Quake3World

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.

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.

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.

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.

Most of their competition have clunky interfaces, require shit software, require batteries, or have some other major drawback.

Turbanator 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*

you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipod

half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.

Tormentius wrote:

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.

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.

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.

a second hand dirty player with someone elses music on it.

gtfo

Hey I wouldn't have minded if it had been a mistake, but when I rang up it turns out that's their policy.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Turbanator 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*

you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipod

half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.

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

It appears much thinner.

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Eraser wrote:

[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.

The iPod mini was significantly smaller than the regular ipod. This nano is even smaller than the mini.
But it seems that the mini is completely gone, as 6Gb is a rather nice amount of space.

But that would mean that the nano is significantly smaller than the regular ipod and then some.

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:

shiznit wrote:Because it's another overhyped and obsolete product from apple and this time it's a few mm smaller.

good to know i'm not alone

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Turbanator 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*

you mean thin. According to the dimensions i posted, it's really not that much smaller than a regular ipod

half as thick is the main thing from what i can tell.

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.

confuscious confused

all this over a tune player?

i seen a similar very small microdrive player with mirror back and everything at staples months ago

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.

i posted the dimensions of the ipod vs. the nano -

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

DON'T FUCKING BUY IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

SplishSplash wrote:DON'T FUCKING BUY IT IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

:icon27:

[xeno]Julios wrote: and the nano only holds 2-4gb.

yet it's 200 dollars (compared to 300 dollars for regular)

the now "defunct" mini was 4GB and was $250 US. were you griping about it as well?

[xeno]Julios wrote:

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.

i posted the dimensions of the ipod vs. the nano -

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.

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:

[xeno]Julios wrote: and the nano only holds 2-4gb.

yet it's 200 dollars (compared to 300 dollars for regular)

the now "defunct" mini was 4GB and was $250 US. were you griping about it as well?

$279 euros here for 4 gb, that's why I paid 30 euros more and got the 20 gb 4G :>

I'd buy it, but my 1G iPod is still holding out.

1G iPod, wow, must feel like a brick now :>

It's still quite portable, but the battery can't hold a charge for more than a day <:B

yeah, but you are hardcore 1st gen.

i doubt any geek here would not be impressed by this product once they hold and feel one. and then when it turns on infront of your eyes, with a full color screen.... it's quite fucking cool...

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.

4gb is quite a bit of music

+JuggerNaut+ wrote:4gb is quite a bit of music

Most mp3s are between 4-6mb if not less, so it's like 1000 songs?