Talk:iPod Nano/Archive 3

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quau (talk • contribs) 11:35, January 18, 2007

- Brightness and contrast doesn't really remove the grease and ear wax from the picture. Brain seltzer 22:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

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—Preceding unsigned comment 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)

I don't want to edit it since this is discussion, but you said my nonmembers instead of By non members :\ FrogEdit (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems counter-productive to undo changes ONLY to spelling. These small tweaks accomplish the following:

• improve comprehension by correcting spelling
• respect the authors wishes by changing to what they MEANT TO SAY, not to what happened to somehow end up on the page
• optimize flow by fixing obvious literary mistakes
• restore conciseness by changing 'my' to 'by' rather than keeping it wrong and bloating the page further to redundantly state this fact

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.235.114 (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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)

I know, the directional controls are easy enough, but turning it off seems to take a few tries (you hold the button but it ISNT GOING BLANK) FrogEdit (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Variable bitrate support

I remember a big issue with the first gen nano, in that it didn't properly support VBR. Was this ever fixed, and/or incorporated into the 2nd gen nano? 172.213.179.95 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a source? I know someone with a first gen nano whose entire music collection was in VBR and I don't remember her mentioning any problems. Unless it was something fixed very quickly after the nano release, I think you might be mis-remembering. AlistairMcMillan 12:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

iPod Linux Support

The wording of the phrase "does not support iPod Linux" was disputed recently. I reverted the change because I feel like hardware supports software, regardless of whose job it is. If it is in dispute again, let's use this to discuss. Happinessiseasy 18:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AlistairMcMillan's deletion of that sentence. It really doesn't belong in the nano article. Happinessiseasy 19:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

iVendy

I don't know if anyone has seen these "iPod Vending Machines" but I saw them in my city's airport and decided to name them iVendies. Has anyone else seen these? D-hyo 13:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont know if you're still looking at this, after a month, But no Ive never actually seen one, but I have heard about them. I think its a good idea. Do they sell ipods or just the music?

I don't think I've ever seen them before, but I'd think that they wouldn't put music in them ( how would they download, how does it go to a specific library...) By the way, does anyone else find it strange that Ipods cost less on Apple.com New than on Amazon.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogEdit (talk • contribs) 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw one once in hotel in Las Vegas. I can't remember the hotel that has the Star Trek rides, but that is where I saw it. Swipe a credit card, punch in the Number and Letter selection that you want (kinda like a candy or drink machine "E9") and out comes your ipod. But I was wondering how you put music on it. I mean, you would have to have a laptop in your hotel room probably. Maybe they should have another machine next to it that allows you to purchase songs and put them on your iVendy ipod right there on the spot. That way, you can get music. Then just go home, login to itunes, and it will automatically download your music that you purchased on the iVendy. FXDWGI (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Different Nano

What is this? I've never seen this version of the nano. I saw it on ebay and it appears to have the apple logo on it and everything.

Ebay Link: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200120301907

Image: [1]

Anyone seen this nano before?

Thoraxcorp 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Although this is not a discussion forum, for the purposes of nobody wanting to add this product in that is not an official iPod Nano. At a guess I would say it is an imitation fake. Sorry --Andrewjd 23:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't really trying to start a discussion but asking for the article's sake if this is an older model of the nano and if so it would need to be included in the article. Thoraxcorp 08:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be irrelevant regarding the iPod nano itself, but don't you think these "fake" iPods should have their own article. I wouldn't be able to do it, because I'm not too talented at crerating articles (I can't believe I'm doing this). If anyone wants to, I highly reccomend it. Ppierce365 02:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd Generation

Can we please get some photos, even if they're mockups? 124.184.16.253 20:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)greenharpoon

Done.--HereToHelp 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, the 3rd Generation can Play Video? Fobluis 15:20, 5 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fobluis (talk • contribs)

Yes. Vincent Pun ^talk 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the case of the 3G nano is plastic with a metallic finish, not a "full-metal design" as previously written on the Ipod nano page. I purchased a 3G nano recently and from what I can gather about the appearance and feel of the casing, it doesn't seem like any sort of metal. The feel of the case when it is tapped is very hollow and dull which made me certain that it must be some type of plastic. Certainly the fact that the backplate scratches so easily is indicative of this.

