Home > Consumer Reviews > Apple iPod nano 4 GB Black (1st Generation) OLD MODEL

I love the iPod. Always have. At home, we have five, including this one: the 4GB iPod nano black.

Before you leap, realize two things: (1) this iPod is extremely fragile compared to other iPods, particularly the tough-as-nails iPod mini (a drop of a couple of feet onto a linoleum floor took out the screen); and (2) the black version gets scratched very easily, and shows scratches far more than any white iPod I've owned (after a day and before dropping the damn thing, it already looked awful from scratching -- and it was treated with kid gloves).

Okay, if you can live with those caveats, and invest in a durable protector (we bought the arm-band holder, which does a lousy job of protecting the iPod nano)--none of which are out yet--then this new iPod is truly an amazing bit of technology. It's tiny (it feels even smaller than the photos suggest), has great sound quality (better, I think, than any other iPod I've owned), and the display is gorgeous (even though tiny).

For me, the mini (now defunct, but bargains still abound) is the better choice given its sturdiness. I'm not up for museum-relic care for my electronics, which would certainly help if you own one of these.

Another beautiful, functional gizmo from Apple. Just know what you're getting. Some websites claim the nano is sturdy. I can tell you, from first hand experience, it isn't. So, you be the judge. (Sure, the thing still played, but replacing the screen will set you back at least $90, and, even on the web sites in question, the screen broke.)

(Oh, and if you see someone taking shots at the iTunes software, don't believe it. It's the best music software out there, and its integration with this--or any--iPod is a joy.)

__________

Follow up ... Apple has admitted a problem with some of the nano screens and is doing the right thing: replacing the units with new ones. BRAVO!

I bought a 4GB Nano because I wanted a flash player I could use while exercising, but that's not the only reason. I also was curious about why the iPod in its various permutations has become such a cultural phenomenon. I'm an older guy who can remember when the only "portable player" was a small Japanese transistor radio, so I've seen a lot of changes in audio technology during my lifetime. The original Sony cassette Walkman was revolutionary in its day; the first portable cd players, with their virtually nonexistent antiskip functions, were considered a marvel. We've come a long way, baby.

For years now I've been content to use a good-quality portable cd player for my on-the-go music, along with Etymotic ER-4P canalphones, a tiny, twin earplug-like device that makes the headphones packaged with any commercial portable seem laughable by comparison. In the past few years, however, I have watched as the "iPod revolution" totally transformed the world of tiny audio, to the point where it's now virtually impossible to find a portable cd player with good sound quality. Portable digital players rule!

So I decided, what the hey, I'll give this new technology a try! I bought my Nano, along with a small leatherette case to ward off the apparently inevitable scratches this player suffers if you don't cover it up with something protective. Proving that you can, in fact, teach an old dog new tricks, I quickly learned how to use the iTunes software, and I began loading my cd's onto my computer hard drive and, in turn, into my Nano's flash memory.

Two weeks into this Brave New World of Nano, my verdict is mostly positive, but definitely mixed. First of all, this thing is, indeed, FUN. Having a tiny, card-like device packed with hundreds of songs (or classical "movements") induces a definite feeling of power and control. At your fingertips! The fact that you can create "playlists," add or remove music quickly using the provided USB connection cord, and adjust the EQ with a just a few touches of the "clickwheel," induces near-giddiness sometimes. The battery life is impressive; it's not the 14 hours Apple claims, but it's lengthy enough that one seldom has to worry about the battery running down unexpectedly.

I haven't loaded any digital photos, podcasts or audiobooks, but hey, I feel good knowing that I can!

So indeed, I think I understand why people are so smitten with this little gem of a device. HOWEVER--the news isn't all good, and the most significant "bad news" involves what I consider to be the bottom line for any device that plays music, i.e., the sound quality. Most people "rip" and encode their music either as Mp3 or AAC files. By eliminating what is considered "less important" music information, these compression systems allow digitized versions of musical files to be far smaller than the full versions represented most commonly by WAV files. It's through the use of file compression that one can fit the advertised "1000 songs" on a 4GB Nano.

Although some fans of compressed formats swear that no human being can tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed musical formats, don't believe it. The old saying, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" definitely applies here. Fortunately, you can choose to eschew file compression by navigating into the iTunes software and selecting to encode music using "Apple lossless format." All iPod owners actually should do this at least once, encoding the same song using both AAC and "lossless" technology, so that they can discern whether the difference is significant to them. To me, it is, so for much of my music I have chosen to use the "lossless" format, meaning that I don't get nearly as many minutes of music on my Nano as I would have using AAC.

But the fact is that even using "lossless" format, the sound quality is not quite equal to that exhibited by even a fairly inexpensive portable cd player. I'm probably nitpicking here, but prospective buyers of this device should know that one is, in fact, trading audio quality for small size, convenience, and design "cool." Caveat Emptor.

