Slashdot Mirror
Behind The Development Of The iPod nano
bonch writes "A Time Magazine article on the behind-the-scenes development of the iPod nano reveals that development work began just nine months ago, when the iPod mini was still a top-seller. Every internal component was redesigned and packed into every millimeter of the space inside. Famed Apple designer Jonathan Ives spent months on the tiniest of details, like the laser-etching of the logo and the roughness of the clickwheel compared to the smoothness of the rest of the exterior. 'I know you're not going to consciously find these details particularly appealing," says Ives, 'but I think it's the fact that we've worried about all of them that makes the product so precious.'"
At any rate, my bet is that Apple didn't run their prototypes over with cars. Or did they??
"It's still not slim enough, give me the BFH.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I know you're not going to consciously find these details particularly appealing," says Ives, 'but I think it's the fact that we've worried about all of them that makes the product so precious.'
"At which point in the interview, Ives, began sandpapering his own fingerprints from his fingers in order to leave no smudges on The Precious."
The name is Jonathan Ive, without an "s". Sheesh. It's even spelled correctly in the article. ::sigh::
they certainly had some crappy ideas on design. :-)
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
In addition to Libraries of Congress and football fields, today we add two need units of measurement: "pencil width" and "bucks in quarters". Alas, Google has yet to enter the new units into the search engine as this search produced no useful results. But just you wait! Apple has always been a trendsetter. Soon all the models will be listing their measurements in terms of pencils and weight in terms of bucks in quarters!
EvilCON - Made Famous by
it's Jonathan Ive, not Ives.
*** For a better tommorow, change your life today ***
The great thing about the Nano (from an Apple perspective anyway) is that it hits the price vs. features sweet spot that fills the last gap - anyone who didn't have an iPod before, because the big'uns are too expensive or the Shuffle is too... well, the non-geek is pretty incredulous when told "no, it doesn't have a screen". The Mini's, while selling well, really did overlap the iPod's market, because they were practically the same size - essentially trading price for capacity. That leaves the two on pretty equal standing, whereas the Nano changes the dynamic altogether. The price AND size/weight vs capacity will draw in that previously alienated market who want a fully functional player but not their entire library in their pocket. Bravo Apple!
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Because you notice the gestalt effect of all the little features that you don't notice individually.
Music worth listening to? Live organ donor transplants? Politicians that tell the truth? Apple users who aren't demented little toads?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That interview just underlines apple's focus isn't on The Next Big Thing, or technological progress, it's something much more attractive to consumers - elegant design.
They've been very lucky, releasing highly polished articles at just the time when consumers, spoiled by choice, are beginning to use quality of a design as a differentiator betweem almost equal rival products.
Sometimes they're monomaniacal obsession with elegance causes them to make decisions that seem idiotic from our technical viewpoint (you can't get to the battery on an iPod because they wanted it to look "perfect" with no nasty access doors...) but the public doesn't care.
Design is the new black.
The Mini was a top seller right up until Apple replaced it with the nano.
I'm pretty impressed with that move, myself. Discontinuing a very successful product just because you have a better one takes more guts than most companies have.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Attention to detail has been Apple's hallmark on hardware for quite some time now. Anyone who owns a Powerbook, for example will have noticed the ports on the right hand side are arranged in size order, and there are USB ports on both sides. They're just little touches, but they mean a lot in everyday usage. Apple brought the iPod to the mp3 player market, and its design & interface have managed to win out over technically superior players time and time again. The nano is neccessary for Apple to stay one step ahead on having this cool factor that other vendors strive for.
Business Voyeur
Yep. You are paying extra 'cause it's white and it's an iPod. And also for that genuine "new apple smell". Them mind-bending chemicals they stuff in there to make your purchase seem totally justified and explainable don't come cheap :)
That said, it doesn't play windows media audio files. So it's doing a damned fine thing by trying to get people NOT to use that shitty format. It's also the only player on the market that legally allows you to play files from the worlds most popular online music store. It also has one of the best audio-quality ratings of any handheld device (beating even some large hi-fi's). It's also not made by creative, who despite making the worlds best soundcards make the worlds worst quality players.