The durabilty of portable devices such as the nano is of the upmost importance to me and no doubt other consumers and I would be disappointed if the housing was in fact plastic. If anyone has any definite information could you please help to clarify this issue so that no other consumers are misinformed. Thanks. Balancefirst 10:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Advertisement

I think Total iPod Nano Review Mashup by FattyNano external link is an advertisement. Vincent Pun ^talk 10:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

(PRODUCT) RED

I've seen this going back and forth, please take some time to review the Manual of Style on capital letters and trademarks. If you change "Product Red" to "(PRODUCT) RED" someone will come back and change it based on those guidelines. Gh5046 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

formats?

I found it kinda strange there are nowhere to be seen the file formats that the nano can play..i had to ask several people in the apple store just to let me know that the nano can play only quicktime videos with aac coding.. however, some of the podcasts i've downloaded are .avi`s , which left me baffled, since itunes wouldn't import any avi videos in the library when i try :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.215.102.230 (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying they aren't mentioned in the Wikipedia article or on Apple's website? Because we do mention the formats on the iPod article under Software. AlistairMcMillan 17:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't critic me if this is illegal...but there are free softwares that convert avis and almost every other format to M4p maps or whatever Video files that Nanos play. So if that solves your problem... FrogEdit (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Song capacity

I was wondering how many songs the different models can hold. I'm currently putting a CD's worth of music on my 8GB Nano, and the CD takes up approx. 500MB, and has 10 songs. By my calculations, my 8GB should hold 80 songs. Obviously, this is completely not true, but I was wondering how many songs it's supposed to be able to hold. Sixty-Nine Dot Eighty One Dot Fifty Two Dot Nineteen 01:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm guessing the cd is an audio cd? Audio cds use uncompressed red book audio (or something), but the iPod uses compressed mp3s, of which a cd could hold several dozen albums worth. Rehevkor 03:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

iPOD Nano 3rd generation backplate construction

the aritcle says it is chrome, but in fact it is highly polished stainless steel. A while back i corrected it, and now its back to being wrong gain, by stating it's chrome. Can someone correct it...maybe this time the correcttion will stay!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeno333 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And where is ur back up of this? how do you know its not chrome? Wikipedia does not just add things they "think" or "Guess". unless you come up with an answer then im afraid its staying like this.---The Great One 11:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, where does it say it's chrome, for that matter? (I don't know what it is made of, I'm just making a point -- unless someone can specifically show a reference that says it's either, we'd best stick to "polished metal" or something along those lines.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

song in ad

Hey! What's that song called in the new ad for this? It's this woman and I don't know if she's a solo singer or in a band and the ad has part of the song's video and there are all these people in different coloured t shirts and they do a big dance routine. Thanks :)

Dustin ॐ 04:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The song/video is "1234" by Canadian singer/songwriter Feist from her album "The Reminder". Both the song and the video are available from the iTunes store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.209.110 (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Purple

I may be mistaken but I always thought there was a lavender nano! i think they were never realeased. can you comfirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptimes (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More Information for 3rd Generation

I think we should add more information about the 3rd Generation Nano, like the other generations, like endurance, critical reception, etc. 71.110.66.18 (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2000 or XP

Isn't the third generation work on XP, not 2000. That's what it says in the main i-Pod article. Anybody know? GEM036 (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

4th Generation?

Is a 4th Generation nano likely to be released in September? It could be assumed from looking at past releases that this will be the case, but I cannot see a necessary reason why they would need to update so soon this time around. Hayden120 (talk) 09:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Per MOS:TM, we should present the product name as "iPod Nano", not "iPod nano". There is examption for the initial "i" because it is a distinctive mark of the product and there's an exemption for improper caps in the first two letters, but "Shuffle" should be capitalised per standard title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Following comments moved to Talk:iPod Touch. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the 4th Gen Nano is now out: http://www.apple.com/ipodnano/ FXDWGI (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

An archive of the discussion can be found at Talk:IPod Touch#Requested move. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

ADD THE 4G iPod nano IMAGE OR I WILL TAG THIS ARTICLE OUTDATED....

I DON'T CARE if it violates the rules, but PLEASE FOR GOODNESS SAKES, PUT THE iPod nano 4G IMAGE ON...

