Talk:IPod nano
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to Apple Computer, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. |
 |
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article. |
|
Contents |
[edit] Amount of songs
It says that the 4 GB player (I got one) can contain roughly 1000 songs. Not true, for gone are the days when all songs were 3 MB big. I can maximum squeeze in 600 songs on my 4 GB nano, so the info is kinda incorrect. Shandristhe azylean 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- One could argue that the 1000 song figure is based on the average length of a track - and it might just be only 600 for you because your songs are just that bit bigger than yer average track. --Sagaciousuk (talk) 11:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I calculated something here; 4000 MB - 320 MB (firmware takes a lot of space, i know) / 1000 = 3.68 MB My songs are average 6.5 MB, and very few songs are so small in size, unless they're in 128 KB/s, nowadays 320 KB/s dominates. Shandristhe azylean 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Apple's iPod nano page clearly states "Song capacity is based on 4 minutes per song and 128-Kbps AAC encoding." So I don't see any problem. Rufous 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ditto what Rufous said. Apple's specs are based on 4 minute songs in AAC. My songs are average 3MB, I haven't heard of many people having 6.5MB files that often...maybe you're just an exception Shandris. — Wackymacs 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apple's iPod nano page clearly states "Song capacity is based on 4 minutes per song and 128-Kbps AAC encoding." So I don't see any problem. Rufous 17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I have a 2nd gen 4GB nano, but on the 'About' page it says it only has 3.6GB, and only iTunes it says it has 3.68 - is that normal? Anyway, I have 195 songs on it and it says it only has 1.4GB space left. and I don't have any photos or anything else on it. So I agree with Shandris 1000 songs is SO unbelievably off. I calculated I at the rate it was going it would only be able to fit 316 songs. I do have 1 around 9 minute song, and 1 around 16 minutes, but 4 under 1.5 minute tv themes, and the rest are the usual between 4 and 5 minute length. Also what I don't understand is that on iTunes it says only 771.2MB of Audio is used, and then 1.52 GB of 'Other' is used, but it doesn't say what 'Other' is, and as I have said before there are no pictures on it, and only 2 songs have album artwork - if that takes up space. Also my nano (which I got brand new as a Christmas present 3 days ago) friezes regularly and this morning it totally froze, with the backlight on and everything for at least a few hours, but when I came home it was dead and after I plugged it into the comp it started charging (it was flat) and seems to work fine. The only official dealer in my town is closed for another week, because I'll exchange it. So altogether my only Apple product experience hasn't been at all a good 1. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustin Pearson (talk • contribs) 06:49, December 27, 2006 (UTC)
Well, its not exactly 4 gigabytes, they just dont want to put an incredibly long number stating exactly how many bytes it is, because that would just confuse people. As for the dead battery, that has been an issue with previous iPods also. Ilikefood 01:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I got a iPod Nano 2nd Gen and i put all my music on it which about half of the useable space and I have around 540 songs so that means you should fit about 1000 songs. And the term 4gb comes from the size of the memory before they put the OS on it they buy straight from one of the many companies they get parts from. Ramdom iPod Freak: March 23,2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.251.170.220 (talk • contribs) 01:45, March 24, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Better comparison image?
Does anyone have a mouse/1st gen nano comparison photo that doesn't show both devices to be filthy?
Gross! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.154.106 (talk • contribs) 17:01, January 11, 2007 (UTC)
- That can be fixed with anyone who has Adobe Photoshop by working with brightness contast and the dodge tool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quau (talk • contribs) 11:35, January 18, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Electronics section...
I read the link, which does indeed say the same things as the electronics section. However, as a hardware engineer and geek, I feel obliged to point out that the information is not completely useful or accurate, possibly to make the larger point of the article that the Game Boy Micro (perhaps a sponsor or advertiser? Just guessing...) is a technologically superior toy.
The discrete-versus-custom-IC debate is common; discrete people (like me) usually focus on upgrades/product lines, reliability, and operational speed, and that long-term the production cost will be lower. For differentiated products where the RAM/EEPROM/Flash is the costly component, discrete is almost always cheaper to build even in astronomical volumes - presumably that's why Apple had lots of profit (see next paragraph of article). Custom ASICs can be cheaper if you _really_ need the space and/or are producing a ton of _exactly the same_ product and have a lot of component cost and complexity; however, neither of these is true for the nano.
Component cost figures are back-of-the-envelope at best, since anyone who is privy to the Apple pricing for the components is not allowed to tell us what the costs are. Depending on stock, you could easily get a discount of 50% or more over retail for a large quantity. (To be fair, the cost of the nano was probably mostly the flash and LCD, both of which were pretty expensive even in volume at the time... but the numbers are obviously way off, since Apple turned a record profit.)
It also strikes me as strange to say that 0603s were a poor choice for 2004/5, as I was using them in designs in 2001 where space was no concern at all! They were even then the cheapest way to get discrete components, at least here in the States. My Palm m100 (2002, $100-ish, IIRC) uses discrete 0603s, for example, in a configuration not unlike the nano of 3 years later. I wouldn't have used 1005s after 2000 since it'd be like pulling teeth to get spares. (Quite possibly that's the reason I've never seen a Game Boy Micro...)
Anyway, the whole electronics section rubs me the wrong way, though I have nothing better to propose than taking it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.95.83 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Vandalism
I have noticed that this page has been recently vandalised and has seen some ongoing vandalism. This page must be locked for editing my non-members and vandalists who are wikipidia members must be penalised. Could a moderator of wikipedia plese have this page locked from editing due to vandalism and consider locking other iPod pages also. The vandalist is clearly persistent and will not cese vandalising the ipod pages. Therefore, I strongly suggest this page be LOCKED FROM EDITING DUE TO VANDALISM. Otherwise it could jeporadise the validility of Wikipedia as a reliable resource.
The Suspected Vandal carries the IP adress : 209.191.223.70—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quau (talk • contribs).
- You are taking this way too seriously. The user's contributions show only two accounts of vandalism to this article, though a few other questionable edits. However, we assume good faith, and we do not go around blocking or protecting because of small instances of vandalism. Furthermore, one vandal cannot jeopardize the reliability of Wikipedia as a source; it is quickly removed and anybody who somehow does see it disregards it. If you follow established conventions, such as putting talk posts at the bottom of the page and do not add user talk page templates to articles, you will probably receive a more immediate and positive response.--HereToHelp 00:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] hard to control
has anyone noticed how hard it is to use the controls on an ipod nano?! MAYBE this could be in the critisims bit! 82.24.175.199 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:ATT. AlistairMcMillan 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
