gizmodo.com— Picture of the new iPod Nano models from Apple. All models are 52% smaller in volume than previous nano. new charger, new armband, new lanyard.
Sep 12, 2006View in Crawl 4
Wish the shuffle was out today as I'd get one ... until next month I guess. I've been looking for something for the bus ride to work for podcasts and such, this will be perfect for that (didn't like the older shuffles). Anyone know if this will get the new headphones too (the picture shows the old ones)?
to all those marking as inaccurate-Look at the warning at the top of the page. It says, "Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate". Note: CONTENT of ARTICLE.Not "digg headline" or "digg synopsis". So what if the digg blurb was wrong? Who cares? Do people read the blurb and not the article? Who the hell does that? What we need to know is, is the ARTICLE inaccurate, not the headline, not the synopsis.The content of the article (the pictures, and the phrase, "Colored and Brushed Metal") was completely "accurate".
rjcarrSep 12, 2006
Wish the shuffle was out today as I'd get one ... until next month I guess. I've been looking for something for the bus ride to work for podcasts and such, this will be perfect for that (didn't like the older shuffles). Anyone know if this will get the new headphones too (the picture shows the old ones)?
skullpopSep 12, 2006
Innaccurate in that the Nano's aren't 52% smaller, the packaging is 52% smaller.
ridgelawrenceSep 12, 2006
I get about 14 hours, keep the backlight off at all times
sphinx13Sep 12, 2006
I would go for that because I'm a runner and HDD players suck for running.
neoricenSep 13, 2006
Why is this inaccurate? Are people f**king retarded??
Closed AccountSep 13, 2006
who sits on a f**ken ipod!?!
luxfxSep 13, 2006
dimensions for nano old/new:height: 3.5" / 3.5"width: 1.6" / 1.6"depth: 0.3" / 0.26"the new nano is 13.3% smaller, not 52% smaller
Closed AccountSep 13, 2006
they also copied the price aswell...
vanillabaronSep 13, 2006
to all those marking as inaccurate-Look at the warning at the top of the page. It says, "Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate". Note: CONTENT of ARTICLE.Not "digg headline" or "digg synopsis". So what if the digg blurb was wrong? Who cares? Do people read the blurb and not the article? Who the hell does that? What we need to know is, is the ARTICLE inaccurate, not the headline, not the synopsis.The content of the article (the pictures, and the phrase, "Colored and Brushed Metal") was completely "accurate".