IF IT'S NOT FREE, MARK IT TEMPORARY UNTIL SOMEONE TAKES THE IMAGE OF IT THEMSELVES.....

OTHERWISE, DELETE THE IMAGE, OR I WILL MARK IT OUTDATED..... Bentoman (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it that serious an issue to have a G4 image as the main image? Lemmie answer that for you; the answer is no. Relax, it's just an iPod, when someone makes one an image will be added. Otherwise policy will be enforced and a free image will be used. Thank you for your input! Rehevkor ✉ 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

I don't see why all the iPod articles were changed to uppercase. These are NOT their official names. If they must be this way due to some Wikirule, at LEAST have the right case used within the article-- i.e. iPod nano, iPod classic, etc. Tamajared (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

4th Gen iPod

The 4th generation part of this article really needs to be cleaned up. It places titles incorrectly and seems to have information copied from a different source.rct2guy (talk) 11:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

more information+ sound quality

yes don't forget sound quality. people really need to ride apples arse on this issue. their sound quality issues shouldn't be hidden anymore. they should be prodded into improving their product..frankly the only negative for many people who won't buy one is the sound quality issue. i guess they dont care right now because they are making out like bandits anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.168.112 (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Find some good sources, and it can go in the article. Otherwise, you just come across as a troll. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah its only an issue if you are an audiophile. The other 100 million plus people don't care. Alexcooldude (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Purple 4th-Gen iPod picture

Some editors seem to have doubts that the photo of the 4th-gen iPod in this article really is the purple version, and insist on repeatedly relabelling it as "blue". As the person who actually took the photo, I can vouch that it is indeed the purple version. I also took a photo of the blue version in the shop on the same day, and that is much lighter in colour. As I have indicated in the description of the image itself and in a hidden comment in the article, the bluish tinge that seems to be confusing some people is simply caused by the fluorescent lighting. Hopefully someone can upload a better quality and less "controversial" image in the near future, as this one seems to attract a lot of unhelpful edit-warring. --DAJF (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a compromise I will try, remove the color from the caption. Is the color material to the picture? Jons63 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done I have also removed the hidden comment. --DAJF (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly an error....

Well, I know that the stadardized way of listing pixel ratios is (width x height). However, it's backwards with the 4G iPod Nano. Even though Apple says it's 320x240, that would make for an awkward pixel format. I'm sure that it might be an apple oversight that it is 240x320. I say this because the screen, like the iPod Touch, is taller than it is long. So, it wouldn't make sense to have more pixels across than it would tall....Gyrferret (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Transflective Screen

The iPod Nano 1G and 2G both had a Transflective_liquid_crystal_display. You could use those iPods in direct sunlight and still read them perfectly. Also the screen never turned off, no matter what you did. I remember this feature was mentioned on Apple's website back in the day, but it was not pushed for marketing. The new iPod Nano 4G does not have a transflective screen anymore. It is unreadable in direct sunlight and also turns the screen completely off after about 1 minut of no input.

My question now is, what did the iPod Nano 3G have? Transflective or normal? Apple support does not know this and I know nobody who owns an iPod Nano 3G.--89.245.97.53 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Invalid Date (1st Generation iPod)

In the first table detailing the capacity, battery life and various other features it appears that the 1GB 1G iPod Nano was released in 2006, about 1 year after the 2GB/4GB versions (quite clearly a mistake). 120.16.189.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC).

Endurance sections

These sections contain tests performed by a single group on individual units, while the source may be reliable, it's too much to hinge on a single sources. Either more sources are to be found, or the sections are merged into the main prose. Rehevkor ✉ 03:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's really encyclopedic content... 60 minutes could do a report on how many times you can put it through the wash before it changes color and that wouldn't really be significant. I say remove both sections entirely. DaRkAgE7_[Talk] 01:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps thy are useful as external links, as 3rd party info about the subject not intended to sell it? After all, if Apple did these tests, they wouldn't tell you the results.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Recording on 3G

It may not have worked 'out of the box' but with current firmware the 3G iPod nano will record 216.2.193.1 (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Backlight Timer

Hi,

By turning the backlight timer OFF you can increase battery life of your Ipod Nano significantly - this applies especially for older models. I posted this info but it was deleted immediately. Why not keeping it as a practical hint? What do you think? Any comments? --Tobi paull (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Compatible Audio FIles

There is nothing in this article about which types of audio files the ipod can read. Does it read/play wma? wav? or only mp3? 65.78.24.62 (talk) 15:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Audio formats supported: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF and WAV --WebHamster 15:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

so big...

the template is so big. and it is not seems good in 1024x768 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kıdemli (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Picture for 5G

When I went to take it down I saw someone wrote "do not remove image". That means that the person knows that it's the wrong image, but wants to keep it anyways. Would it be so bad to leave the 5G slot empty like it is on the iPod page?

