Uniea takes a gamble on iPod nano fatty, preemptively makes case for it
Which is why it's so weird that Uniea would go out on a limb and produce a hard leather case "for new iPod" (which we've been affectionately referring to as the nano fatty). Did they really just tip Apple's hand? Probably not. If any accessories-maker WAS going to get the new iPod early, we doubt it'd be some unknown company like Uniea. Besides, a few grand in costs for cheap Chinese accessories production secured them all kinds of PR-marveling at their leak-or-gamble product (including this here post on Engadget). Well, we're calling this one a gamble, not a leak, so there you go.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]
Filed under: Portable Audio, Portable Video
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Justin B @ Sep 1st 2007 2:11PM
Thank you for calling it a gamble and not a leak. It's absurd how everyone is getting depressed over this supposed "fat pod".
appleman @ Sep 1st 2007 2:13PM
I am surprised there aren't more iPhone electronics. At least for the physical size, they had 6 months of lead time to make something. All they should have to do is finetune the electronics part once the iPhone came out. I am disappointed in Griffin for not having an iTrip for the iPhone by now.
bl0nde @ Sep 1st 2007 3:03PM
If Jonathan Ive really did design a fatty nano, they should rectroactively rescind all his design awards. Blergh. Having said that, I do think it's a lot more likely that this no-name accessory maker is just trying to siphon off some publicity for themselves from the new iPod rigamarole. And on that count, they've certainly succeeded. How many of you had heard of Uniea before this?
Melenor @ Sep 1st 2007 3:04PM
I am intrigued - how would they even begin manufacturing these without exact size/width/height numbers? Not to mention that (confirmed by Apple or not) the "fatty" is still pure speculation until Wednesday?
Jim @ Sep 1st 2007 3:06PM
Why must you insist it is a nano? Why can this not be the new basic ipod? Think ipod but smaller.
Mindfield @ Sep 1st 2007 6:44PM
Because that would be a humongous step backwards for Apple. A) The thing is mind-scramblingly hideous. B) It couldn't have a hard drive at that size, thus storage would be significantly limited compared to existing 5/5.5g iPods, which won't sit well with most iPod Video users, who doubtless bought them as much for the storage space as the video capability. C) The screen looks smaller, which would similarly make no sense for a 6g Video device. D) UGLY! I'm far more inclined to believe the wide touchscreen+WiFi rumours, because it makes much more sense in the grand evolutionary scheme of the iPod.
I am likewise curious how Uniea could possibly design a case for a device they couldn't possibly have even seen yet, other than the speculative pictures we've all seen. Unless they somehow wheedled dimensions out of someone at Apple, which is unlikely. I think they did those on spec -- I can't imagine they've mass produced any in preparation for their release. That would be an absurd waste of money.
Hawkman @ Sep 1st 2007 3:11PM
Everyone is so distressed over this rumour that noone actually thinks about how ridiculous it all is:
- This case does not appear on uniea.com.
- Google doesn't throw up a press release about it.
- The original graphic has the bottom right corner missing, suggesting it's from the website not promo material - but it's of too low quality to be from uniea.com; also see first point!
- Apple don't give pre-release stuff to little-known third party case makers.
So just where did iLounge get this info? They don't mention a source at all.
Not only that, the whole fat nano thing is fishy - the original Engadget post commented on the likely fake nature of the first picture, noting how it was a shot from a Photoshop document! Not to mention how ugly this thing is - do you really think Apple would release this crap? It's not the first time Apple Legal have issued a take-down notice for a non-product.
It's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that we'll see a fat nano, but it'll be coincidence. Think about it logically - these rumours are just too full of holes.
Hawkman @ Sep 1st 2007 3:37PM
PS. Credit for this being the only such article I've seen today to express scepticism.
dfsdfsfsf @ Sep 1st 2007 3:29PM
Yay, I just got my check today. I can't wait for Apple to come out with their new innovative product. I for one can't wait to spend money on a new ipod. Go apple!!! yay!!!
404error @ Sep 1st 2007 3:32PM
An example of not so subtle trolling.
Gabriel @ Sep 1st 2007 3:40PM
this "fat ipod" is probably not the new nano...i'm pretty sure its the new video ipod.
Trace The Hedgehog @ Sep 1st 2007 3:58PM
That's what I'm saying. The new nano would probable be 1cm wide and 22mm tall =3
JTM @ Sep 1st 2007 3:42PM
Ipods are made in China. How hard would it be for someone who actually works in the ipod factory to get the exact dimensions?
ark_v2 @ Sep 1st 2007 3:52PM
Is that for Zen? he...wait...:)
Josh @ Sep 1st 2007 4:00PM
I'm going to have to agree with all of those expressing skepticism - this new 'iPod' is way to ugly. I want a new one (i still love my 3g but it is on the outs finally) but i'm pulling for a full screen. I can wait.
andrew harrison @ Sep 1st 2007 5:47PM
i always though Apple did provide tech specs to, at least, some of the bigger accessory companies. Griffin usually have something released alongside or very shortly after a new iPod is released.
In fact, it'd be a bit silly not to. It'd mean that there would be no accessories at all for a brand new product. If the stores in Australia are anything to go by, I know that for every iPod they sell, they also sell about 50% of the iPod cost in accessories [obviously that's averaged, not literal]
craig @ Sep 1st 2007 5:55PM
If they didn't, then how did all the iPhone accessories become available on launch day?
Typical Engadget nonsense.
meester anderson @ Sep 1st 2007 8:58PM
before u go ripping engadget, u might want to check your facts. apple was forced to disclose the iphone and its specs 6 months before release because that was when the phone had to pass through the FCC for approval, at which time data would have become available anyways so apple decided to unveil it in much more style than the FCC would have. Ipods however, aren't approved by the FCC so apple keeps them secret until launch day, hence why iphone accessories are available on launch day, but ipod accesories aren't
Pavan @ Sep 1st 2007 9:38PM
Not to nitpick but the iPod does have to be approved by the FCC, hence the statement in its packaging that says
This device complies with Part 15 of the FCC Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions:
(1) This device may not cause harmful interference, and
(2) This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
andrew harrison @ Sep 1st 2007 9:43PM
don't forget the big FCC logo stamped on the back of the iPod itself.
Omar @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:43AM
I don't mean to rain on everyone's parade here, but I noticed something about the picture: if you look at the bottom of the case, you'll notice two "feet.
" There are two possibilities here: 1) the company thought they could make a case that would allow this new iPod to stand up, or 2) the space between these feet is actually empty, giving space for the rest of the device to protrude from the bottom. If you go with option 2, this is a case for the regular iPod nano, and not some speculative device. Now, of course, why the company decided to make a case design that doesn't cover the whole thing is beyond me, but who am I to question marketing strategies?
Omar @ Sep 2nd 2007 10:49AM
Oh sorry: I said iPod nano in the post above, but the design much more closely resembles that of a regular iPod, albeit with the rear end still protruding from the bottom. Perhaps the company is trying to promote some kind of "rears exposed" campaign...oh there I go, questioning marketing strategy.
sinenomen @ Sep 2nd 2007 1:34PM
How do they even know what dimensions to make it?