Apple today released iPod nano (6th generation) Software Update 1.2 which contains changes and bug fixes, including the following:
• Easier navigation with two icon sizes: new large icons and optional small icons
• Fitness feature with built-in accelerometer is easier to set for either walking or running (works out of the box or with the optional Nike + iPod Sport Kit)
• Additional Clock faces
iPod nano Software Update 1.2 is available via iTunes.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz,” “Sarah,” and “Lava_Head_UK” for the heads up.]
As far as I can tell, the 6th gen and 7th gen Nano are the same right?
everything they said today about the “new” nano, is software.
As far as I can tell, Apple just speed up the irrelevance of iPod. No hardware updates this year for any of them. Just software updates. Wow. Why would they want to kill a 45mil sales/year business? Is this the transition they were talking about? If so, what will replace them?
The iPod touch is a great device. The memory was increased to 64g. But the software! We here have a short sentence we preach: “it’s the software stupid!”
I disagree. First, the 64GB iPod Touch has existed for a year now already. It was made primarily for entertainment. An average sized music library will take up at least half of the 64GB limit. The other half will need to be shared between video podcasts, movies, photos, recorded videos, and apps and their data. In other words, before you know it, 64GB is too small. So no, it’s not about software, but about usability of the device for what it was intended to be used to begin with. It not being 128GB in this day and age, is simply restricting its usability, in my opinion. I was ready to buy one to replace my click wheel iPod but cannot justify $400 for year-old, limiting technology, no matter how much I may otherwise like Apple.
Then buy one from someone else…oh, wait, you can’t!
What you think was a snarky remark in rebuttal, has actually nothing to do with my above statement. You need to either try harder, or grow up and stop with the nonsense.
Will iTunes in the Cloud help at all with this? I guess it really depends on how much you shuffle through your music.
The question would be: do you expect to cycle through such a large amount of music between times you have network access?
A similar accusation could be levelled at the MacAirs. I find that with 128GB onboard, a significant chunk is being eaten up by the iTunes library, which is only sitting there in order to sync to the device – I almost never use the Air for listening to or viewing the content.
I’m looking forward to iCloud, and I’m loving my Air (which is an original model, BTW)
In contrast, my wife is a photographer and when she was considering a mobile workstation to complement her 27″ iMac, it was tricky to make the call. She valued the performance, weight and cost of the AIr compared to the 13″ Pro, but in the end she really DID need gobs of onboard storage simply to hold all those RAW photos. So while she was “ready to buy” the Air, her needs dictated a compromise.
In a way, kingmel is right (it’s just that it wasn’t said politely enough for you): there is always a compromise. Something has to give, so each manufacturer has to choose which set of tradeoffs they are willing to accept. Apple is not immune to this at all, as they have characterized themselves as an engineering-driven company many times.
@Jon
I did think about the iCloud implementation as a reason for limiting the amount of memory, but it just did not make sense with Apple’s mantra of keeping things simple. If I have to wait to be in wifi in order to listen to all my music from my iPod, whose purpose was solely to enable such a convenience in the past, then Apple failed to make it easy. Also, if I have to make special playlists that I can listen to whenever not on wifi, the elegance is gone as well. It doesn’t just work out of te box then. Apple may have an incentive to push everything an everyone onto its shiny new iCloud, but it seems to be happening at the cost of ease of use and elegance that Apple built their brand on. My opinion.
I agree. I have 58 GB of music on my iPod touch, so it doesn’t leave room for much else. I have been waiting for that 128 GB touch for a while…….guess they are waiting for the cost of memory to come down more.
Perfect place for a memory card. Couldn’t be that much of a problem. I’m sure they’ll continue to steamroll the competition for one more year, but then they better pull out the stops.
I use a nano just as a watch. The new faces was a great upgrade. And, some of them look really cool. The only thing I would say that sucks about it as a watch is that is has no protection at all from water. Probably couldn’t even handle a drop.
Hey, did anyone else notice that the Nano’s home page on Apple’s site shows a live readout of your system time in the Mickey Mouse watch face?
No it doesn’t.
it does.
for some reason MDN won’t let me post the URL…
apple com / ipodnano
That’s cool… (didn’t notice)
It only works in Safari and Chrome, Firefox version 126 (or whatever version it is today) only displays a static image.
I just fired up firefox, 3 updates later…. 7.0.1
the nano does show a local time clock for me.
it didn’t earlier when i tried it.
Neat little touch on the nano page IMO. I wouldn’t have noticed it either if Jonathan didn’t mention it.
He is right. You are wrong.
Mine went through the washer and dryer.
The volume buttons don’t work but the line out and everything else works.
“The iPod touch is a great device”
How can you say that? It’s got mediocre video
recording,a really crappy still camera,and no
dual A5 chip.
Well, Apple doesn’t make the $199 (at least) plus $400-500 per device subsidy (from carrier) on an iPod touch, like it does with iPhone 4S. And it doesn’t cost $499 (or more) like an iPad 2.
If they priced an “A5” iPod touch at something like $399 for low end model (which would be a reasonable price), it would not fit into the product mix very well. People who don’t “think it through” (probably the majority of consumers) would complain that it’s WAY too expensive, compared to an iPhone 4S that “only” costs $199. Or… $399 is only $100 less than an iPad 2 – No way!
Would you pay $399 for an 8GB iPod touch with an A5 and better camera…? Or would you just go for an iPhone 4S or iPad instead.
So, for $199 (and no contract), it’s a “great device.” But if you want the current “ultimate” device, you’ll have to step up and pay $199 with a two-year contract, and get yourself an iPhone 4S (or pay $499 for an iPad 2). That’s what Apple is telling you.
Looks like iPod classic survives to see another day. LONG LIVE THE CLICK WHEEL!
I, for one, was very happy to plug in my Nano last night and see that update waiting for it. It’s an incredible strength of the whole iOS/iPod gadgetverse that software updates continue to improve and complete each device. No one else manages that. And it’s why I’ve stuck with Apple throughout- it’s a very much more rocky and uncertain road with any other manufacturer.