We're working on getting a rendering. Bear with us. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay if we revert to the previous generation iPod nano photo, since the 5G version looks identical to the 6G iPod nano? Bentoman (talk)

Actually, the screen is taller, but it's certainly better than nothing. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

5G Images

I noticed that there were very few images of the new 5G nano available on Wikipedia, so when I got one I took some pictures of it and uploaded them. I added the images to places I thought were appropriate and useful, which included the 5G section of this article. However, on two occasions those images have been removed by other editors, first without an explanation, and then with an explanation that the article already has too many images. These are the images I added to that section which were removed.

On the plus side, my image of the 5G nano was removed from the top box of the article and replaced with what I think is an excellent illustration of the 5G nano. I think that was an appropriate and beneficial change.

I have searched through Wikipedia policies and as far as I can tell, illustrating the 5G section with good quality images of a 5G nano is absolutely appropriate and enriches the article. Can anybody tell me why adding images of the 5G nano to the 5G nano section might be inappropriate, or any other reason why the article is improved by removing the 5G images from that section? Many thanks.

Lubyanka (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution; we really do appreciate it. My guess is that an image takes up too much space for a section only a few lines long, but considering that all the other generations have images, that might not be fair. Can you take a picture of just the camera, since that's what's new? You can also try re-adding it to see if it will slip under the radar, but only do it once so you don't run afoul of WP:EDITWAR. We're working on getting renderings for all the nanos, but the guy who does it is busy right now. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, it was helpful. If you check the page's history, you'll see that I've already added it twice as I mentioned above, and it was removed by two different editors. So I don't want to do it again without finding out what's going on. As you say, all the other generations have images so I don't know why images of this one are too much all of a sudden. Certainly I could take a picture of just the camera, or else somebody could duplicate my existing image of the back and crop it to the camera, but as you noted, none of the other generations limit their image content solely to the changes, so that seems like an odd restriction. And even if you had complete renderings for all the nanos, why wouldn't the article be enriched by having actual images of the actual models? Many thanks for your help.  :) Lubyanka (talk) 07:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Further to my last reply and your suggestion HereToHelp, I've uploaded a close up image of the camera detail. I feel hesitant to add it to the nano article at the moment because I think that any images I add are likely to be removed again by other editors unless there is some kind of definitive response from an administrator approving the additions. I think the images would enrich the article and add to its information, and I am pleased to share them, but I had no idea that my attempts to do so would lead to so much contention. If the images are deemed superfluous by an administrator, then I will happily capitulate and leave the matter entirely in your hands. If an administrator approves their addition then I will be pleased to add them. It would be very helpful to me to know one way or the other. Thank you, I appreciate your efforts.  :) Lubyanka (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As here to help said there is simply no more room for images - the article is already flooded, 12 images for an article that isn't really that long. And the 5G section is too small to support one, especially considering the image is already in the specs table (why would we use the same image twice in a single article?) So yeah, it's not a matter of enrichment, it's aesthetics and layout, there doesn't *have* to be an image there, Wikipedia is not an art gallery. Rehevkor ✉ 11:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I read what HereToHelp said very carefully, I couldn't find any references to insufficient room for images, image flooding, minimum article section size requirements for image support, or art galleries. I don't understand your art gallery reference since I never thought nor said anything like that. I disagree that adding images to articles isn't about enrichment, because why change an article at all if not to enrich it? I agree that images aren't mandatory, however I do feel that this particular article and the 5G section within it is enriched by the addition of relevant images. As HereToHelp suggested, I have added the image of the camera detail to the 5G section. If you choose to remove it, I would take it as a courtesy if you would please leave additional details of your reasons for doing so here. Lubyanka (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Big Brother:

There is nothing in this article about nano and ipod devices being remotely/wirelessly accessible. Certainly there is a hardware component not yet labeled

Is there any evidence for this? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Audio output socket

The article does not indicate if the nano has a 2.5mm or 3.5mm stereo jack.

