digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Why Did Apple Kill The iPod Mini In Its Prime?

applexnet.com — Apple seems to be riding purely on hype, cool, and the "iPod" brand because the iPod nano does not offer a single user requested feature, in fact Apple removed features and lowered capacities.

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 27, 2005

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

39 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • jamester, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3One pretty funny observation... people generalize about Apple fans being rabid zombies, but here all I see is how Apple blundered and made a mistake by giving the Mini the ax. The one differing opinion, presented by jerbo - who actually presented valid points - was immediately flamed.

    I'm in jerbo's camp. Then again, I have an iPod nano, too. Did I buy it because it was "cool"? Nah. I bought it because I love flash-based players, but also desired the screen from a full-size iPod. I feel I have the best of both worlds at this point.

    Believe it or not, it's not *all* about the size of the nano... there are other fairly important features underneath.
  • SpacePirate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised more people don't see it this way: Would you rather have Apple kill off the nano, or some third company? Sure, that comes off as being a bit fanatical, and I did get one the day I got my hands on one. Why? The mini's colors were too playful and girly, in my opinion, and hard drives are far too vulnerable to put in a music player. The nano is both sleek and chic, and fit my needs perfectly.

    A color screen is much better than a monochrome, flash-based media is much more durable, and best of all, it doesn't look like something I need to match with a purse. It has some flaws, yes, it's susceptible to scratches, but I know I took the proper precautions. Yes, the backlight is a major drain of the battery, but I turned it off, and am now getting excellent battery life. If Apple would have released those cases with it simultaneously, and used the same battery as the current minis, people would have nothing to worry about, and a 28 hour battery life.

    ~ SP
  • hike77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I believe the reason they killed the mini was to move away from HD based players, in iPods the HD is the cause for repairs about 80% of the time if you can cut that out it's a lot less time and money spent repairing and replacing iPods. So for apple the cost savings in the nano reach beyond just making it smaller.
  • BETA7, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"weakened the device making it much more fragile, "

    ya right this is a joke ok i saw a video with these guys who just trashed this mini first they droped it from 2 meters then it didnt break then they ran it over with a car 2 times! and it was stil fine screen smashed but it played fine and then finaly droped it from 30 feet and smashed but the point is it got ran over 2 times! and it was just fine the only "fragile" part of the nano is the front cover, it gets scratched so easily.
  • N3LDAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are an idiot. They are not riding on hype, the shuffle is the only thing that is riding on hype. The nano has 4 gigs of FLASH. That is a HUGE improvement, and it is so much smaller. The mini wasn't that much smaller, there were barely any (realistic) places the mini fit that the 4G couldnt. The nano is alot smaller and a 4G. I jsut wish they didn't use that crap scratch-prone case, that was the only good thing about the mini
  • adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i don't think it was an even trade off. the nano is small, yea, flash based. yea. Color screen,yea. but the price is messed. who wants photos on the nano any ways?! its too ***** small to see anything. the nano is alright, and if you want it, hell go buy it. but i would rather save money getting a higher capacity.
  • Trixter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even without reading the article, I'd say it's pretty obvious: They wanted to stay ahead of the competition. It's quite brilliant, actually -- all this time, competitors have been trying to come up with an ipod mini clone, and just when their products are ready to hit the market, Apple dumps the mini and releases the smaller, lighter, cheaper, sexier nano. And the competition is left holding their... inferior product :-) I'm not a fan of Apple, but that was a brilliant move on their part.
  • Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was never really a fan of the mini. Sure, it was kinda cute, but the screen was tiny and, compared to the regular iPod, the shell was rough-textured. I
  • jerbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0You forget that the nano is insanely small and uses flash based memory instead of a hard drive. It's much cooler and more durable than the mini. You can have your minis!
  • mushroom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why Did Apple Kill The iPod Mini In Its Prime?

    Cause Apple want's to give you less for more money if you have watch Apple over the years you could see that with Macs.But this may have be a good move on Apples part cause the only thing that's keeping food in job's mouth is the IPod

  • necromancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, Apple should have introduced a higher capacity iPod Mini. Of course it would have to be larger, but they could call it something like "iPod".
  • Designhaus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It should have replaced the ***** shuffle, but they couldn't sell the nano for that cheap and they couldn't allow the Nano to compete at the same price with the Mini. The idea is that in a year or so the Nano will be up to par with the Mini and eventually take over the old iPod, in terms of storage space.
  • teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Instead of the normal Ipod lifecycle where we get more capacity for the same price, we got the same damn thing but smaller. Apple found a way to give you the same thing for the same money when you were really expecting and wanting a better Ipod Mini with more capacity and more features...like a removeable battery
  • chicagospur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Er, no. We get 2Gb less storage for the same price. You get a color screen though to show your photos. Big deal. It's a pain to get the photos on in the first place. Much as the Nano is cute, you are getting a lot less for your money if you use it for it's prime function, which is to play music.

    A color Mini would be better. A video Ipod would have been fantastic.
  • xdviper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0and a regular mp3 player should bne the size of the mini not bigger not smaller... the mini has the is the perfect size....
  • onager, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2All you people ever do is bitch and moan.

    Wah, there aren't enough features. Wah, it's TOO small. Wah, it's not small enough. Wah, people just buy it to be cool.

