Apple iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Comments

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 XD
anyways, 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!!

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 shortly
http://www.oled-display.net/sony-introduce-a-series-walkman-with-an-28-inch-oled-display

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 Scotland

Millions 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!

@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=I-I--4JrERI

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/2009/09/16/video-sony-walkman-s640-and-s740-arrive-in-technicolor/.

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.

Chris: Indeed, sad but true. You don't need to be an "audiophile" to notice the difference - you just need to have tried using any other player. Unfortunately, most people have not.

Skobbolop: Of course they will. Apple have done it, therefore everyone else must too. Frankly, Apple could have included a grouting tool... In a year's time every MP3 player would need to have a grouting tool.

The ONLY time i can see me carrying an mp3 player and not my mobile phone is, possibly, when I'm running. But having said that, my phone has GPS, camera if (for some obscure reason) i need to use it AND and mp3 player. And only weighs a few grams more. And allows me to phone. So, mp3 player with a camera seems pretty pointles.

@Chris and MrGodfrey

it's a shame...their UI is great...and with the 3GS I am definitely a convert to the iPhone after hating the first one (for one thing I can't stand things that are popular for no good reason other than marketing hype and style over substance), they seem to have corrected all the things i thought were flaws - but still please let's have an OLED screen like my Cowon S9!! For the battery life if nothing else.

I know my Shure SE530s will never go near an iPod again till they improve the sound...I had an 80GB Classic and would describe it as 'adequate'...it was by no means awful but once you've tried something that has actual GOOD sound...well....iPods just sound disappointing (IMO anyway!! :-) )....but then some people still use the bundled white earphones so it just goes to show that some consumers don't care how their music sounds...

@Steve, My 5G nano also arrived today (having ordered it on Sunday) and I have no reservations about buying (though it is a gift for a friend). The audio quality may not be up with the best but I know its recipient will not be concerned about that and will certainly appreciate this as an upgrade to his current iPod mini that is dying.

Irrespective of the additional camera, the iPod interface still continues to be (one of) the best and I actually like iTunes as a means to organise and manage my music. Keeping track of play counts and smart playlists is something I'd never get if I were to just drag and drop my music direct to a player.

There's definitely too much Apple love from the reviews recently, as recent comments show. At this rate, the site could be renamed from Trustedreviews to Paidreviews or Opinionreviews.

Shortcomings are too easily glossed over, new features are deemed not essential but market leading, and the next 'must have'.

I've bought a couple of products in the past, on the basis of research and a review here. I'm rethinking that now.

@HK: Again with the announced but unavailable products. Why not wait for the reviews? They could easily turn out to be overpriced turkeys. And as for the better MP3 players out there, why not name them rather than giving us Sony press releases? I'm a Sansa Clip user myself, and I wouldn't buy another, build quality on my one is v. poor.

And as for the sound quality/headphones etc, the fact is that *most* MP3 player users couldn't give a toss. And unfortunately, for mass-market companies, *most* is where the money is, the rest is niche products.

I got mine on Tuesday and are happy to report that the videocamcorder build into it are good enough filming the Mat lectures I need it to film. I can now write down notes at home and pause the lecture when needed and go back to parts I did not get the first time. The picture quality is sufficient and you can hear what people are saying. Noice floor is high though. Regarding soundquality on the music it self. It doesn't really matter in the inviroment you are going to use you player. Noice from the surrounding will cancel out any differnce en soundquality. life pause on the FM radio works well Tried it yesteday. Bought it because of the videocamcorder. Have a Canon XHA1 HDV camcorder for serious video. But it only records 1 hour on tape and are way to big to carry to class.

@Greg

The Nano does exactly what it says on the tin. Brilliantly.

I can't think of any serious shortcomings (ok, the bundled headphones are rubbish, but anyone who appreciates music will own their own set anyway).

@Steve - sorry - I know you're not a reviewer, but that's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. "It does everything brilliantly. Apart from the headphones, but that's alright because even though other providers bundle much better headphones, true music lovers will of course have their own". They're not being judged on a level playing field.

@Gordon - fair point - paid reviews is going a bit far. But not on the opinions. All reviews will have an element of opinion in them - that's the perogative of the reviewer, and to some extent, adds interest and personality to the review. But time and time again, it goes too far for Apple products. And yes, it does make me think twice about other reviews here, and not put the same faith in buying a product after reading a review here.

I own (and love) a 3GS by the way, in case anyone wants to start flinging the "you're just anti Apple" mud.

I think there's just no pleasing some people, I won't be getting one because my 1st gen nano is 100% fine and when your walking down the street with traffic noice and such you will never hear any problems with sound quality. I would never use the bundled earphones of an ipod ever but everything else they do they do they do very well, and it's a damn sight easier to use itunes to sync your music than stone age drag and drop and I'm one who keeps my music folder very well organised.
I'm sure the sony is going to be fine and perhaps in a silent room you can tell the difference in sound quality but the ipod line is very well integrated and therefore it is considerably easier to use (IMO) than any other mp3 player I've ever had.

comparing the latest gen to its predecessors, pointing out the differences & improvements, etc. was handy in the review. a further step would have been to compare this 5th gen nano to other similarly featured or similarly priced rivals (named specifically).

furthermore, it is easier to point out the differences in physical features and hardware of each product. perhaps more elaboration on the audio reproduction capabilities of the nano, compared to the rest of the market would have made the review more complete.

ppl who listen to their portable music player out-and-about, listening to their MP3s, are typically not too fussed about audio reproduction. especially those with still the original ugly white Apple earphones. so for the majority of these end-users (consumers), they probably are after features rather than better sound quality...

It would have been nice to have a sample of the video recording feature to see how bad/good it is. Especially in light of the fact that it's one of the new headline features.

And I wasn't sure whether the videos that have been uploaded to Youtube in HQ quality are exactly as encoded by the Nano or whether Youtube transcodes them to alter resolution or some other MP4 video encoding parameters. Obviously the latter is no good.

Jay: You're not actually helping your own argument there. When walking down the street, I don't notice traffice noise and I do notice sound quality - because the bundled earphones that came with my Sony are excellent at blocking outside noise.

I disagree that drag-n-drop is any harder than using iTunes - but even so, it's not the only option. Ever heard of Winamp?

You say yourself that you won't be getting one because your original Nano is "100% fine". Again not really helping the argument in favour of the 5th Gen. Here is a player that offers little benefit over previous generations, and at a fairly high price.

I wasn't trying to argue the point to buy the new nano just that as a sole mp3 player it's ok but as a package as a whole it's quite good, yes there are alternatives to itunes but also in itunes you can drag music out to an external device pretty easy too. I dont think it's too expensive either but value and price is subjective.
Also is it not dangerous to have earphones blocking out the noise when your walking about - cyclists and such

I have to say Apple do have some sexy mp3 player with some cool features BUT!!! You have to sacrifice, things like sound quality. SONY & Creative own sound quality. And as for Formats of music, Apple don't do that either. The only reason i would buy an Ipod and thats because, you have Itunes for Movies, other than that being tied to I tunes is crap!! And the prices you pay in the long term :O