Toby Douglass (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, this article does not discuss the position of the Audio Jack on the base of the 2G, 4G, and 5G models. At some point between 2G and 5G the Jack moved from rhs to lhs, and this has implications for acessories such as (Sports) Armbands that have a cut-out that must match.

This probably should be discussed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be added. Bought a 5G nano for my aunt for Christmas and it will not fit into her four Apple Universal Docks (kitchen, living room, bedroom, cabin) with the 4G nano insert -- very disappointing! I wish Wikipedia (or Apple) would have warned me about this change!! My Aunt already has a 4G nano, but was having trouble changing playlists since she is in her late 70s and not computer savvy, so I figured I'd buy her a 2nd nano in a different color for storing a different genre of music on it... Kpr00 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You blame Wikipedia for not warning you? Fail. Rehevkor ✉ 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

MP4

Is this a real MPEG-4 Part 14 reader ?

--Mario CUSENZA (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:IPod Touch which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 13:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Title Capitalisation

Just a thought, but if the Nano is '(trademarked, marketed, and stylized as iPod nano)', why is the 'nano' in the Wikipedia article capitalised? Astonmartini (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length on the iPod Touch talk page a few weeks ago and it isn't going to change I'm afraid. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New iPod Nano Sept. 2010

This page needs to be updapted. A new iPod nano came out today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Price809 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Patience :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also in regards to the image, is the one currently displayed temporary, until the actual device is available to the public to purchase. (then someone needs to buy an iPod nano for photography purpose) Bentoman (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

do iPod games work on them? MatthewWaller (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No, ipod games do not work on the new nano. --Thekmc (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Section on Electronics

The information is outdated (from December 2005), is there any reason not to update it?M miyama (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Pricing in ₤'s

I know that the newest generation section is still under construction, but prices should not be in pounds. They have never been stated in pounds on other apple products. They should be stated only in usd as that is apple's main market. if we are to also include pricing from minor markets (such as the uk) prices should also be in other currencies such as euro, yin, etc. Alek2407 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States is not the main market. iPods are marketed globally. Being the English page, there shouldn't be any problem in listing prices in the currencies of other English speaking countries. However with this being a product from the US, non-US currencies should be in brackets. M miyama (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Video Support

There should be a breakdown of the various video formats each generation supports, which is what I came to the article looking to research. 76.95.33.253 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

6th gen reception

The 6th gen ipod nano has been reviewed. Shouldn't we put people's opinions into the reception section of the article? --Thekmc (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Disappointing

I came to this article looking for useful information and I am a bit disappointed. A lot of the article is about generation by generation details and specifications. Plus a detailed timeline of when various models were sold. Plus a brief section which seems to suggest the thing poses a serious fire hazard.

There is nothing here on what the thing does or how to use it. That's how I see it anyway. Thanks, CBHA (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So fix it? Rehevkor ✉ 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. My knowledge of the thing is that it is supposed to play music. I'm starting too far back to fix the article. CBHA (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

2nd Generation

"On December 26–27, 2006, Apple's website and servers crashed due to thousands of people downloading iTunes software since so many iPods were sold that Christmas season." Wonderful information. Okay no source. Issue one. How does this relate specifically enough with the iPod Nano to be included here? Oh! Let me check the source! oh.... yeah... And seriously. I really don't know the answer and wanted to check the source as I was just visiting for info on 6th generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.237.237.67 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I took it out. -Thekmc (Leave me a message) 23:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

7th generation

Someone has added to the generation table a 7th generation iPod nano. That is incorrect, the iPod nano that is sold today is just the sixth generation iPod nano with the OS updated. There's still no 7th generation Nano. --WKMN? Later [ Let's talk ] 20:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The 7th gen iPod Nano has been released and it would be a good idea to update the article and picture accordingly. GeekX (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

7th gen specs need to be added

As title --90.203.202.53 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Got as much as I could find on Apple; I was too lazy to figure out what all is new versus the previous generation, though, so that's blank for now. - Shiori (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice one :-) --90.205.7.200 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

ith generation

is there any word on the 8th generation nano?TheMouthofSauron (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)