    You don't deserve anything but a dark cave.
  • adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0what people don't really know is, yeah, apple killed the mini. but i'm pretty sure your local electronic store has a reserve of a couple. not that many people are interested in the mini, so its yours for the taking.
  • xdviper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0not even apple gave us a freakin 2gb for $200... they should atleast lower it down by $50....
  • adminmatt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i think we were all hoodwinked by the nano. i'm sure a bigger capacity ipod mini with a color screen would sell better then the ipod nano and mini together.
  • jccalhoun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Want the iPod mini back? just wait. I'm betting that soon the iPod will be eliminated and something similar in size to the iPod mini will be released as the new ipod. With the nano so small Apple is undoubtably looking for a way to make the regular ipod smaller.
  • stingthebee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well, we can all bitch and moan as much as you want because Apple doesn't care about Digg users when they are making the Mini/Nano. They assume if you are a big enough geek (like me) that you will be buying a standard iPod for the storage space or if you fashion yourself a hipster geek, the Nano because it looks cooler and is smaller.

    The fact is that the average user (not Digg users) keep under 500 songs on an iPod, so in a sense users were saying that they did not want more storage.

    Also, the Nano looks more like an iPod. Apple simplified their product line and it's much easier to brand. You lay down the iPod, Nano and the Shuffle and that looks like a unified product line. I always thought the Mini looked out of place. I wonder if they will release a black Shuffle?

    Hold a Nano and a Mini in your hands which you can still do, most stores have both still. The Nano looks, feels and is better designed.
  • JustinPM, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is something to be said for miniturazation (sp?) but I can kinda camp with the mini side with things. I've seen a mini, but not a nano. The mini in my opinion seems small enough. The nano seems like something that should be alot more durable instead of less durable, especially if it's purpose is to be based in the pocket. All in all, Meh.
  • anagami, on 07/02/2008, -0/+0"You are an idiot. They are not riding on hype, the shuffle is the only thing that is riding on hype. The nano has 4 gigs of FLASH. That is a HUGE improvement, and it is so much smaller. The mini wasn't that much smaller, there were barely any (realistic) places the mini fit that the 4G couldnt. The nano is alot smaller and a 4G. I jsut wish they didn't use that crap scratch-prone case, that was the only good thing about the mini"

    Yes, but it should cost $200 not $250.

    Can the battery of the nano be replaced? Cuss if not it will be the only awful "feature" of this product.
  • surfing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Remember 'New Coke'...
  • thefilmguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+06 reasons why Apple killed the IPod mini:

    1. It doesn't have a color screen ( no eye candy value)

    2. It can't display photos

    3. Its not flash based (music skips)

    4. Its not as small

    5. It doesn't come in black

    6. Because Steve Jobs and Apple can.

    For those of you whining about storage capacity vs. cost (4 Gb for $249), then just wait till MacWorld SF in January. For those of you that already own a Nano congrats and enjoy!
  • braeken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I am actually going to buy the mini instead of the nano. Bigger capacity, better battery life, cheaper and it looks that it will last stronger.
  • Seaton, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why Did Apple Kill The iPod Mini In Its Prime?

    Because Steve wanted to.
  • movieguyjon, on 04/03/2009, -0/+0I am quite pleased I ordered the mini from their website just before they got rid of it...I'm on the bandwagon that everyone left..wooohoo!
  • vortech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0As far as I am concerned, the nPod replaced the shuffle, but to say that the nano had no user-requested features over the mini is flat out wrong.
    The article claims that the nano is more fragile, but one of the most wanted features was the durability of solid state. I have no fewer than 3 friends who bought a shuffle for jogging despite having a mini. these people wanted a nano. the Ars review threw the thing out of a car for god sake. it's not more fragile than a mini.
    The article is full of assertions that seem wrong and are not supported, but the color screen, the size, the album art/photo stuff, etc. were all features added over the mini.
  • AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I like my mini, I like the casing around it better than the ipod. I saw the nano for the first time last night in person (rather than just pictures on the internet) and I have to say it's a good looking device and the touch wheel and center button seem to work better than on my mini. I liked it a lot, but I don't want less storage. I just recently got my mini a couple months ago, so I have atleast a year or two left of use, by then the flash drives will have gotten more storage and I will be better off. I can't wait to see what we will have then, not just from apple but all around.
  • AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0One more thing, that is a good picture there on the site, if they had that black mini with a color screen, I'd buy it. Apple should have had a black mini like that.
  • tacojohn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's a pain to get the photos on in the first place."

    Um- last time I checked my iPod photo updated it's photos automatically through iTunes...
  • k3n85, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Yeah, I really think that the end of the article brings out the real wants. Just a small iPod (mini), black, color screen, (noticed the mini didnt scratch as much, esp w/o a metal back that was nice but smudged like crazy and scratched easily). You think that with all the tech we have, we can't make something scratch resistant ?
  • motionblur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Nano is Apple's match to the iRiver 899. I'm getting a Nano and giving the (excellent) iRiver to the g/f.
  • AdamCo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The mini was a lot smaller than the 4G. Why are you comparing the mini to a 4G (one size up) and then comparing the nano to a 4G (2 sizes up). You should be comparing the size of the nano and the mini.

    Let's compare.

    The 4G iPod 20GB (note, the 60GB is slightly thicker and heavier):
    4.1 x 2.4 x 0.63 inches
    5.9 oz

    2G iPod Mini 6GB:
    3.6 x 2.0 x 0.5 inches
    3.6 oz

    iPod Nano:
    3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27 inches
    1.5 oz

    As you can see, the iPod mini was pretty much equal to or more of an overall size improvement over the 4G iPod than the Nano was over the iPod Mini.
  • udubnate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you guys are crazy. dont you realize that this machine is built on flash memory only. As well as the mini was having problems with audio anyways??

    I think the nano is remarkable.
  • Kriz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If you don't like the Nano, then it's not FOR you.
  • vanlandw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I agree with that article fully. I wrote about it on a site I maintain but I still prefer the mini over the nano. I was hoping for more space and a color screen upgrade for the mini instead of the nano.
  • DannyB, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0iPod! iPod! Lets talk some more about the iPod! Such an amazing device! Look! It's small!

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.