But yeah, who needs extreme over-engineered precision quality audio-heaven. After all, these are people that will accept and PAY good money to rent 128k WMA files. They deserve shit.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Already there are several comments about how "Brand X" player is cheaper, or "Brand Y" player has more features, or "Brand Z" has more capacity. What nobody will accept is that no other player has the same _combination_. Anyone can make a big player cheaply. Or a small player with 128MB of flash. Only this has the capacity, size, and usability combination. If you don't value that, that's fine, but many people are willing to pay for quality.
I drive a Corolla, my Grandma has a Jaguar S-Type (I think thats the model). They are roughly the same size, they serve exactly the same purpose. Now granted the Jag has better performance, but you are paying a lot for image. Then again people complain about fancy cars, so you can't please everyone no matter what.
I really don't get why everyone is saying the nano is too pricey. A 4GB flashdrive goes for $250-300 on Froogle (I'm sure there's some geekier place to check, but whatever). So basically with the nano you pay for the flash memory, and get the music part free. I also see a lot of complaining that the nano is worse than the mini because it doesn't have the same GB/$ ratio. I know it's unnerdy and wrong, but I would rather have the nano, which I can wear on a lanyard, and the durability of the flash over the hard drive. I'm seriously thinking of selling my 3G 20GB and picking one of these up.
He's already calling the Nano his precious. Obviously the dual personality displayed by Gollum/Smeagol is beginning as well. "Tricksy little Ballmerses stoles our interfaces!!"
After being an iPod user for several years, I took everything that the iPod offered for granted. After purchasing something different (iAudio U2 1GB) for my exercizing needs, the drawbacks became clear.. let me list what I found so far.
Accessories. This is a key point for me. iPods, being the most popular MP3 device, has a TON of addons, accessories, and etc for it. It gives you a ton of options later on, should you decide to add something. Meanwhile, I STILL haven't been able to find a damn belt clip for the iAudio U2. You know, something to hold it on my waist. Yes, it's that bad if it's not an iPod.
User Interface. Most people take it for granted, but UI of iPods are superior to anything I've used. It's simple, clear, and easy to use, which by far appeals to the mass than something complicated. My iAudio U2 isn't that bad, but I miss my iPod interface. Easy and simple, with no complicated controls. I looked through my friend's iRiver 799 manual the other day, and it was horrible. You had to memorize combos to access certain features. Ugh. And the clickwheel is a godsend. Simple things like a joystick on the iAudio U2 doesn't compare at all.
iTunes. Very important. With this, you can easily buy songs off the music store and sync them to your iPod. And sync is amazing. Plug in your iPod, let it automatically sync, and you're good to go. My iAudio U2 requires you to drag and drop. That's pretty easy too, but I like the iTunes method better. And don't forget other iTunes features, such as Podcasts.
Form factor. Face it. People do care about how a device looks and feels. It doesn't matter if a device has all the features in the world, if it's ugly as sin and big as a brick. Things such as a voice recorder and line in port are useless and only make the device bigger and bulkier. How many people would actually make use of those features? I haven't used it once on my iAudio. Granted, I like the FM radio, but that depends on people's taste. I'm not complaining about the size of the iAudio U2, but iPods are generally smaller than anything else on the market today (And do look better).
Well, that's all I can think of by now. But if you think that people are buying iPods because of the brand name, you're dead wrong.
(Oh yeah, the Nano comes in black too)
I'm in the same boat as you. After the nano came out I'm considering one for the first time ever. So I borrowed my flatmate's to see how well it does with Linux/Gnome/Rhythmbox.
Flawlessly.
As soon as I plugged it in, an ipod shaped icon showed up on the desktop through which I could browse the thing. You can see everything on the ipod just through browing with Nautilus, or whatever your file browser is, but the songs are in some non-sensical folder structure. It's easier to use Rhythmbox. So I Open up Rhythmbox and click on the Ipod icon that had just showed up in the sources list and was able to browse the songs. Copied some songs from the Ipod to my computer by just dragging the song from Rhythmbox to my desktop, which I believe you can't do in itunes.
This was with Gnome 2.12, Rhythmbox 0.9, Ubuntu Breezy.
