Front Row is sweet.

It doesn't make much sense to put it on a laptop, but who cares.



Sweet.

11.06.05 Update: 10.4.3 broke the Front Row hack, but here's how to fix it.

iPod many.

It's about time I weighed in on the recent iPod updates, because I'm sure you were all wondering what I thought.

First of all, as a connoisseur of iPods, and a big fan of the iPod mini, I think Apple made a big mistake replacing it with the iPod nano. The mini was the perfect size, shape and construction, while the nano is only small and flash-based. While the mini was on a course to hold 10gb of storage by mid-2006 (based on Hitachi's announcement that a 10gb version of the 4 & 6gb drives used in the mini was in the works), the nano features less capacity than its mini counterparts at the same pricepoints.

The nano's flash memory is superior to the hard drive found in the mini, simply because it has no moving internal parts. You may remember my mini rant (a year ago today, in fact), in which I explained why a flash-based iPod would be better suited for rigorous activity, like exercising, and that I was disappointed that the mini did not have this type of storage. Still, I liked the mini, and I ended up buying two, a silver one for me, and a blue one for Sonja. I also bought two of the $29 mini armbands.

Over time, I grew to like my mini more and more, and found myself using my full-size "classic" 40gb iPod less and less, because the mini's size was just right, and made the larger iPod feel huge. My mini fits snugly into the ashtray of my car, where my custom iPod hardwire connector hides, and I can even close the ashtray's cover and leave the mini charging inside, for a completely stock appearance. The larger iPod can rest sideways in the ashtray, but there's no hope of it closing. The mini also fits comfortably in any pocket (except the "nano pocket," as Steve Jobs demonstrated at the unveiling of the nano), and never feels bulky, even when it shares the pocket with my cell phone.

I have said on more than one occasion that when the iPod mini eventually holds 20gb, it would be the hands-down, best mp3 player on the market. It was the perfect size, shape and capacity. It was made out of a much more durable material (one-piece anodized aluminum) versus the classic iPod (plastic front, steel back), and as such is less prone to scratches and scuffs. Plus, it came in colors, albeit only five (and later only four), but enough to differentiate your iPod mini from someone else's.

The iPod mini was on its way to becoming an even better player, so what did Apple do? They killed it, of course, in what seems to me to be a big mistake. Sure, being the number one maker of digital audio players (DAPs) requires innovation and a certain amount of risk to keep your product at the forefront, but replacing the mini with a smaller, less durable player was the wrong move.

In my eyes, the only advantage the nano has over the mini is the flash-based memory. Not its size, not its color screen, not its new features. The screen and new software (screen lock, photo playback, etc.) would have eventually been adapted to the mini, so they are a moot point. The nano's size is surely small, but how small is too small? And isn't that what the shuffle was for?

I have never been a shuffle fan. I prefer visual feedback to go along with what I'm listening to, and my musical tastes demand lots of storage, because a lot of what I listen to are live concert recordings which don't play well with shuffling. In fact, in the 3 years since I got my first iPod, I've probably used the "shuffle songs" feature less than 5 times. Having said that, however, I can appreciate the draw of the shuffle. It's small and incredibly light, and if you don't mind not knowing what song is coming up next, then the shuffle is ideal for you.

So why create the nano? Why decrease the capacity of your mid-sized player without lowering its price? And why construct it out of less durable materials, when its apparent purpose is to be used in more physically-demanding activities? Some might argue that it's not solely designed for exercising, which I can agree to, but if that's not one of its primary intentions, why bother with flash memory? I regularly exercise with my iPod mini snugly secured in its armband, and I can report that I have never had it skip or stutter. Am I shaking it to a slow death by using it on a treadmill? Maybe. Only time will tell.

And that brings me to the nano's size. As I mentioned above, the mini was perfect. Not too big, and not too small. The mini could hide behind a business card, yet was nicely weighted and felt substantial, while the nano can hide behind a #2 pencil (though only when viewed from the side, which is not how you use the player), and feels too light. So light that it gives you the impression that it's fragile and delicate, unlike the mini.

