10.6; Emac 1.42ghz 80gb HD 2gb RAM OSX 10.5
    Quote Originally Posted by the8thark View Post
    But what if you want that interface but can't afford or do not want to pay the touch prices? Then the new Nano is better for you. The old Nano's camera only took video and no still pictures. That was the deal breaker for me. I really wanted a still camera in there. To me having radio is more important then a video only camera. The touch screen to me is no more important than the old click wheel as both seem to work just fine.

    I'm sure the new Nano will have it's market. But it's sales figures will really tell how successful it'll be.
    There's lots of things I can't afford, and thus, can't have. We have a saying here in Texas: "Tough t**ty."

    Now, I like your idea of the still camera. That would have been a feature that would be easy to integrate and give people a good reason to make the jump from the previous generation: Have your digital camera and mp3 player all in one small package.
    "That's Peter Graves scat! I'd know it anywhere!"

  15. #15


    Member Since
    Sep 29, 2010
    Posts
    48
    Shrunken audio jacks does not mean that they are going to make smaller iPods, it just means that they are going to make shrunken audio jacks.

    i hope they make a new Classic with this design....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Apple exploring advanced handsfree iPhone voice control, audio feedback
    By OneMoreThing... in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-14-2011, 11:23 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-13-2011, 11:00 PM
  3. Apple exploring HD Radio for future iPods, iPhones
    By the8thark in forum Apple Rumors and Reports
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 08:18 PM
  4. size of macbook audio jacks?
    By s_canter in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 09:09 PM
  5. Creaking problem on left side by the audio jacks
    By Virusyn in forum Apple Notebooks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-27-2006, 05:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •