By Hugo Jobling
Reviewed: 16 Sep 2009
My 16GB Silver 5G nano arrived this morning. Only ordered it Sunday night from the Apple Store - now that is service!
I've got a 4G nano and I don't know how this can score a 9 for value. A whole year after I got mine the same capacity is virtually the same price. Wow, you get a camera! Meanwhile if you bought a touch you'd have more capacity for the same price.
wow, I'm so tripped out right now... listening to Bliss.. of all songs, what a coincidence XDanyways, I bought a 4th gen nano last October but I do have my eye on a green 5th gen. It's not the video camera that's drawing me in, though, it's the FM reception. My previous mp3 player (Sansa View) had a radio tuner... I was disappointed that the last nano didn't. And if I do get one, hopefully the click wheel will not be "crunchy" like my current nano's is.... I do wish there were higher gig capacities for the nano; I have so much music, can't fit half of it on my nano at once. But I guess one does have to make sacrifices here and there ;p
Still disappointed by the poor sound quality, my old Samsung YP K3 is still better in that perspective. If Apple improved that, it would be perfect.
Seeing the dissection photos i am pretty much sure that the camera is where it is because it was simply the only place where it could fit.
nice review. now i want to go watch "District 9" now...
I know the review said it's adequate, and I know this is a mini-consolidated device......but why oh why can't Apple focus a bit more on audio quality and get the sound to be as good as the interface? It's the one thing that put me off getting an iPod Touch, and having compared a Cowon S9 to the output from an iPhone on a pair of Shures...it just sounded a bit flat. (And also an OLED screen on the iPhone please Mr Jobs!)
Why a video camera? It seems like a stretch to me. Couldn't they come up with anything usefully new related to the iPod functionality?
@Hugo: "...barely indistinguishable from its predecessor." So at first glance it looks completely different, but on closer inspection it is in fact exactly the same? Freaky!!
iain: Yup, that's definitely exactly what I meant to write...
Hugo, were you paid for that review? I'm sorry but normally Trusted isn't drinking the Apple kool-aid quite so much. Sure the Nano is a great little device, but most competiting devices from Sony/Samsung/Creative/Sansa/etc, etc give more for less.Look at the new Sony that'll be out here shortlyhttp://www.oled-display.net/so...2.8" OLED screeen, noise cancelling headphones, far superior sound quality, 29 hour battery, capacity upto 64GB and 7.2mm thick (well thin). It trumps the Nano in every way, so I don't see how you can rate the Nano so highly. This will be more expensive I guess, but older models that are still far better are cheaper than the Nano (and often double the capacity).I understand getting an iPod Touch over competing products for the apps, web browser and ecosystem - but the nano doesn't have any of that (well iTunes, but I see that almost as a negative). It should be an also ran in this category, but gets lifted up by it's more useful brother. I'd have thought TR would have seen through the Apple marketing machine and given it a lower score accordingly.All that said, I'm happy to listen to music on my phone and wouldn't get any of these players. Sure the sound quality isn't as good, the capacity isn't as large - but it's enough for me. What's more my phone like 98% of phones out there has a better camera than the piece of sh*t they just put into the Nano, thus negating it's "just one more thing"...
I think it is an awful addition to the nano. Just about every mobile phone has a camera on it these days. Why you would want to have two poor quality cameras in your pocket?I agree with Mawich. It seems that Apple ran out of innovation and opted for gimmick. I hope that other manufacturers do not follow suit. Investment should now focus on improving sound quality!
9/10 for value?Would it get 9/10 if you rubbed out the apple logo?
@A ScotlandMillions of "youths" will be able to film their mates happy slapping strangers and will then be able to upload it to the likes of YouTube. I think you underestimate the amount of fun young people are going to have.
Loving your describing a pedometer as being "gimmicky" on an mp3 player with... a video camera!Personally I don't see any benefits of this over a 1st gen nano - 4Gb is enough for a part time mp3 IMO and other than that there's no useful additions. That's as much a testament to the original device as a criticism of this one, but I think as far as evolution goes, this format is pretty dead for apple - unless they start to make ipods with good sound quality, or iphone nano I suppose!
If Apple sold a version without the camera at the same price I'd be just as enthusiastic about the nano, frankly. I appreciate that it's a bit of a gimmick, but it's a very well implemented one and it's not like Apple is charging for it. Criticising a feature just because you can't see a use for it yourself is incredibly narrow minded.I've used a huge amount of players in the same class as the iPod nano and none of them are anything like as nice to use. I'm not a fan of the requirement to use iTunes, but as of the latest version, it's become a lot less frustrating to use at least - it's nice to be able to do stuff without the program hanging randomly from time to time.
@HK - so you're comparing the Nano against an as yet unavailable Sony player and complaining that the Nano isn't as good and should therefore be docked points. Hmm.
@ Hugo "It's not like Apple are charging for it"Well, of course they are. They could have released it without the camera at a lower price, and the ironic thing is that they probably would have sold more units this way - as you said in the review, no one is going to buy this for its video capturing capabilities (which appear to be mediocre at best).
I think what HK is saying is that there are products out there which equal the features of this player for less money. This really should be reflected in the value score.
Steve - you're right, plenty of young people would enjoy using a pocketable device which incorporates a video camera. There's only one problem: They already have such a thing. It's called a "mobile phone". And literally EVERYONE who can afford a Nano already has a phone...I am have no problem with consolidation, and know that there is a market for devices like the Touch, which do many things better than a normal phone, and for those who don't want an iPhone/smartphone. But here they've just included a mediocre video recording function (which is already built into phones). That's not consolidatin or convergence of technology. It's needless duplication.I am not a mindless Apple-hater. Despite their best efforts - with iTunes and those appalling earphones - I really like the iPod Classic, and happily used the original Shuffle for ages. Mac computers are, mostly, fantastic machines running an excellent OS. The iPhone was a masterpiece of design and a truly impressive step forward in technology. This, on the other hand, is an overpriced music player with probably the most pointless gimmick yet.
Hugo - but they ARE effectively charging for the camera... If they had not thrown more features in, could they really have got away with not dropping the price in line with the competition?Dismissing the criticism as "incredibly narrow minded" is a rather cheap shot - and wrong. I am not criticising the inclusion of video recording because I can't see myself using it. In fact if I were given a Nano, I can see myself using it, but purely "because it's there". The problem is, it's just adding something which not just me but essentially EVERYONE (except first-gen iPhone owners) already has, in their mobile. Quick poll: Who regularly carries a media player but not a phone?So, the price remains significantly higher than the competition, just so that you can carry not one but two low-quality video cameras. As for ease-of-use, I agree Apple's design is still the best - but iTunes lets the side down, and while you can consider the interface to be adding value, surely in fairness you must also subtract value for the sound quality being lower than rivals. Then, I would suggest you have to factor in the cost of buying half-decent earphones. All of this does look like good value to me...
I think the video (and audio) quality is pretty good from this video..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...This will probably be popular with the hidden camera/surveillance people as it's a very thin. You could wear that under your clothes and film for a considerable time through a button or something. Just to throw that creepy thought out there :P
@Xamph: No. I said there's plenty of other players out there that are better & cheaper. Maybe I should have given an older player as an example, but since this was just announced today for Japan and will be in the UK/US shortly it was on my mind. Btw the cheaper S640 & S740 have now been announced - http://www.engadget.com/2009/0....But whether you wait for the new range or get something older you'll get something better than the Nano.As thankfully a few people here have pointed out the camera here is a gimmick. When Apple do something, they normally execute it better than anyone else. For them to have the cheek to mention the Flip in their keynote and then bring out something this inferior shows they're loosing their way. I think adding the radio was the best thing they did with the new Nano - though again most other players have had that for years. The camera was a mistake.
omg.. does this mean that all future mp3players is getting a camera too?... i shure hope not.
@gdawg304: Clearly sound quality isn't even on the minds of most people when they buy an MP3 player, as evidenced by the popularity of the iPod and the ubiquity of those rubbish earphones Apple (and other manufacturers) bundle with their players. Sad, but true. Unfortunately, Apple know their target market and until those people start wanting better sound quality from their players, Apple won't need to improve it.
Portable Audio round-ups
Group Test: We put the latest DABs to the listening test
Our pick of the best portable speakers to take on your travels
We reveal the winner of Portable Media Player of 2016.
More Portable Audio Round-ups
Sign up for the
TrustedReviews email newsletter
Get TrustedReviews' award-winning reviews, opinions and advice delivered to your inbox for free!
Plus get great deals and exclusive offers from Time Inc. (UK) Ltd and its partners.
Trusted Reviews is part of the Time Inc. (UK) Ltd Technology Network