How do you pair iPod nano 7th Gen with iPhone 5.

What I am saying is the headphone jack and firmware probably controls the output and is probably a binary choice, i.e. if the switch is activated by a device with the proper notch it directs output through the headphone jack, if not depressed it is output through BT (or speaker on the 5th Generation Nano). This is controlled through hardware and firmware that is not updateable, not through the rather simple Pixi OS. Same thing is probably true with the antenna and the BT microphone, although I doubt the BT chip is designed for BT microphone reception, nor the radio chip included.

As to your post after mine, I think what you are describing that you want is not an iPod Nano, which is 90% designed around music, but an iPod Touch Nano. The Pixi OS would never support the features you are wanting and the size would have to be increased to support a more powerful processor, etc.

You should tell Apple you think they need to create an iPod Touch Nano: http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipodtouch.html

Or just wait for them to keep making a smaller iPod Touch.

But I like the new Nano just fine and welcome the addition of BT. Works great for me.

I really really need this to work.

There are so many reasons...and this foundational thing would really the tip of the iceberg for so many things to come.

The main reason at the moment would be so that I can sync nano Nike+ data to the Nike+ app on the iPhone, to avoid the need to connect the nano to my Mac to sync my runs to Nike+.

It is important to me to avoid the need to sync with my Mac, because my main Mac which hosts iTunes is a Mac Pro, and therefore I cannot take it when traveling, so I have to wait to get home to sync my runs.

Bluetooth is the #1 reason I bought this 7th generation Nano, so that I could run without wired headphones.

Now the only other wire that needs cutting is the one between the Nano and the Mac.

Come on Apple! You ALMOST had a great idea. Now please FINISH it. :-)

To elaborate...

I have concluded that Bluetooth is a dud on the new Apple iPod Nano 7th generation. :-(

Phones are too heavy to use while running and wired headphones are too restrictive, so the combination of Bluetooth and the Nike+ pedometer support were the ONLY reasons that I bought the new iPod Nano.

First and foremost, I cannot Bluetooth pair the nano to my iPhone, so the only way to sync Nike+ after my runs is to plug the nano into my Mac--which is a Mac Pro (tower), so it can't go with me, when I travel. :-(

Second of all, the FM receiver still requires wired headphones--there is apparently no FM antenna in the nano, itself. So at the gym, I cannot use the nano to tune into a TV audio (relayed via FM), and listen to it wirelessly on my Bluetooth headphones. Even if I plug in the supplied headphones just to act as an FM antenna, I cannot then send the audio to my Bluetooth headset--the BT icon shows that my BT headset is still active, but there is no way to change output devices in the Radio app. Radio app requires wired headphones as an antenna AND will only send the audio out to the wired headphones, despite the presence of BT headphones. :-(

(NOTE: Music app does let me choose output devices between wired vs. BT headphones, so the fact that the Radio app doesn't let me choose BT is a blatant oversight).

Thirdly, sometimes I like to record an idea, while running--can't do it strictly with Bluetooth. The nano's ability to record voice memo's does not work with BT headphones, even though my BT headphones do have a microphone (e.g. suitable for making calls on an iPhone). The Voice recorder requires WIRED headphones with a microphone. To add insult to injury, the supplied headphones do not have a microphone--I had to borrow the headphones that came with my iPhone 5. It is SOOOOO annoying that Apple did not make Voice memo recording work with Bluetooth, and then they didn't even bother to include the headphones with a mic! :-(

Lastly, the taller form factor doesn't lend itself for use as a running watch. They should fix all of the above and go back to the old form factor.

Conclusion: Apple finally added Bluetooth audio to the iPod nano, but it is only useful for music. It cannot be used to relay FM broadcasts, such as from exercise equipment (and there is no antenna in the nano itself), so wired headphones would at least need to plugged in for FM relay over BT to work. Finally, BT cannot be used for Voice memo recording. THEREFORE, Bluetooth in the new iPod nano is a dud. :-(

#apple #ipod #nano #ipodnano #nike #nikeplus #wirelesssync #sync #ipload #running #fitness #bluetooth #iphone #tether #wireless #fmreceiver #fmrelay

No, it is a dud for you. You don't represent every person buying an iPod Nano.

You should return it and get the 5th Generation iPod Touch, it will solve your Nike plus issues. On the down side it does not have an FM radio.

I did not say that the 7th gen nano is a dud, in general; I said the Bluetooth feature is a dud, which is because it is not broadly integrated and cannot be used to tether to an iPhone for application sync purposes.

