New iPods
Well, I've waited for a long time and they finally announced new iPods today. Unfortunately, I didn't get what I've waited for for so long: a high capacity widescreen iPod. Instead they have a really high capacity iPod classic (160 GB) and a really low capacity widescreen iPod (16 GB). I still hope Apple will introduce what I want, and I see no reason they won't introduce such a thing by January anyway.
So in the meantime, I'm thinking I will get one of the new fat nano's in either red or black (I don't like the light blue and light green colors!). I like the engraving Claire has on hers, so I will probably order directly from Apple so I can get that. Maybe even this week.
| Permalink
| 
Comments (5)
For $50 more I can get an 80 GB iPod classic that will hold a big chunk of my video collection and *all* of my music. It is thinner than my old 20GB iPod and has a bigger screen than the new nano. So maybe I'll just get that. Though if (when) they come out with the larger capacity widescreen iPods the 80 GB classic would be useless and a nano would still be convenient for its smaller size. Hmmm . . .
The backs of the new nanos are shiny metal, so the engraving wouldn't look as good.
Posted by UT | September 5, 2007 5:14 PM
Done. I got a black nano. The old red nanos looked good, but the new color looks more like a lipstick red. I didn't care for the light blue and light green, which left silver or black. So black won. If they come out with a widescreen iPod with a big hard drive, I'll buy that too. Estimated arrival is Sept 10-14.
Posted by UT | September 5, 2007 7:54 PM
Kelly is trying to figure out which model to get. (She bought early and only has 1 gig now.) The idea of carrying around the videos she and Claire make is pushing her towards an iPod classic. Although we did the math, and it is amazing how much music and video can go on an 8 gig nano. It would be 8 x what she has now with as much information on the screen as my current iPod video (which I've also offered to sell her.)
The new nano's are not fat. They are still thin. Maybe short, maybe wide, or maybe squarish...
I like Claire's nano finish (and engraving), too. I think they should have stuck with this less finger-printable housing.
Posted by Jeb | September 7, 2007 12:31 AM
I saw a comment on iLounge suggesting they could have kept the same size and shape of the old nano's if they had made the screen twice as tall and moved the click wheel down. Then if you wanted to watch a video you would turn the nano sideways. If you used the 1.78:1 widescreen aspect ratio (currently 1.33:1 the other way), the screen size would be 1.96 inches which is about the same as the new nano's 2-inch screen.
Still, a 2-inch video screen is pretty tiny. I think it will be more for screen savers and maybe home movies than watching feature length movies.
Posted by UT | September 7, 2007 9:38 AM
Apple just shipped the nano from China. I think it took more time because I asked for it to be engraved. One person on iLounge ordered theirs right after the presentation and already has it.
Posted by UT | September 7, 2007 3:08 PM