This time last week, Apple presented attendees at their media event with a completely revamped iPod line. While updates to the iPod shuffle and touch followed a fairly linear and predictable progression, the new iPod nano deviated from the pack.
Featuring a radical new design and a multi-touch based interface, the iPod drew initial reactions which were largely mixed. Though the compact form factor coupled with the touch interface proved a substantial technological leap, many accused the nano redesign as an example of form over function.
Now that over a week has elapsed, I thought it might be fitting to share a few of the pros and cons I’ve been able to identify with the new device.
PROS:
Size:
The nano’s new form factor is most certainly nano. At less than half the size of its 5th generation counterpart, the minuscule media player is only a bit larger than the new iPod shuffle. Weighing in at a mere 0.74 ounces, the nano redefines portability—the long running hallmark of the line. The built-in clip (think iPod shuffle) further bolsters the fact that the 6th generation device is the most portable nano ever.
Battery Life:
Apple claims the nano’s battery will last an impressive 24 hours on a single charge. Given the device’s compact size, squeezing that much juice into the nano’s tiny battery was likely no easy feat. Initial reviews confirm Apple’s claim, giving the 6th gen. nano the longest battery life in the line’s history.
Built-in Fitness Applications:
As with previous models, the new nano supports the Nike + accessory, enabling you to track and record your workout. Though the iPod Sport Kit which permits this feature is sold separately, the nano includes a built-in pedometer which allows you to track walks. Data from the nano can be uploaded to Nike’s site to help you keep track of personal fitness goals and progress.
FM Radio:
Though originally introduced in the 5th generation, the latest nano carries over FM tuner functionality. This feature allows you to diversify your music library by tapping into the FM airwaves from anywhere with reception. You can set your favorite stations for quick access and even pause live radio. While these features are not necessarily new, Apple’s implementation of them in such a small device is a welcome and impressive inclusion.
CONS:
Multi-Touch Interface:
Despite being the biggest advertised feature of the new nano, I can’t help but feel that the shift to Multi-Touch is a misstep on Apple’s part. Though the imitation iOS certainly has visual appeal on its side, the lack of physical controls will undoubtably leave some users feeling alienated. The touch interface requires a user to look away from what they are doing in order to operate the device. Though this is an easy compromise to make while simply listening to the nano, it becomes a larger concern while multi-tasking.
While running for instance, users will have to draw their attention to the device’s screen and perform gestures to change songs. If the traditional click wheel had been present, changing tracks would simply require users to feel for the buttons and advance the song mid run. Though the multi-touch environment makes sense on the more versatile iPhone and iPod touch, the nano’s target market is considerably narrower. Apple even advertises the nano as being great for a morning commute or a daily fitness routine—both times when you don’t want to/shouldn’t be looking away from what you’re doing.
Closed Platform OS:
Though at first glance the nano appears to be running a pint-sized version of iOS, Apple has confirmed that it is merely a similarly styled but unique OS. This means that the functionality of the nano is inherently limited by the OS. Currently, the nano’s multi-touch OS is a closed platform. In other words, you get the features that Apple includes with the device, but nothing more. Imagine if the nano had its own library of apps. Streaming radio apps are among the first that come to mind, but creative developers could likely do much more with the device. Of course for this to be realized, the nano would require at least some sort of Wi-Fi connectivity and a space of its own in the App Store. Though this may be more trouble than it’s worth, the prospect of a Pandora compatible nano does seem fairly enticing. The feature set as is feels barely like an improvement over the previous generation.
Lack of Video Support:
If you watched Steve Jobs closely last week you’ll have noticed that he didn’t mention anything video-related with the new nano. This is due to the fact that the 6th generation nano does not support video playback or recording. Given the size of the device, this omission does make some sense. Who really wants to watch a film on a device with a 1.5” square display? In the context of the nano’s final design this choice is understandable, but what prevented the nano from taking on a different form factor during the design phase? Video playback has been supported since the 3rd generation, and a 480p compatible video camera was introduced at last year’s iPod event. It seems like a strange move on Apple’s part to design a device which drops two popular features, but expect that consumers pay the same price for it.
Price vs. Storage:
While I wasn’t shocked by the announcement that the 6th gen. nano would retain the storage capacities of the previous generation, I was a bit surprised. SSD memory is still priced at a premium, but Apple has been steadily increasing their devices’ capacities over the years. Evidently banking on the touch screen, the new nano retails for the same price as it did a year ago. As previously mentioned, the nano even lacks a few of the features that have been a mainstay of the line and with iPods in general for many years. Had Apple hit the $99 sweet spot, and offered the same base 8GB capacity, the nano would make more sense in my opinion.
After weighing the pros and cons of Apple’s latest nano, I just can’t get behind the device. The incorporation of a Multi-Touch display in such a small device is certainly a technological marvel, but the rest of the device has an almost “anti-Apple” characteristic to it. The more and more I consider the nano, the more it seems like a competing 3rd party brand’s “iPod killer.” Though somewhat of an anomaly in the iPod line, the new nano will definitely be a great iPod for some. This review was not intended to bash the device, but more to explore some of the puzzling decisions Apple made. Though its slick design has caused some Apple fans to swoon, my gut tells me some will dismiss it as a faltering step in Apple’s iPod dynasty. If you’re looking for an example of form over function, the new nano may be one.
What are your thoughts on the new nano? Email me with your comments or click here to comment on the blog.