Yes, I should return it... But not for a 5th gen iPod Touch or any other Touch.

The 7th gen nano is already quite a bit bigger than I'd like for running and the Touch is even bigger. If I was going that route, I'd just run with my iPhone 5. But I won't--it's too big and heavy for running.

I will just have to wait for some future iPod Nano with the same form-factor as the 6th Generation Nano, but with a longer battery life, increased capacity, and especially with fixes for all of the above mentioned Bluetooth and FM problems.

On the bright side, most of what I dislike about the 7th gen Nano could be fixed in software. Also, a third party could easily make a short, flexible, FM antenna accessory that would go in the headphone jack--if the Radio app would only let one choose to send the audio out to the BT headphones.

And I didn't say you said the entire Nano was a dud. I said that BT on the Nano is a dud for you, not necessarily for everyone else. It does what I want. And no iDevice has ever had the BT FTP (File Transfer Protocol) and I certainly didn't think the Nano would be the first.

Nothing you want could be fixed in software but you are right that someone probably could create an antenna.

BTW, the Touch is much lighter than the iPhone.

I don't think anyone would have assumed you could pair your nano to an iphone...What would you ever use that for except to sync workout data? It seems silly to do that, sorry. I would never have assumed nor expected nor cared if it did that. I am going to have to charge the nano anyways so when I charge it, the workout data can be synced. There is no need to connect to a iphone to get it synced immediately.

As far as the other complaint, I would expect your desire to record a voice memo while running with a bluetooth headset is probably so rare that it wouldn't be worth their while to integrate that.

So in my view, the bluetooth implentation is great and exactly what I wanted, i.e., able to listen to wireless headphones and none of this other nonsense. As long as the Nike+ foot pod is supported along with the Nike Watch Remote, I will be happy. I suspect that a majority of users (98%+) would only use bluetooth to connect headphones or low-power devices, not for what you want to use them for.

Deggie,

Why do you say nothing I mentioned could be fixed in software?

Are you implying that you have inside knowledge that the FM module is wholly separate from the general DSP, and therefore, there would be no way to divert the FM audio out over Bluetooth?

There would be no point in a 3rd-party antenna, sans speakers, if it is "electrically" impossible to send the FM audio to BT.

Media Ones,

First of all, I travel for weeks at a time, and it is unfriendly to have to wait until I get home to sync my workouts.

I can recharge the nano from numerous power sources, just like I recharge my iPhone and iPad.

Given Apple's move to "cut the cord" w.r.t. syncing all current iOS devices, it is only natural to expect that eventually all their mobile devices will be able to sync wirelessly--why NOT let the iPhone or the iPad be a helper to let the Nano?

As for other uses for pairing a Nano to an iPhone/iPad, I would love it if my Nano would relay iMessages and other notifications from my iPhone.

For example, at the gym, my iPhone is usually nearby, in my bag. While doing cardio, using the Nano's FM receiver to tune into the audio from the TV on the wall, I would love it if I would hear andnreview notifications, just generally, but especially if i get an e-mail from a VIP, it would be very helpful to be able to read the subject and first few lines, just like the notification on the iPhone. If it's important, I'll drop what I am doing and go grab the iPhone and respond. But I don't want to have to have the iPhone directly on my person or have to go look at it every time there is a ding--no, I could just review those notifications right from the Nano.

The Nano could also piggy back off the iPhone to let me acces my entire library via iTunes Match.

I've drunk the Apple kool aide...now they just need to make it all work together seamlessly, like in years past.

As it is, this would-be great BT feature is only less than half-balked.

Deggie,

According to the recent iFixit teardown, the FM and Bluetooth are implemented within the same Broadcom BCM2078KUBG chip. Seems pretty likely that a software (e.g. firmware) fix would allow the FM to be sent out the Bluetooth (as long as the FM antenna requirement is satisfied some other way, a la plug in the wired headphones or use a 3rd-party antenna accessory).

Also, the BCM2078xxxx specs appear to broadly implement common Bluetooth 4.0 features, which do include support for headsets with microphones, so Voice Recorder via BT should again be a matter of software to support the headset profile, and to allow the BT MIC to be selected within the Voice Recorder app.

As for "iPod Touch Nano" -- this is already an iPod, and has a touch screen, and is called the Nano, so to me it already fits the form-factor of an would-be iPod Touch Nano. I'm not asking for broader iOS capabilities, or 3rd-party App support, or WiFi. I don't want a touch. I want something small and light -- even smaller and lighter than this 7th gen nano (e.g. I really still want the form-factor of the 6th gen nano, but with Bluetooth broadly integrated).