Then again, the nano apparently is fragile and delicate. If you haven't seen one in person, I encourage you to pick up a demo unit at a local store. The nano was unveiled only weeks ago, and has been in stores even less time, yet the demo units have accumulated what looks like years of abuse in the form of scuffed screens and scratched plastic fascia. Granted, those units are being handled a lot more in one day than an ordinary nano, but some nano customers have recently filed a class action lawsuit against Apple, calling nanos defective because they're so prone to damage during typical use. Anyway, that topic has been beat to death already, so there's no point expanding on it. I will say, though, that you can bet the iPod nano will not be as strong a seller as the iPod mini, thanks to the negative feedback regarding the scratches, unless Apple uses a more resilient material in their next production run, though doing that would basically admit that the first units were defective from the start, making Apple liable for their replacement.

Back to the nano's construction. Like its bigger brother, the nano has a plastic front and a metal back. Anyone who has owned an iPod knows that unless you take your new toy directly from its packaging and insert it into a protective case, that shiny metal back will soon show lots of wear. The mini's anodized aluminum case is not scratch-proof, but it is a lot more scratch-resistant than that of the iPod or iPod nano. And while you won't forget that an iPod mini is in your jeans pocket, the nano seems like if it's in the wrong place when you sit down, it would bend in half like a stick of gum. (This is, of course, an exaggeration on my part, but it doesn't seem impossible.)

But back to the nano's size for just a moment: If the current nano holds a mere 2gb or 4gb of music (and even less when formatted), what happens a year from now when people are saying the nano needs to be updated with more capacity? Won't the nano have to physically grow to meet the demand for more capacity? It wouldn't be long before the nano was approaching the size of the now-defunct mini, negating the nano's "impossibly small" factor. Of course, the technology may exist at that time to fit larger-capacity memory cards inside without increasing the unit's overall size, especially if perpendicular storage drives are in production, but where would Apple draw the line between the capacity of the nano versus the regular iPod? And if perpendicular storage becomes a production reality in the near future, what does that mean for the shuffle? Would people want multiple gigabytes of random music on their shuffle?

Anyway, as a form of protest, today I went out and bought this:



One of the last remaining iPod minis for sale in the country, found at a place you would not normally expect to sell DAPs, which is probably why they still had a few left (1 silver, 3 blues, 1 pink), and only the 4gb models. (At last check, some Wal Marts still have iPod mini with HP branding, but who wants one of those?) This one is for my sister, who wanted an iPod to use while jogging or on a treadmill, and did not want a nano. This mini is the result of 4 days of combing Kansas City, Overland Park and Olathe, Kansas, and West Des Moines, Iowa, only to find it 20 blocks from my house. So, happy early birthday, Meg.

That's my rant on the iPod nano. At first, I wanted one, just because they were the Next Big Thing, but now I realize that they are inferior to the player they replaced. Will I eventually own one, even though I am badmouthing it now? If past performance is any indicator of future results, then all signs point to yes, but Apple will first have to lower the price and raise the capacity to (at least) where the mini was when it was killed.

As a sidenote, I should mention that lately, my iPod usage swings back and forth between my big and little iPods. I use the mini exclusively when I work out at the company gym, but mostly use the classic iPod in my office, where I have a dock plugged in to a set of Klipsch Ultra Pro 2.0 speakers on my desk. (Excellent speakers, by the way.) I should post a picture of my office one of these days.

In my car, I have a custom harness from Enfig, which is basically a cable with an iPod-compatible dock connector at one end and a BLITZsafe adaptor at the other that links the iPod to the car stereo and charges it as well. I'll post a picture of it, someday, too.

That's enough for tonight. You can expect my thoughts of the new iPod with video within a few weeks, because yes, I am going to get one. Anyone want to buy a 5gb first-generation iPod, 20gb second-gen, or 40gb third-gen?