* Mini: "This thing is barely smaller than a regular iPod, costs almost the same, and still has a hard drive so I can't go jogging with it."
* Shuffle: "Great, so you shrunk it down and removed the harddrive, but no screen? How am I supposed to use this thing?"
* Nano: "Ah, perfect. Small enough to fit just about anywhere. Full screen and standard interface. And no harddrive!"
I wouldn't be surprised that Apple knew of the complaints they would get with the Mini and Shuffle even before their launches, but decided that those were the best that could be implemented at the manufacturing costs they were willing to have. It was all just stepping stones to get to the goal they had preset: Small, fully functional, flash. In short, Nano.
Actaully, yes it probably is worth it - as the commoditization of nearly every manufactured product makes the "race to the bottom" in regards to price harder and harder. I'm guessing Apple's philosophy is to make very high-quality and well-designed products (or at least the appearance of this), so people are willing to pay more.
(Which, personally, is a very good idea, imho. I know I'm personally getting tired of the now-broken crap I bought because of "wow - look how cheap this is".
My philosophy now-that-I'm-all-grown-up is: wait until I find something I really want, and then buy the best quality product I can.)
Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
Several: Iiiiiiiiiiiiive.
Bedevere: Oooohooohooooo!
Launcelot: No no, aauuuugggh, at the back of the throat: aauuuugghhh.
Bedevere: No, no, no, oooooooooooh in surprise and alarm.
Launcelot: Oh, you mean a sort of AAAUUUGGHH?
Oooh! OH NO! It's the legendry black beast of AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUGH!!
I find it misleading to claim Microsoft has "protected" us from an Apple monopoly, as Microsoft has never been a hardware company, and the entire idea of "commodity hardware" is derived solely from the availability of PC clones and not under Microsoft's control. IBM, not Microsoft, had a stranglehold on the PC market until Compaq reverse engineered the PC BIOS and produced a clone. Had IBM's lawsuit been successful, we probably would have lived with $10K computers for years in a stagnating market, Microsoft or no. It would have been an ugly battle until IBM was finally broken apart. Or until Apple grudgingly accepted low-cost Apple clones and took over the market. See how fun pure speculation can be?
As a counterpoint, you can imagine a world in which Microsoft did not have a virtual monopoly on office productivity applications and indeed on the entire chain down to the operating system, and had been forced to play nice with others. Perhaps the lock-in precluded some incredible innovation of the software side which our counterparts in the alternate universe simply could not imagine living without. Oh, I'm speculating again. It must be contagious.
So in a world of Apple, we have 80% Apple, 10% Creative, and 10% other.
To go with this, we'd also have:
Spare, clean OSes that don't try to do everything and be mediocre
(Compare to the MP3 players that have FM tuners, replaceable batteries, and voice recorders)
Good software on said OSes
(Compare to iTunes to all the other jukeboxes)
Price competition forcing the #2 manufacturer to actually LOSE money to compete
(Compare the fact that because Apple is cutting prices to maintain dominance, Creative is losing money to 'keep up')
So if Apple had captured the OS market, we'd be seeing:
Well designed OSes (like the iPods)
Fast adoption of new technology (The iPod was the first with the 1.8" hd when everyone else was using 3.5" and 2.5" drive, the first to use CF drives when everyone else was using flash, and now the first to use flash when everyone else has adopted CF. The iPod was also first to use a fast serial connection.)
Computers people LOVE to use (like the iPods)
Wait... all those things are true NOW in Apple computers.
So the only difference is, with 80% dominance, is that 80% of the populace would be:
Happy
Using a well designed OS
Using new technology
Instead of only 5% of the population.
GPL Deconstructed
I have not posted in eons. But parent comment takes the cake and I had to respond. Funny how trollish comments get rated as Insightful. The statement is a complete slander. The only complaint raised is "commodity hardware".
Do you have any other points on which you can compare Apple and Microsoft.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, Steve Jobs would have given up his reality distortion and would be a corporate suit? Forget the products, have you seen the passion with which the man introduces the products. If Apple was 80%, and Microsoft 20%, would anyone have come to watch Bill Gates introduce Windows Vista? The point being...despite market share Steve would have had passion for usability, and bill for unethical practices.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, the prices would be 10,000 per machine? Would not have Linux have much better opportunity in such times? After all, Linux is trying to fight a $300 operating system and could be winning with some more effort. With a $5000 operating system, and another $5000 for hardware, Linux would make sure Apple could not remain a monopoly.
