4 ms·

I completely disagree. This is not what the iPod Nano should be, that's just a stupid sensational news title. Maybe the iWatch, but the iPod Nano is an iPod, NO

by lachyg 16y ago

I completely disagree. This is not what the iPod Nano should be, that's just a stupid sensational news title. Maybe the iWatch, but the iPod Nano is an iPod, NOT a watch (core product).

rimantas 16y ago
Exactly. The main task of iPod nano is to play music. Why should it be some remote control is beyond me. I am not sure what problems does this product solve. Take a look at your arm so you can take your phone out of the pocket and then look at it? On-arm display for the running app makes a bit of sense though.
- bd_at_rivenhill 16y ago
  If I could see who is calling and then actually answer the phone from this gadget, then I wouldn't need to be constantly digging my phone out of my pocket. I could just have the earpiece in my ear and the phone in a less accessible place, which seems like it should be a lot more convenient.
- wooter 16y ago
  It sucks for running. Have you ever tried to run with a phone anywhere but on your arm (with a sport band)? The nano comes with Nike+ which gives you just as much, or more, information as that Android app, is free, and does not require a brick in your pocket. The screen is too small to be useful for anything (ESPECIALLY anything i read via RSS) but music. Also, while running, holding a button to bring up music is not an option. I got a nano because it takes my phone out of the equation. That way, I don't risk hurting my phone with sweat, rain, or an accidental drop/trip. This gadget involves a cheap looking strap, an expensive&tiny screen, bluetooth(battery life?) and still needs my phone to boot. Not to mention that that strap looks insecure and holds the screen where rain and sweat will inevitably get to it. As for just walking around town, I already have a watch that has infinite battery (and is extremely durable) and I'm not about replace it with something that needs more maintenance and is more fragile on a flimsy strap. Its probably not even waterproof! (which is somewhat expected behavior for a watch, aka taking it off/putting it on when taking a shower/going surfing/etc) I would've been more impressed if sony copied the nano exactly, using oled.

by lachyg 16y ago

I completely disagree. This is not what the iPod Nano should be, that's just a stupid sensational news title. Maybe the iWatch, but the iPod Nano is an iPod, NOT a watch (core product).

rimantas 16y ago

Exactly. The main task of iPod nano is to play music. Why should it be some remote control is beyond me. I am not sure what problems does this product solve. Take a look at your arm so you can take your phone out of the pocket and then look at it? On-arm display for the running app makes a bit of sense though.

bd_at_rivenhill 16y ago
If I could see who is calling and then actually answer the phone from this gadget, then I wouldn't need to be constantly digging my phone out of my pocket. I could just have the earpiece in my ear and the phone in a less accessible place, which seems like it should be a lot more convenient.
wooter 16y ago
It sucks for running. Have you ever tried to run with a phone anywhere but on your arm (with a sport band)? The nano comes with Nike+ which gives you just as much, or more, information as that Android app, is free, and does not require a brick in your pocket. The screen is too small to be useful for anything (ESPECIALLY anything i read via RSS) but music. Also, while running, holding a button to bring up music is not an option. I got a nano because it takes my phone out of the equation. That way, I don't risk hurting my phone with sweat, rain, or an accidental drop/trip. This gadget involves a cheap looking strap, an expensive&tiny screen, bluetooth(battery life?) and still needs my phone to boot. Not to mention that that strap looks insecure and holds the screen where rain and sweat will inevitably get to it. As for just walking around town, I already have a watch that has infinite battery (and is extremely durable) and I'm not about replace it with something that needs more maintenance and is more fragile on a flimsy strap. Its probably not even waterproof! (which is somewhat expected behavior for a watch, aka taking it off/putting it on when taking a shower/going surfing/etc) I would've been more impressed if sony copied the nano exactly, using oled.