Hands-on with Hama's iPod nano 4G case at IFA

Our spicy, siesta loving friends over at Engadget Spanish just nabbed a hands-on with Hama's "iPod nano 4G" case on the floor of IFA. The tip came in anonymously about an hour ago and sure enough, there it is, buried in a mountain of iPod accessories and sharing the same smooth arc of the Kevin Rose nano -- as it will from henceforth be known. Hit the read link for all the pics, or check a couple more after the break.

[Cwisfa @ Sep 1st 2008 7:33AM]

I don't know if it's just me, but the new Nano looks terrible.

[Saad Rabia @ Sep 1st 2008 9:19AM]

That curved screen assures everyone that a light source is going to glow, shine and reflect into your eyes wherever you turn that thing to.

[fanman @ Sep 1st 2008 9:31AM]

Wait till you see it in the wild. Everybody said the last nano looked terrible until they actually saw it.

[Anthony @ Sep 1st 2008 9:42AM]

@fanman
The new nano still looks horrible IRL

[Anthony @ Sep 1st 2008 9:43AM]

"the new nano" being the 3rd gen (current) one

[fanman @ Sep 1st 2008 9:53AM]

I think it looks great. Ridiculously thin and otherwise just like a miniature version of the iPod classic. It's no wider than a credit card and only slightly thicker :P

But meh, this is moslty down to personal taste.

[Mobius_1 @ Sep 1st 2008 9:59AM]

I hope they don't touch the Classic, besides the price (and/or capacity and/or speed) since I might get one...

As for this "next" Nano, meh, but this seems right now to be a mistake

[Dave @ Sep 1st 2008 12:02PM]

Seems like a pretty huge Nano, doesn't it? Doesn't it look to have similar dimensions to the old iPod Mini?

[Tinu @ Sep 1st 2008 12:09PM]

If Apple had done the following:

1) Keep the size and shape of the current nano
2) Put a touchscreen on the entire interface (instead of the current half screen half wheel).

That would have been something very cool.

[Gabriel @ Sep 1st 2008 12:19PM]

I agree! It´s ugly!! boo!

[Abuzar Baloach @ Sep 1st 2008 12:22PM]

If you're about to get the classic, I would just get a Zune.

[James @ Sep 6th 2008 5:51AM]

What I don't understand is why Apple would make a fourth generation Nano which is larger than it's previous iteration. Every single generation of iPod has gone through the 'brighter screen, smaller size' transformation, so why shouldn't this one?

[Carl Vitullo @ Sep 1st 2008 3:25PM]

I think because at a certain point, following that trend, it would just become a shuffle with a little tiny (but very bright) screen.
Like the Zen Stone, but with a good screen.

[sam @ Sep 8th 2008 9:29AM]

yes you're right...

[Giroro @ Sep 2nd 2008 9:59PM]

Curvy iPod = Ugly

[GiF @ Nov 23rd 2008 4:05PM]

As for reflection or glare, NO
IT DOES NOT REFLECT
The only way to really get a glare on it is to turn it at a very awkward angle that is not possible for human beings!
And I must say, it is very beautiful!

[Juxtah @ Sep 1st 2008 7:33AM]

This iPod looks even worse then the ones out at the moment! I know it's just a case, but if all the renders and images which have been released are anything to go by - eughh.

[Jakob @ Sep 1st 2008 7:36AM]

This thing is huge, but I don't want to say it looks ugly (I thought about the fattie too - and god I was wrong)

[L @ Sep 1st 2008 7:44AM]

Same thought - that doesn't really look "nano" to me at all...

[Noodles2k @ Sep 1st 2008 8:07AM]

yeah, it's phone sized... gee I wonder why would Apple make something phone sized?? ;-)

[CP @ Sep 2nd 2008 12:41PM]

How can you say it's huge... it's a perfect size.... i mean, it fits in your palm perfectly, look at the photo, the height of the thing is the same as the width of a man's hand..... that's not huge. Do yourself a favour... check you palm.

[GiF @ Sep 27th 2008 11:39AM]

It just looks huge because of the angle of the camera and the case, I just got one and...
Remember the old 2g? The one with the tiny screen? This is that with a huge screen and cool capabilities
And it's even thinner, like so thin it might slip out of your hand.

[Adderz @ Sep 1st 2008 7:39AM]

Ok there is just no bloody way this is will be the new Nano. Just not on. End of story.

Apple make sure they achieve timeless designs, they dont get their inspiration from Chinese MP4/5/6/7 makers.

[Homeboy @ Sep 1st 2008 7:54AM]

Can't you read?? Who said this is the new Nano. It's a just a case for crying out loud.

[belden @ Sep 1st 2008 9:01AM]

@Homeboy

Well, the article said it numerous times as well as the second picture which had the words iPod nano 4G printed on the case.