In the end, I just want Apple to finish implementing the BT properly in the iPod Nano 7th generation that I already own.

The possibility of that happening via a future firmware update is encouraging. If I had any information that it really truly would be impossible to make such changes without altering the hardware, then I would return my nano in a heart-beat. For now, I'll hold out in hopes that Apple will ultimately do the right thing and finish the BT integration in the 7th gen nano.

Lastly, I use the feedback mechanmism constantly, and have already done so on this matter.

It doesn't matter that they use the chip, it is the firmware supporting the chip that counts, which is on the logic board. The Broadcom chip can support all 27 or so Bluetooth profiles if the vendor chooses to burn them all in. Apple has chosen to included a limited number of profiles on all of their devices, including omitting File Transfer Protocol (which is why you can't transfer your workout information). Bluetooth profiles cannot be updated through an upgrade of the Pixi OS (which is what your are updating when an upgrade is made available). Voice Recorder access is covered by the same thing and by the type of BT radio hardware on the device (can it support simultaneous voice transfer). Again, can't be remedied via an upgrade.

As we've discussed the FM issue is a function of the headphone switch.

Apple has finished implementing the Bluetooth properly, I use my Nano with my Ultimate Ears headphones and it works just fine. It just doesn't implement the BT profiles you would like to have.

Review of the FM and BT portions of the new Nano:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-nano-seventh-generatio n/P3

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/apple-ipod-nano-seventh-generatio n/P4

Thanks for posting the links. Interesting that they had the Harmon Kardon BT in their picture, I bought those and returned them and traded up to the Ultimate Ears 9000. Very glad that I did, they work very well together.

Deggie,

It is the firmware/Pixi OS that Apple needs to fix. :-)

Also, I did not suggest that BT FTP was the way to allow Nano <-> iPhone syncing. Really, what I had in mind there was more like BT IP whereby apps on the Nano could open connections to apps on the iPhone and actually have a "conversation" -- more like IP tethering on a private network (vs. NAT to the actual internet), not necessarily just based simple BT FTP. But whichever way, I'm really not so concerned with the details of the implementation as I am with achieving the desired result -- giving the Nano the ability to share info with apps on the iPhone...and vice-versa, for the Nano to be able to display notifications that the iPhone is receiving.

I am having a hard time accepting that the head-phone switch is directly read by the FM module and separately by the all else in the Nano. The switch is the switch. The Pixi OS should know the state of the switch and decide where to send the audio, just as it can for music, video's, etc. Since the FM module is the same chip as the Bluetooth module, it makes perfect sense that Pixi OS could independently choose whether to send audio out the headphone jack vs. the BT jack, regardless of which app is producing the audio (FM app is just another app). The only true dependency on the headphone jack itself should be the antenna for FM reception -- the switch is only useful in that case to tell Pixi OS that there is something plugged in, so let the Radio app function, but beyond that sending the audio out BT instead of the headphones should be doable.

Pixi is a hugely simplistic and small footprint OS that has a very limited range.

BT IP would not do what you want, you would need the Personal Area Network (PAN) profile (this is also what is used for tethering on iOS devices). The PAN profile merely makes the connection, the OS handles the rest of the data exchange, tethering, etc. This is beyond the capabilities of Pixi. I know you are not concerned with the means (I'm guessing you are not a programmer), but it is outside of the capabilities of Pixi. You would need to be running iOS and the BT PAN profile.

The headphone switch, and associated firmware (it is usually all on one device) reads what is connected and then does simplified routing. You could I suppose use differnent hardware and instead of binary choices actually have settings that would allow you to dicate what you would like the headphone jack to do (some AV receivers can do this) but this isn't even available on iOS devices yet. It would require a redesign.

In reading some reviews on the net yesterday regarding BT headsets (bought a Harmon Kardon BT headset, didn't like it, traded for something else) the Voice limitation on the Nano may also be related to limitations of the headset itself. As the 4.0 BT becomes more available it is possible this could change in the next design of the Nano and 4.0 has the possiblity of a compatible headset actually serving as an antenna. But all this would require hardware changes. And updating the BT profiles on the Nano would require a hardware upgrade.

I haven't played with my collect on various miniplug jacks yet to see if one can trigger the antenna while not telling the Nano a headset is connected.