The Inquirer Reviews the Second-Gen Nano

[Damion Chaplin]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34520' target='_blank'>http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34520</a><br /><br /></div><i>"So overall, I’m very happy with it. There are some things about iPods that annoy me, but they are so pleasant to use and so well-built that I’d gladly pay well over the price of a Taiwanese Windows Media player, even though most of my music library is stored in WMA format! It’s a fantastic technical achievement to make something so small with such excellent functionality, and a testament to Apple’s British-led design team that they can still create something with such a warm fuzzy factor, despite the iPod’s ubiquity. I really think that Microsoft is going to have a very hard time competing through a Zune range, based on what I know so far, even if it includes Zune mobile phones, as is likely to be the case. iPod remains the benchmark for all PMPs."</i><br /><br /> <img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/mullcable.jpg" /> <br /><br />The Inquirer gives the G2 Nano a pretty favorable review, despite their initial bias towards (against?) all things Apple. I have to agree, the Nano is indeed a fantastic piece of hardware, though still a little overpriced to me. And comparing the Nano to the upcoming Zune? Two totally different beasts they are. I look at it from the other direction: The Nano is the same [rumored] price as the Zune, which holds 30GB, plays videos and hase wireless built-in. Not really a fair comparison if you ask me. :wink: If you haven't tired of Nano reviews yet, give this one a read.

[Janak Parekh]

Damion, I've seen you make this point before, so it's just worth reiterating: price really isn't an appropriate comparison. To say that the nano is overpriced because it's the same price as a 5.5G or just a little bit less than the Zune is ignoring the fact that the nano is significantly smaller. I never thought much of it until I got a 1G nano. Its use of flash and the small size make it useful for all sorts of situations where I'd have left the iPod behind. I don't think I could go back to a full iPod for daily activities now.

And, to be precise, the author is comparing the iPod "ease-of-use" to the up-and-coming Zune, moreso than the nano itself.

--janak

[Damion Chaplin]

Yep, and I'll stick to my opinion that you're all wacky to pay so much more for something that's just smaller. I pay more for features, not miniaturization.

To me it's like paying $1.50 for a Coke in a smaller can. Sure, it's more portable, and that may be a deciding factor for some people. But you still get significantly less Coke and I still think you're silly for preferring it... :P

And it's kind of unclear whether he's talking about the Nano's ease-of-use or its fancy form factor. He might even be referring to both: "It’s a fantastic technical achievement to make something so small with such excellent functionality". In either case, comparing it to something that hasn't been released yet is questionable IMO...

Oh, and just so we're clear: I think $199 is a very reasonable price for an 8GB Nano ($179 would be better). $249 is too much for me to even recommend it to Apple fans. Buy the 30GB Video model for the same price I'll say. You'll get over the fact that it's bigger, but you may lament about your Nano not being able to play the latest Sopranos episode.

[Janak Parekh]

Yep, and I'll stick to my opinion that you're all wacky to pay so much more for something that's just smaller. I pay more for features, not miniaturization.
The size itself is a feature, though. You need to borrow a friend's nano and carry it for a week to see what I mean.

And it's kind of unclear whether he's talking about the Nano's ease-of-use or its fancy form factor.
Well, it is the Inquirer. Not exactly known for stellar journalism.

$249 is too much for me to even recommend it to Apple fans. Buy the 30GB Video model for the same price I'll say. You'll get over the fact that it's bigger, but you may lament about your Nano not being able to play the latest Sopranos episode.
I use my Powerbook to watch iTunes TV shows, where I can actually take advantage of the 640x480 resolution. The only "big" iPod I would buy at this point (I owned a 30GB 3G, so I went through the formfactor) would be a full-screen video iPod. To me, the nano represents the iPod at its best: tiny, and does its main function (playing music) well. I love that I can put it in my pocket alongside my wallet without my jeans bulging. (I keep my keys and my Treo in the other pocket.)

--janak

[Tim Williamson]

Actually the size is the deciding factor for me, that's why I'm willing to pay $250 for something that's much smaller than the standard iPod. I probably wouldn't carry a video or regular size iPod where I carry my Nano, and I have no plans to use a portable player for video (at this point). So the Nano works great for my current portable music needs. :)

[Damion Chaplin]

Actually the size is the deciding factor for me, that's why I'm willing to pay $250 for something that's much smaller than the standard iPod. I probably wouldn't carry a video or regular size iPod where I carry my Nano, and I have no plans to use a portable player for video (at this point). So the Nano works great for my current portable music needs. :)

Well, it seems Apple did their market research well. Too bad they didn't ask me. Then again, maybe that's a good thing. :wink:

And the "I don't need video" argument is a good one. It would be even better though if the Nano were proportionately less expensive. It's not though, and that's my main objection.

However, that being said, to each their own. If you're willing to pay the same price for something that's half the functionality but is also half the size, great. Apple, I'm sure, thanks you for it. :)

[Tim Williamson]

And it's not that bad of a deal when you consider an 8 GB CF card is going to cost $105-$325. Even if you could get the solid state memory for $105, paying another $150 for the MP3 player portion isn't too bad of a deal.

[aroma]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I too was skeptical of the Nano and it's cost prior to breaking down and purchaing one. Working out with my video iPod was just a tad too anoying, so I decided to give the Nano a go. Now, you couldn't pry my Nano from my cold dead hands. You can't beat having a full functioning iPod in that small of a package. Well worth the investment. It's very easy to knock until you've used one for a bit.

[ale_ers]

However, that being said, to each their own. If you're willing to pay the same price for something that's half the functionality but is also half the size, great. Apple, I'm sure, thanks you for it. :)

As others have pointed out, it depends on what you use it for. I use a DAP for listening to music while running, which is something I spend more time doing than most spend commuting. Therefore a larger, hard drive based player would not work. So I would argue that I get more functionality from my player.

I do however agree with your price augment. I have a 6 gig Sandisk Senza, bought well before the Nano offered a larger size. And I bought it for much less than they offer a 2 gig for.

[bobkatt]

Damion:

Have you actually tried the latest Nano or any Nano for that matter.
Until you do, your comments mean very little.

You say that you will not pay more for something that is smaller.
That does not make any sense cause the Nano is not just smaller over a Zune. The two are totally different product altogether.

Try a Nano. . . You will not be disappointed and you will certainly change your tone about the Nano and iPod products. You may not buy one in the end but at least you will appreciate them more than you have thus far.

Bob Katayama

[bobkatt]

However, that being said, to each their own. If you're willing to pay the same price for something that's half the functionality but is also half the size, great. Apple, I'm sure, thanks you for it. :):

Damion:

You seem to enjoy over simplifying the issues and giving all aspects of a product a wide brush. Come back once you have tried the latest Nano and then we can really discuss this in a more constructive manner. ;-)

Just my 2 cents.

Bob Katayama