Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Inside the Third Gen iPod Nano

Posted by Zonk on from the peek-under-the-hood dept.

ahess247 writes "When the leaked photos of the 3rd-gen iPod nano first hit the Web it quickly took the nickname 'little fatty,' but fat could be better used to describe Apple's profits on the project. BusinessWeek reports that a teardown analysis by iSuppli finds that it costs Apple only $58.85 to build the 4-gig iPod nano, and $82.85 for the 8GB version. The analysis also reveals some of Apple's suppliers, about which it is usually very tight-lipped. Synaptics is back as the supplier of the click-wheel technology, beating out Cypress Semiconductor which had it previously. Also of note: The same Samsung CPU chip that powers the video and audio in the nano is being used in the iPod Classic as well."

3 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Call me back... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    iSuppli is actually generally pretty bad at figuring out what the pieces cost too if any of the parts are even the least bit exotic. It also doesn't include packaging costs (We're probably talking whole percentage points in the costs for packaging), and assembly, which isn't trivially cheap on tiny devices as it may be for larger electronics. Their numbers are even less relevant than you'd think.

  2. Re:maybe by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was really surprised when they didn't bump the capacity of the iPod Nano. Some of their competitors are already making 16GB devices in a similar form factor to the Nano. If I'd been in their position, I'd have jumped to 24GB, making it an ideal replacement for a 3G iPod (same features, smaller form factor, no moving parts). Adding video support seems a bit misguided; the Nano seems to be aimed more at the market segment that don't care about video (smallest screen of any iPod, not enough storage space to be useful as video player plugged into a dock). These number just confuse me more. It seems like they could have added two more 8GB RAM chips and still been making a decent profit, so I wonder why they didn't.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  3. Re:I have one. by graffix_jones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How hard is it to code something like coverflow?


    This is a little tidbit of info, that I thought some of you might find interesting. Coverflow was originally coded by a chap with the username of 'Catfish' over at the Ars Technica Macintoshian Achaia forums, as a little project to play around with OpenGL. It was basically a standalone application that allowed you to browse your music collection with visual album covers, and would then launch iTunes and play that album (no individual song choices back then). People loved it, because once again it felt like you were thumbing through your stacks of CD's (or Vinyl). Development was brisk at times, and at times it seemed like nothing was happening, but the concept was awesome.

    Then 'Catfish' just up and disappeared for a couple of months, and when iTunes with 'Coverflow' integration was released, he returned amid astonished guffaws from the rest of us.

    Not only did Apple love the concept, they bought the name to it as well.

    With the amount of Coverflow integration going into Apple's products, I really hope that he was well compensated for his little learning experience.

    That's all I got.