Do you think if Apple was a monopoly, it would not innovate? With limited R&D funds, Apple is able to develop such cool technology. Give them twice the money, give them their lost 10 years and they would have had an operating system of circa 2010 NOW. Why? Because for all the market leadership Microsoft has, they do not have imagination. They know how to copy, not how to be creative.
I can go on, but I wonder. Why is the parent comment insightful?
You really never have held a managerial position, or considered this at all.
Just because this is superior is no reason to replace a hugely successful product. Most, heck pretty much all, companies would say "Sure, go ahead, WORK on the next gen one, and we'll look to think about releasing it when the current hot model starts to loose some sales fizz".
Most companies would never do this. Why would you? Why would you invest all the money to tool up and build these things on mass while you've got a product you spent heaps of money on out there recouping its development costs and reaping a tidy profit? Why would you? You wait until you can see you can make more money with the new product.
Now... this is where Apple is being different... they are looking at the iPod Nano and thinking "You know what, this is going to be even bigger than the iPod and the Mini, probably combined. It's just too sweet a thing to wait on... let's go for it, let's release it now"
I'm no Mac fanboy by any stretch, don't own any Apple hardware at all, but I can see this as a pretty bold move... and one that will pay handsomly.
Bring out this before the competition has really had a chance to combat the mini... that's pretty darn smart.
DRM, lack of WMA compatiblity, ITMS files can't play on other players, "this here no name plastic player from China is cheaper and plays Ogg and... yadda yadda yadda".
OK, sit down, shut up and pay attention.
The overwhelming majority of people who buy iPods and KEEP buying iPods don't care a fat rat's ass about ANY OF THAT. Not one little bit do they care.
They want something that simply works. They don't care about ITMS DRM. They DO care about the fact that they can get music they want right now for a modest sum. They know they'll get a quality file.
They buy iPods because the interface is simple and it works well.
They buy iPods because they are small, sturdy and hold an amzing amount of music.
The overwhelming majority of the buying public is who Apple is targetting the iPod line to.
Not you smelly Linux hippies with your handmade machines and having to config it. And then you have to write some shell scripts. Update your RPMs. You have to partition your drives. And patch your kernel. Compile your binaries. Check your version dependencies. Probably do that once or twice.
Just to install an MP3 player.(and after all that, you STILL don't have more friends!)
You are not the consumer Apple cares about.
You have never been the consumer Apple cares abou.
You will never be the consumer Apple cares about.
Get over yourself and welcome your new, Jonathan Ive designed overlords!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
Yeah, a lot of mac users got really defensive during those dark days. It was bad enough that our platform was suffering so badly in the marketplace, but it went further than that. We took a lot of grief from windows users. It was almost a sort of disdain. Oh, you use one of those mac things. I see. Not to mention that it got very difficult to use a mac at work or whatever, everyone wanted you just to shut up and use windows.
To be honest, I never understood that. It's not like I was stuck using a mac because I couldn't afford or figure out a PC. I wasn't doing it because I was trying to rebel against The Man. And so I think us mac fans just chalked it up to jealousy. You stupid PC users pretend that MS is so great, but in reality it tears you up inside knowing that that huge company gets out-programmed and out-designed by tiny little Apple. That's probably not the case, but that's just sort of what we told ourselves.
And it was really annoying, because, quite frankly, the mac experience was so much better. Windows had its benefits in terms of cost and software availability, but the MacOS was about a zillion times more pleasant to use. When I tried to convince someone to consider buying a mac, I wasn't doing it for financial gain, or to get them to join the "apple cult". I was doing it because I truly felt that they'd have a better experience with it, and maybe just be a little happier.
But it really is great to see Apple's attention to detail take off with the general public. I guess even a simplified computer is still a bit complex and daunting to someone not technically inclined, but an mp3 player is straightforwards enough that you can really wrap your head around it, and appreciate the little things.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.