Currently Being ModeratedJan 10, 2012 10:17 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
I want an iPhone on my wrist. Facetime, a projector, voice command and, oh yeah, I'll probably want it to be a watch, too. Then some consumers will be whinning, "the projector isn't 3-D from all angles and it takes over .06 seconds for the signal to reach my surgically implanted, skull-mount audio chip!" Personally, I am thrilled to be able to record audio straight to my Nano, via a $40 mic/line in interface (called Mikey, made by Blue, roughly the same size as the nano 6G) and instantly be able to insert that audio file into a playlist with other tracks from my library, edit and re-order that list and then provide a soundtrack for my slideshow, viewable on any TV ... all from my watch. I know I got MY money's worth. Trying to keep the pure leather watchband from cracking and peeling and drying out and breaking within 3 months, even though I treat and condition it every chance I get, however, has been challenging, to say the least. In that area, I could really use some high technology!
Currently Being ModeratedJan 11, 2012 11:40 AM (in response to symphomaniac)
That last reply makes me kinda sound like an Apple fanboy, which makes sense because I am, to some degree, or I would not have purchased 2 Nanos, first the 2G and now the 7G. However, I don't want to leave the impression that I don't agree with MarkyMark1976. In fact, I am one of those aforementioned whinny consumers that complained about the loss of the backlight control pane. You see, when I sing and play guitar, I clip my Nano 2G to the headstock so I can read my "cheat" notes (lyrics, chords, etc.) off the iPod. Sometimes it also provides backing tracks or records my performance. Amazing. Oh yeah, back to my point. It's crucial that the light stays on, as I don't have a free hand to tap it every 15 seconds (7th gen) and stage lighting is unpredictable. You can imagine how bummed I was to find out my new toy won't do what the old one will. The resolution is so bad on the 2G that I have to enlarge it and turn it into a photo and play the one image as a slideshow. The 7G, on the other hand, displays the lyrics so clearly, that I can actually read the tiny text displayed in the lyrics pane. Blissfully simple. Also, I keep it on the brightest watchface to use as a flashlight. I'm tapping my finger tips to the bone every 15 seconds and, again, I usually need both hands. It stays lit when playing in my car adaptor, but there's limited seating for an audience in my Dodge. I heard a rumour that the next gen might have a speaker in the clip. I think I'd prefer bluetooth.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 11, 2012 1:25 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
OK, here's my final word, unless/until Apple changes the watch display function or someone takes legal action etc., but I will continue to be amused at the responses to a guy who never said what the Nano should or shouldn't do, but rather that he felt deceived. I would never be so hubris as to tell someone else how they should feel about a purchase they made or any feelings a person might have.
First to deggie as well as to cicerogirl: markymark has previously indicated that he is NOT too young to remember early digital watches in which it was necessary to push a button to see the time. I CAN remember these as well and in fact, I had one those many years ago. However this is about as relevant as if I was to buy a new Battery Powered Auto and when I got home I was told that if the battery is not completely charged, I would need to go to the front of the car and use a manual turn crank to start the engine. If I was dismayed and felt deceived about this would you say, "Maybe you're not old enough to remember when that's how one needed to start a car?"
In other words, comparing a 7th Gen iPod nano to the first digital watches is not on point; however, if I have not yet gotten my message across, then one last word about digital watches vs the iPod Nano. When you go in the store, or at least the one I went into, the watches are plugged in to a power source and the power management causes the screen to stay on longer. When I went to the store to get my first digital watch (LED), it was off and I had to push the button to see the screen and it went off in about 15 secs, so I immediately knew what I was getting. Later, when I purchased my first LCD screen watch, while the screen was on all the time, I was told that it was difficult if not impossible to see the screen in the dark, so I knew I should buy the one with the back-light, which also only stayed on for about 10-15 secs. In other words, I knew what I was getting. Which was markymark's point to begin with. It wasn't whether the Nano should or shouldn't stay on, he was just attempting to share that the idea that it wouldn't stay on, never occurred to him, it was not mentioned when he purchased it and that he felt deceived, as do I.
Second point, in regards to the question you have asked more than once, along the lines that would we want the watch to stay on and then have to recharge after 40 minutes. My first thought regarding this question is where or how did you come up with 40 minutes? Then I decided you were just attempting to ask, if we would like it to stay on, if we had to "frequently" charge it. I addressed this in my last comment.