[tekdemon @ Sep 1st 2008 9:21AM]

It's a current gen Nano sitting in a next-gen case guys...that's why the case doesn't actually fit you know.

[Adderz @ Sep 1st 2008 10:40AM]

@Homeboy.

Of course i know this is a bloody case. What do you think this case FITS??

The sloped screen design will not be the new Nano. THATS what i meant jeez.

[Kamokazi @ Sep 1st 2008 11:44AM]

@Adderz

That's what everyone said about the current Nano 'Fatty' design too before it launched. I don't care for Apple at all, and I even stuck up for them, claiming such a lame design was beneath them.

I was wrong.

[mike @ Sep 1st 2008 12:45PM]

@ Kamokazi
.. but the current one is fucking ugly also

[pete @ Sep 1st 2008 7:41AM]

something fishy here...

or is it just that Apple might have a 4g nano that stinks?

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 7:42AM]

My prediction: internal wifi antenna.

[WS @ Sep 1st 2008 7:59AM]

Larger capacity too. It's funny that people are just bitching about the look, and expecting nothing new, feature wise...

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 8:38AM]

My further predictions:
1. will function as an iTunes library access point.
2. will have remote functioning like the Remote app for the iPhone OS.

[Juxtah @ Sep 1st 2008 9:02AM]

The new nano will not have wifi, the controls are not suited to web browsing nor is the screen big enough. It's a new design, there may be larger capacities and some slightly more powerful hardware to allow for future software/firmware upgrades. But that will be it, why are you expecting something revolutionary, it still doesn't even have an FM radio. This is Apple and the last 3 generations of Nano have remained largely the same feature wise and all each generation does is update looks, hardware and may add slightly more space.

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 10:19AM]

The only reason I feel confident about the new Nano having wifi (and it's a low risk prediction on my part, obviously) is that it was just re-designed around a completely different conceptualization: to make it smaller and easier to put in your pocket. The minute I saw the alleged new design, it seemed to me that the only reason to make it so long is to accomodate a wifi antenna.

I'm no Apple update cycle expert, nor do I want to be, but my feeling is that Apple is updating the iPod Touch and the Nano at the same time for a reason. If I were Apple and just updated the iPhone by opening it up to 3rd party software development, and I were to want to update the Touch, I would turn it into a zone controller / iTunes access point / PMP. I would write only one app for the App store called "Remote" and see what kind of user feedback it generated, such as, "This is awesome!" or "It's the best remote for Apple TV." I would address the complaint that there's no product differentiation between the iPhone and the Touch by differentiating the products, e.g., by adding IR to the Touch instead of adding GPS for no good reason. I would make it even easier to set up a home iTunes network by allowing every wifi-enabled iPod to receive streaming audio and video content from the iTunes library. I would tip off accessory makers that the iPod line needs an HDMI compatible video dock, and that it can cost several hundred dollars. And I would add wifi to the Nano, a widescreen aspect, and remote functions.

Like I said, it's a low risk prediction. What do I care if people want to set up an XBox home network, an Apple home network, or just buy a PS3 and have a "network" on one TV. My Squeezeboxes are doing great, and I'm holding out on video until someone puts something together that makes some sense.

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 10:25AM]

Oh, and I would add just one light sensor to the Touch, to make it more useful in home theater, low lighting types of conditions.

[Juxtah @ Sep 1st 2008 10:36AM]

Apple will not implement WiFi in the new Nano for two reasons:

It would eat into the sales of the iPod Touch
It would increase the price too well over what it is now

If the nano comes in with WiFi, just as much storage capacity, a large enough screen to watch movies comfortably whats the point of the Touch which would be much more expensive? Implementing WiFi in the Nano would also increase the price by 10-20% (30%+ most likely as this is Apple) it would put it way out of the range of the players it is currently competing with (Sansa, iRiver, Cowon, Samsung etc.) Apple already costs more then it's rivals but if it increased the price much more, people would go elsewhere for small flash based mp3/mp4 players.

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 11:15AM]

@Juxtah: I'm not saying I disagree with your points individually. I just think it's what they're doing.

My thought about the difference between Nano and Touch: the OS. The Touch is as you mention a very capable internet device, and its large touchscreen makes it a good remote. The only reason the Nano would be redesigned (as you said, in a different direction than every previous version) would be to participate in a home network. It will never be as good a remote as the Touch, to the degree that it would have those functions. I don't think it could actively stream high quality video from a network source.

The apps show the basic proof of concept: Remote was released in the App store because only those people who run an iTunes home network would want something like that. Simplify Media's 3rd party app demonstrates how the iPhone or Touch can stream audio from an iTunes library, over any network.