Two more points regarding sound quality: first, those distinctive white earbuds that are packaged with the player are not bad by "included in the box" standards, but their rendition of sound is mediocre. Anyone who really cares about sound quality should save up to buy a better set of earphones. If you truly care about sound, bite the bullet and buy some Ultimate Ears Super fi 5 Pro in-ear monitors (they apparently were engineered with the iPods in mind) or a pair of the new Shure earbuds that are also excellent. These will seem incredibly expensive, but if you listen to a lot of music, it's an investment that definitely will prove worthwhile over a period of several years.

Second, keep in mind that the software/firmware that drive the iPods has limitations that some users will find irritating. Yes, I'm an Old Guy, but over the years I've developed an affection for certain kinds of electronic, nonstop dj mixes of dance music, the kind in which one song blends seamlessly into another. I also still listen to the Grateful Dead, well known for their ability to segue from one tune to the next. And keep in mind that even some more mainstream "pop" artists, including the Beatles, have utilized the nonstop blending of tracks in their albums.

Well, the iPod can't handle nonstop. It invariably inserts a small gap in between tracks, even if one is not intended. You can minimize this using the "crossover playback" function, but this really is not a satisfactory solution. You also can record cd's as one joined track, but then you lose the iPod's celebrated display of individual track names. In fairness, this is an issue that seems universal among digital players (with the exception of the now-discontinued Rio Karma 20 gb player). But until Apple comes up with a firmware upgrade that addresses this issue, the lack of "gapless playback" will continue to indicate that in some ways the new, hip digital players actually represent a movement backward in sound reproduction technology.

Overall, the victory of tiny digital players over previous formats, including CD, represents the triumph of convenience and cool, with sound quality apparently emerging as a secondary consideration for nearly all buyers. So I confess: there's a part of me that's bothered by the fact that in today's world, style, image, cool, and technology-as-fashion-accessory has become more important than actual sound quality in the marketing success of portable audio devices. I know, I'm a curmudgeon; I can't help it.

To conclude: on balance, I like my Nano, and I use it almost every day. When I want to hear music as it was intended to be heard, however, I use my old iRiver SlimX cd portable (no longer made).

I received a 4gb black Nano as a gift (from my boss - how cool is that?). I like it a lot, but my disappointment with its flaws would be a lot stronger if I'd shelled out $250 for it.

The good points we all know about: tiny, light, superb UI, good capacity, good sound, "cool factor". And, uh, you can install Linux on it. :D

There are bad points, however, and for me some of them are significant. (I switched over from an iPod Shuffle 1gb and am using the same (Phillips noise-canceling) headphones, which makes for a pretty fair comparison between the two devices.)

First off, I could care less about scratches; it's a music appliance, not jewelry. I keep mine in a pocket without change or lighters and it's fine.

The Shuffle is slightly louder. This won't matter to most people but I work in a datacenter where the ambient noise level is very high, and for some songs that were ripped at low level, maximum volume on the Nano isn't quite enough.

The display screen is great for song info and album art but seems a bit washed out for photos. Perhaps it's the downsampling algorithm the Nano uses when it imports photos. Not terribly important either.

The battery level meter on the Nano display could have been programmed a bit better. From fully charged it drops to the next level within a couple of minutes. Now I know it's not technically "full" anymore, but it's still a bit disconcerting. The battery-level bar also turns red quite early, when there's more than an hour of play left. Again, disconcerting and unnecessary. I much prefer the Shuffle's way, using a single LED that goes from green to yellow to red. You see green until yellow appears with about an hour left, and when you see red you've only got a few minutes. In other words 90% of the time you see "all's well", and when you really need to recharge, it tells you so.

Now, the biggest flaw with the Nano, for me at least: battery life.

Apple advertises 12-16 hours, but that's a sad joke. I use the device heavily, pretty much continuously, at work. The indicator turns red after 4 1/2 hours and the device needs recharging after 6 hours. I've been through this cycle several times now and it is consistent. It recharges relatively fast (plug in when I go to lunch, and it's charged when I get back in an hour), but it's disappointing not to be able to get through a whole shift without a recharge. The Nano also seems to lose juice fairly quickly when idle/turned off. Put it to sleep full, and check it the next day and it's at 75%.

By contrast the iPod Shuffle hardly seems to use the battery at all. I can easily get through a whole (11-hour) shift without even getting to yellow on the indicator. If I don't listen continuously through my shift I can go days before recharging, and the Shuffle has sat idle on a full charge for over two weeks and still been green when I picked it up.

Now I realize (hello!) that the Shuffle doesn't have a display at all, nor a click wheel, nor does it store photos, nor can it hold nearly as much music as the Nano. The Nano is beautiful and a joy to use. But its versatility and utility are hampered by its short battery life. If you want a whole day's music and you're not going to be near a computer, say, hiking or boating or skiing, the Nano is going to disappoint you. If you can make a playlist you enjoy that fits in a gigabyte, for heavy users the Shuffle is a better bet.

