Apple had a 92% market share at one point, but many people are starting to choose cheaper flash memory-based players. Plus the competition is steping up with products that have better features.Geebs wrote:"floating" as in, 80% of the market? When nerds won't buy apple because of nerdly prejudice?
Nah, couldn't just be well designed and do a good job. That'd be too obvious.
Cool, iPod nano
-
Tormentius
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 8:00 am
I'd say at 80% of the market they aren't in danger of losing the overwhelming majority anytime soon. Besides, its anti-everything nerds that are usually so desperate to look for alternative (and usually inferior) products. The obvious majority of people who are looking for an MP3 player enjoy the mix of an intuitive interface, usfeful features, and aesthetics that Apple's product line offers.shiznit wrote:
Apple had a 92% market share at one point, but many people are starting to choose cheaper flash memory-based players. Plus the competition is steping up with products that have better features.
Most of their competition have clunky interfaces, require shit software, require batteries, or have some other major drawback.
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipodTurbanator wrote:jesus, playing with the nano's this morning, amazing product, so small it seems so delicate... definately buying a 4gb black... *adds to existing ipod collection*
half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.
Tormentius wrote:I'd say at 80% of the market they aren't in danger of losing the overwhelming majority anytime soon. Besides, its anti-everything nerds that are usually so desperate to look for alternative (and usually inferior) products. The obvious majority of people who are looking for an MP3 player enjoy the mix of an intuitive interface, usfeful features, and aesthetics that Apple's product line offers.shiznit wrote:
Apple had a 92% market share at one point, but many people are starting to choose cheaper flash memory-based players. Plus the competition is steping up with products that have better features.
Most of their competition have clunky interfaces, require shit software, require batteries, or have some other major drawback.
I believe you are correct, ipod will continue to thrive for a while unless something revolutionary comes a long. I'm not anti-ipod. I just don't really get excited when apple releases new ipods, because they are ussually a bit smaller, have less space and more colors.
You'd be surprised how much difference 'half as thick' makes at those sizes. The mini was only, at most, an inch smaller here and there, but it made a world of difference in terms of feel[xeno]Julios wrote:you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipodTurbanator wrote:jesus, playing with the nano's this morning, amazing product, so small it seems so delicate... definately buying a 4gb black... *adds to existing ipod collection*
half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.
[xeno]Julios wrote:But that would mean that the nano is significantly smaller than the regular ipod and then some.Eraser wrote:The iPod mini was significantly smaller than the regular ipod. This nano is even smaller than the mini.[xeno]Julios wrote: Not really that much smaller. It's about half as thick as my regular ipod, and not significantly smaller along the other dimensions.
Ipod nano:
3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27
Old ipod:
4.1 x 2.4 x 0.63
hardly worthy of being called nano...
Looks like they've gotten rid of the mini ipod.
But it seems that the mini is completely gone, as 6Gb is a rather nice amount of space.
But the measurements I've posted indicate otherwise.
[xeno]Julios wrote:um- can anyone tell me why the nano is so cool? It's not that much smaller than the regular ipod.
[xeno]Julios wrote:good to know i'm not aloneshiznit wrote:Because it's another overhyped and obsolete product from apple and this time it's a few mm smaller.
WTF is wrong with you. The only thing you can post that you think it isn't that much smaller than a normal iPod while it's incredibly obvious that it is.[xeno]Julios wrote:you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipodTurbanator wrote:jesus, playing with the nano's this morning, amazing product, so small it seems so delicate... definately buying a 4gb black... *adds to existing ipod collection*
half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.
What is your point anyway, it's a new model, it's smaller, it's cool, it replaces the Mini, it's called iPod nano. That's all.
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
i posted the dimensions of the ipod vs. the nano -saturn wrote:WTF is wrong with you. The only thing you can post that you think it isn't that much smaller than a normal iPod while it's incredibly obvious that it is.
What is your point anyway, it's a new model, it's smaller, it's cool, it replaces the Mini, it's called iPod nano. That's all.
Ipod nano:
3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27
Old ipod:
4.1 x 2.4 x 0.63
and the nano only holds 2-4gb.
yet it's 200 dollars (compared to 300 dollars for regular)
something just seems very wrong here.
I was just looking for someone to respond to this concern, and nobody did until Dave on the third page:
You'd be surprised how much difference 'half as thick' makes at those sizes. The mini was only, at most, an inch smaller here and there, but it made a world of difference in terms of feel
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
[xeno]Julios wrote:i posted the dimensions of the ipod vs. the nano -saturn wrote:WTF is wrong with you. The only thing you can post that you think it isn't that much smaller than a normal iPod while it's incredibly obvious that it is.
What is your point anyway, it's a new model, it's smaller, it's cool, it replaces the Mini, it's called iPod nano. That's all.
Ipod nano:
3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27
Old ipod:
4.1 x 2.4 x 0.63
and the nano only holds 2-4gb.
yet it's 200 dollars (compared to 300 dollars for regular)
something just seems very wrong here.
I was just looking for someone to respond to this concern, and nobody did until Dave on the third page:
You'd be surprised how much difference 'half as thick' makes at those sizes. The mini was only, at most, an inch smaller here and there, but it made a world of difference in terms of feel
you should go to the store and hold in in your hand, you'll feel how small it is. It's expensive cause it contains flash memory. It's like 45 dollars for 1 gb i think, so if you take the 4 gb nano, it's even fairly cheap with all the components and the good build. Of course Samsung gave Apple a good discount for buying their whole stock of flash mem.
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
-
Iccy (temp)
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 1:32 am
Well something to point out that important i feel. Its solid state. no moving parts at all. Thats such a huge increase in life span for it, not to mention the size and the " fair " pricing. Im thinking of getting one, but i really need more then 4gb. Gimme a 20 gb nano and hells yea.
" I thought i could handle the power, Ive alway been a kind and gentle person.
But once i was finaly able to split the atom
i built me some bombs and droped them on every mother fucker that got in my way."
But once i was finaly able to split the atom
i built me some bombs and droped them on every mother fucker that got in my way."