However since you are pushing the "40 minute" question, I would ask, where are you getting your facts? Do you have an inside track with the Apple Engineers and know that it would only stay on for 40 minutes if the watch either just stayed on or if it dimmed considerably, but could still see the time? Are you that against giving the consumer control over how long the watch stayed on or stayed on with the screen dimmed, along with a warning about considerable battery usage? Not to mention, that they could have also easily placed a disclaimer on the box regarding this issue. Or are you indeed an employee or consultant of Apple's and know that if it stayed on, the battery would only last for 40 minutes. As an engineer, that knows a thing or two about power consumption as well as having some background in providing expert testimony for Legal Defense team's, I would say that if Apple was aware that the battery would only last for 40 minutes, regardless of dimming, along with the way it is being marketed and displayed by being powered up with an adapter in the store, I would not be surprised if some hungry attorney comes along and files a Class Action on this one. It wouldn't be the first time Apple ran in to issue with battery expectations being mis-matched with consumer's expectation.
Having stated all that, again, I am a big Apple fan and have utilized just about every class of products they have developed for many years. Doc H, out.
Currently Being ModeratedJan 12, 2012 11:37 AM (in response to Doc-Lee)
BRAVO Doc! But you KNOW the next reply will be "... but you sitll didn't answer my queston, would you have bought the Nano if you knew it stayed on only 40 minutes"? Thanks for better articulating that my beef was about deception. And while our friend keeps incorrectly making assumptions that the watch is not an intregal part of the product, despite Apple making it one by stating that the five principal functions of this product are ABCD&E. And in 2012, we DO expect that a digital watch will stay on, (albiet a dimmer light, as I don't want a flashlight on my arm in a dark room either). I think the correct question might be "Did you buy a watch with other Nano features, or did you buy a Nano, that happened to have time telling capability as well? I bought it as a watch, with Nano capabilities. I can put music on my iphone, but I don't want something that large on me when I'm working out, running, etc. But I have plenty of Nano's; smaller, less obtrusive, which work fine. I don't use the screen for other functions. I fill the music to capacity, hit shuffle, and I'm off. And, for the record, last week a friend of mine plugged his new Nano into my laptop, and spent 30 minutes if not more, showing me hundreds of pictures from an African safari he just returned from. When we were done, I grabbed his Nano and the battery was showing full. Perhaps it was 9/10, hard to discern at that small movement. As I said 30+ minutes of shuffling through 100's of picutres which require far more light I would think than a dim watch. I agree that the 40 minutes is an aribitrary number of no sense. As I 've stated before, I too have purchased probably 100 Apple products in the last 5 years for me, and for my company. I'm a huge fan, and this is the FIRST time I've questioned anything. Sure, I've said "it would be cool if....", and 80% of those things came to fruition by the next release if not before. Apple spends their fair share in consumer market research. They just happened to blow it on this one. Nobody asked the right questions. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what "HE THINKS"..... Let's face it, the average person uses less than 2% of their desk/lap top's capabilities. I couldn't care about being able to display pictures on a Nano, but I'm sure there are TONS of people elated by the prospect. Just like lots of people couldn't care less about the watch. Young people DO NOT WEAR WATCHES. Look around... It's an accessory that people under 25 for the most part don't use. They have a phone in their hand all the time. The Nano or ANY product shouldn't be everything to everyone. The whole idea of a successful product for Apple or any giant marketer is a product which has different draws to different people. I happen to think being able to utilize it as a functioning watch is brilliant ... I'm someone with an extensive vintage watch collection... and this inexpensive watch has captured me. But, quite honestly, those ugly ,fat, early LED watches I wouldn't have been caught dead with on my wrist; lights on, lights off, then now, ever, period. And there are LOTS I'm sure out there who would ring in the same sentiment.
Currently Being ModeratedJul 8, 2012 5:05 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
Just found a partial solution on another thread - you can keep the clockface on for 10 min by setting the stopwatch function and then swiping back to the clockface. https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3372166?start=0&tstart=0
Currently Being ModeratedJul 14, 2012 7:29 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
interesting thread, I am a complete apple noob, I have put off and put off buying into the ipoderati, there's always been something I slightly dislike about the whole 'proprietry solution' feeling of locking consumers in but anyway
I went to get a 6G Nano specifically because of the wrist strap mounting & clockface marketing, I needed a new watch and I use an mp3 player
like some of the writers above I am completly shocked that there's no way of making the watch stay on, i haven't even found away to have the clock a single tap away - it seems i need to click the button and then swipe to the clock, might be wrong, I've only had it 48h
if I want to use my battery to keep the display on it's my biz, give me the option (I can feel that proprietry lock in closing it's fist around my heart)
surely some digit-headed teenager / technopreneur can produce a 3rd party app or apple could update the onboard OS to alow it?
