September 7th, 2005

The iPod nano Steals the Show and Even Quietly Kills Off the iPod Mini

By Alice Hill
RealTechNews

The world waited - primed for the much rumored iPod phone. As I stated earlier, I predict it will be nothing more than a Frankenstein experiment and eventual collector’s item on eBay. But the iPod nano is another story indeed. It’s a sleek update to the iPod, sports a lower case name (which I normally hate), and is available as the immediate replacement to the now-defunct iPod Mini. Cheers to Jobs for moving fast and making progress on his category killer iPod line. Shame the lame phone got so much of the attention.

“Take everything you love about iPod and shrink it. Now shrink it again. With 2GB (500 songs) and 4GB (1,000 songs) models starting at $199, the pencil-thin iPod nano packs the entire iPod experience into an impossibly small design. So small, it will take your music places you never dreamed of.” Source: Apple

Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • YahooMyWeb
You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0

3 comments to "The iPod nano Steals the Show and Even Quietly Kills Off the iPod Mini"

  1. Lockergnome's Tech News Watch says:

    The iPod nano Steals the Show and Even Quietly Kills Off the iPod Mini

    The world waited - primed for the much rumored iPod phone. As I stated earlier, I predict it will be nothing more than a Frankenstein experiment and eventual collector’s item on eBay. But the iPod nano is another story indeed. It’s a sleek update to …

    September 7th, 2005 at 10:16 pm

  2. Rob says:

    I really wish they’d stop using “songs” as a metric for storage. It’s no better than “libraries of congress.” If all I listen to are VBR MP3s of Phish concerts, there’s no way in hell I’m fitting 1,000 songs in 4GB. Unless your entire collection is 3:30 songs, you’re not fitting 1,000 songs into 4GB.

    Plus, they’re still going off the 128kbps encoding rate. In 1998, 128kbps was cool. I don’t know anyone who intentionally uses 128kbps anymore. 160kbps is really absolute bare minimum if you’ve got a decent stereo system/headphones/whatever, and 192kbps is more realistic.

    But on the topic of the iPod Nano … wow. I’ll have to run out and get a clearance iPod Mini. :D I love the form factor of the nano, but the price point for the storage is a bit of a put off for me. I can’t help but think that they could have shaved a bit off the price by using a monochrome screen.

    September 7th, 2005 at 11:00 pm

  3. phentermine says:

    phentermine

    churchwoman extraordinarily Staffordshire:duty prescribe diversifies blockades phentermine http://phenterminehclhere.blogspot.com/

    May 18th, 2006 at 10:12 am

Leave a comment