Let me start by saying that I'm coming to the iPod Nano from the world of flash MP3 players, this is my first iPod because I was waiting for Apple to make a decent flash MP3... and they've finally done it! So here are the things I love about my iPod Nano after about a month of use:

1) Making playlists on iTunes, this is a wonderful feature that you just don't find outside the iPod world!
2) Beauty, the iPod Nano is without doubt the sexiest MP3 player alive today. Apple really knows how to make beautiful products.
3) Sound is great.
4) Love that click wheel thing, another great idea by Apple.
5) Beautiful big color display makes navigation easy and fun.
6) Good battery life.

I know much of that is old hat to the iPod world, but for me coming from a world of Muvo's and iAudio these are wonderful features. Now for the bad news, why I didn't give the Nano a 5:

1) Fragile!! Doesn't Apple understand that part of the appeal of a flash player is ruggedness? I'm scared to take this thing outside or even put it in my pocket without protection.. I immediately went out and spent another $30 for a decent case which leads to
2) Where are the accessories? My iAudio's and Muvos came with cases and lanyards and armbands. iPod Nano: nothing!! The most expensive player I've bought to date and the one most in need of a protective case and I have to go and spend an extra $30 for what should have been included!

In summary, this is a wonderful product and a delight to use and behold. However, Apple does need to get a clue about durability and accessories imho!

The nano is not features heavy since it was designed for frequent use of its key function, which is playing music. In that respect, I've found everything about the nano to be designed for greatest convenience. I own an older player with a radio and voice recorder, which I thought would be really cool, but I never use those features with any frequency for them to be worth it.

Initially I was annoyed that I couldn't nest folders/playlists, but I realized that the automatic iPod categories such as Artist and Album are a much better idea since it is easier to scroll through long lists with the excellent and responsive clickwheel than it would be to scroll and click through various nested folders. More importantly, the clickwheel is the only design I've seen that allows the user to access every feature without changing hand position or using two hands. The simple design also minimizes the need to feel out which button to press. It is, however, a bit easy to accidentally turn up the volume, so using the hold button is not really optional.

The LCD is beautiful, though sometimes I wish I could adjust the backlight brightness to conserve battery, since the default setting seems to be an 'under direct sunlight' setting that is almost like a flashlight in complete darkness. I just adjusted the backlight timer to the shortest possible, so it is not a big deal.

Battery life is around 7 hours for me (with frequent skipping and volume adjustment), which is good enough considering it is a lithium ion rechargeable. I have not found the charge to be long at all. The first charge was less than 3 hours and subsequent "fill 'er up" charges (the battery is usually halfway drained) have been only a hour or so. At any rate, my computer is always on at some point during the day and it's a simple matter of remembering to plug the iPod in while I'm on the computer. If I go on a trip, I always take CDs and a CD player just in case I end up purchasing a CD on the trip and want to hear it, so I haven't felt the need for the power adaptor.

Uploading music has also not taken as long as I feared it would. Ripping tracks into the format I wanted was the real time-consuming part, but uploading to the iPod took only a few minutes (for the 4GB model). The only explanation I can think of for the long charges and uploads is that possibly the USB port on the computer being used is USB 1.0 instead of USB 2.0, which is the optimal speed for the nano. I use the iPod primarily as a temporary high-quality repository for songs that I feel like listening to at the moment and I change the playlists pretty often, so maybe I don't mind the frequent computer connection as much as some others.

If I were to really nitpick, the nano isn't my ideal player, but there are no ideal players on the market, and for a flash player of its design, storage capacity and physical size, it's well worth it, especially considering that the customer support for other players seems non existant. I read many reviews before purchasing my nano and the other choices seemed far riskier, what with short warranties, easily broken parts, unpredictable touchpad sensitivity, and software/firmware craziness.

I've used iTunes on PC as well as Mac, and it's never given me any trouble. It's true that there are things that you can't change about it - like appearance - but I haven't encountered another music playing software with search (this is why mp3s need to have info entered) and sharing functions that are as convenient and powerful. Furthermore, at least you can uninstall iTunes on a PC, which is more than I can say for WMP on a Mac. Again, iTunes is not perfect, but I'm not so stubborn that I can't adjust.

As for the scratching issue, it sounds like people are looking to buy a piece of jewelry, not a music player. I have a black nano, and yes, there are very slight scuff marks on it, but that's what you would expect from normal use for any piece of plastic. Functionality isn't affected in any way, and that's the real reason to buy this player. Personally I like to carry mine in a coat or a shirt pocket, where there isn't as much movement and wear as a pants pocket.

I'm not sure why people expect Apple to refund or replace their dropped nanos. The manual for any electronic device will state dropping it is a disaster and not covered under warranty. You cannot drop a product you're not supposed to drop and expect the company to accept responsibility. It's unreasonable to expect the sort of treatment people seem to be demanding. Apple has been very accomodating so far and in general their customer service is far better than that of most other large corporations. Let's not kid ourselves; $250 is a lot, but in the consumer electronics market, it's hardly high-end.

If you suspect the nano will be too small and fragile for you, or if you've dropped other portables before, simply do not buy one. The nano was meant to be small, not rugged.