before you troll my 4ss off for being stupid, I have 20y IT expereince, I think nothing of whiling away a saturday evening with a registry hack (oh, sorry Jobsville, you wouldn't understand, and don't sneer! my world is a windows place not of my choosing)
hey at least I can get itunes to choose tunes for me (AAARGH)
Currently Being ModeratedJul 14, 2012 9:03 AM (in response to cicerogirl)
I still have one of those digital watches. I'm sure if I put a new battery in it would still work after all these years. You pressed one button to display the time, another button to display the date or both buttons at the same time to dislay something else, can't remember what it did.
Currently Being ModeratedJul 29, 2012 12:20 AM (in response to TooDarkPark)
Hey guys, all i can think of as a future soluiton by Apple is simply to add the function of just simply shaking or "twisting' action your wrist so the clock face will show up instantly. Good for user and also saves battery.
Look....Since this iPod Nano already has a option/function to change song tracks by shaking, i'm sure they can easily add this option for people to see the time without having to press the button and at time swipe to the clock face if it shows iTunes screen...
Currently Being ModeratedSep 3, 2012 5:49 AM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
This screen shutting off thing is really driving me up the wall. The main reason I bought this iPod was that I could turn it into a watch. The other features like photos and music were a just a bonus. I am a fan of apple products. Their perfection and simplicity just worked for me. The iPod nano is obviously flawed. Is there ANY FIX? Apple can probably just fix this problem with some kind of software update. Can somebody here sue them of something? Or send them a letter?
Currently Being ModeratedSep 3, 2012 5:53 AM (in response to Applesmarty)
So you would be OK with your battery lasting less than an hour? This is why the display won't stay on on battery power. You would need to contantly charge the Nano.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 3, 2012 3:31 PM (in response to TooDarkPark)
the point is it would be nice to choose, there are lot's of ways of stretching the battery life - darker graphics (don't laugh, it's true), a dimming to half-bright after 15 seconds, selectable intervals and ramp rates, tbh I sit a desk most of the time I COULD plug in or drop it on a stand, none of which is anyway near half as irritating as clicking the effing button
I am every bit ancient enough to remember LED watches, if you pressed the button on one it immediately lit up because it was electromechanical, a proper switch in fact, not 'press the button and some badly written widget will eventually wake up', in fact the button's probably delayed to prevented accidental 'on'.
and another thing
if it's got a time chip please add an alarm guys!
ok, there's no onboard speaker but they're 10 a penny to buy as add ons with a 3.5 jack, or could be used with a basic ipod doc to charge overnight and wake you in the am
Currently Being ModeratedSep 3, 2012 6:40 PM (in response to brasshammersam)
Given your suggestions you would get about 58 minutes of watch face time rather than 50.
And I'm also old enough to remember the first digital watches. When I push the button on my Nano (which is set to watch on wake) I immediately get the watch face unless I've let it sleep too long in which case it has to reboot. And that switch is electromechanical just like your ancient watch and has no delay.
The only way to keep the watch face on longer is to have a much better (and probably larger) battery.
It is September so the time is nigh for Apple to release the next generation of iPods, perhaps all your wishes will come true in a newer model.
Currently Being ModeratedSep 4, 2012 11:08 AM (in response to brasshammersam)
GREAT POINTS! BRAVO!
Currently Being ModeratedSep 4, 2012 11:12 AM (in response to deggie)
IT WOULD BE GREAT..... I wont hold my breath.
Even if they put in a simple digital clock without whole screen choices.... just in a corner - but "on" ..... not sucking lots of juice..... just USEFUL..... The point is that they continue to IMPLY that it's a watch..... and it's NOT!
Currently Being ModeratedSep 4, 2012 12:58 PM (in response to MarkyMark1976)
I mean... It isn't like a REGULAR watch, it feels like the digital watches you guys (and girls) mentioned. What if they could just shut off all mechanisms and just use the watch feature? It would save a lot more battery life. The dimming feature would also be nice. To play music and podcasts, you could simply double press the button to turn all the other mechanisms.