Apple needs to bring its home system together into one package. The best thing about having wifi PMPs with drastically reduced storage capacity on an iTunes network (other than remote functions which only a Touch or iPhone would be able to deliver in full) would be:
1. to serve as an access point (i.e., to receive content from the library) and
2. to "scrobble" the content from the library as accessed by each user/PMP, so that
3. iTunes can load your networked PMP with content you tend to play on the library as a whole, to offset the difficulty of managing a huge content library on a device with minimal storage.

Again, just my speculation.

My question is, what will happen to the iPod Classic?

[jonathan @ Sep 1st 2008 11:41AM]

@ Juxtah: It wont have wifi because the screen is too small for web browsing?

You know that if it has wifi it doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be a web browser. There are other benefits to having wifi - like wireless sync and multiplayer game options.

[cough] [cough] zune [cough]

[Juxtah @ Sep 1st 2008 12:03PM]

What's the point of paying for WiFi if you don't get to browse the internet? I realize there are other uses but I refuse to buy a WiFi device that cannot browse the internet, as that's kind of the point of it.

[warrrennnnn @ Sep 1st 2008 2:44PM]

@Juxtah

Wifi is not only for browsing the World Wide Web. Wifi is networking. Wifi is what allows a computer with a wireless card to access a modem wirelessly; the modem is what gets you onto the internet. You can have Wifi running without a modem. It's just a network.

Now, while i guarantee the number of people who use a Wifi router without a modem is around... 0, the point still stands that Wifi is for networking. That means remote capabilities, iTunes access, and hopefully some wireless syncing of some sort.

[hiko36 @ Sep 1st 2008 3:34PM]

Wasn't a patent for a cloud type iPod being thrown around a couple of months ago? Is it not possible that this nano actually DOES have WiFi and is going to be the first iteration of the cloud player? Personal opinion, if I could get a nano that would have access to my home library from wherever WiFi is with an 8gb HD, I would buy it. And adding 20% to the cost? You do realize that WiFi chips are extremely cheap right? Just my .02

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 11:17PM]

Just speaking about wifi on the Touch, the Simplify Media app turns it into a "remote" iTunes access point (for your non-DRM files, and for 30 of your friends' non-DRM files). Even if you don't have an iPhone, if you leave your computer on at home, and bring your iPod Touch with you on a trip to a hotel with free wifi, you can listen to your entire non-DRM library anywhere in the world.

If a 3rd party developer can write apps like that, 3rd party developers can do a lot of the things I'm talking about. Maybe not with video, but definitely with audio. Anything that someone else can program for the iTunes network, Apple might as well add if they feel like they can support the application and people want it. And only Apple can write apps that extend beyond the 3rd party SDK, officially anyway.

If you could do exactly what the Simplify Media app does but instead on the Nano, who wouldn't want that?

[dennis @ Sep 1st 2008 11:50PM]

@hiko36: What I mean is, the iPhone OS 2.0 just turned the iPhone and the Touch into the first "cloud" music player -- if you accept a small app running on your home PC serving up tunes to 30 people anywhere on the internet a "cloud." Why it's okay to stream your music to 30 people but no more than that, I have no idea. So right now, even as we speak, the only thing between you and a cloud wifi music player is about $200.

But at this point, not having any real clue what is going to happen -- except some rumors from Kevin Rose about a new Touch that is different, yet mostly the same, with "firmware 2.1" that might not be relevant to the iPhone, a strangely elongated Nano, and a new version of iTunes with no clear new features to warrant the change in version number -- I would definitely wait until the product updates.

[Philip Bradbury @ Sep 1st 2008 7:43AM]

I can see why they wanted to make a widescreen version of the Nano but couldn't they have made the clickwheel smaller or integrated it into a touchscreen or something? The reaon I love my Nano (my first Apple purchase ever) is because it is so neat and small.

[brandon @ Sep 1st 2008 12:57PM]

People want bigger screens, but still want smaller devices.......

Unless you find out how to build in the 4th dimension,

STOP BITCHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!

[mackid105 @ Sep 1st 2008 1:01PM]

if they integrate the scroll wheel into a touchscreen then they just have a new version of the iPod touch. the touch screen is what sets the touch apart from the rest so that option is automatically ruled out.

[iEye @ Sep 1st 2008 8:05AM]

Nano: Very small or at a microscopic level
also: One billionth
or: Whatever Apple decides for that year.

iPhone : Engadget Unit of Measurement
ie: one iPhone length width height
or: Nothing has measured up to the iPhone as yet...

[Noodles2k @ Sep 1st 2008 8:09AM]

try adding the two together like iPhone nano.

[Majora26 @ Sep 1st 2008 8:16AM]

Wow that thing looks pretty big... aren't nano's supposed to be tiny?

I like how they use an iPhone as a reference tho :P