Like engravings on iPods. It’s a great way to personalize Apple’s popular media player for a friend or loved one. Just in keep in mind that it’s impossible to return an engraved iPod!

Makes sense actually: Except for those who originally bought them, these engraved iPods have virtually no resale value, and Apple definitely can’t provide refurbished units with “WORD 4 LIFE” engraved at the back of them, can they?

Still, this is something to keep in mind dear readers! There’s a reason after all why retailers like Apple provide engraving for free—it frees them from a potentially significant after-sales support option from the get go.

If you’d still like to get an engraved iPod, you can do so through the Apple Store.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

The video camera, while a welcome feature in emergencies or must-capture moments, delivers 640 x 480 output. Even under good lighting however, nano videos lack clarity. The FM radio isn’t that different from your typical cell phone radio; you need to plug in the earphones to listen to your favorite FM stations, as the cord acts like an antenna. The built-in pedometer? You can only maximize it when you buy an iPod + Nike kit—which you have to do so for the previous-gen nano anyway. And the less said about the external speaker, the better.

What does work in the iPod nano’s favor is its status as an affordable, stylish, and high-capacity portable music and video player. This remains true for the fifth-generation iPod: nothing else on the market costs below $180, features a bright 2.2″ 240 x 376 screen, is really thin, and makes short work of browsing through music and videos.

In other words, the iPod nano is perfect for those who’ve fallen for Apple’s effective (and mostly accurate) iPod marketing, but aren’t willing to pay more for the iPod classic or touch, and would rather do without the display-less iPod shuffle experience.

Visit the Apple Store to buy the iPod nano

Post from: The Gadget Blog

elitemacor: “iPoop… iCry. I was so hoping for something more.”

WeezerX80: “Great just what the world needs, another freaking MP3 player. Go Steve! Where’s the Newton?!”

Pants: “hey – heres an idea Apple – rather than enter the world of gimmicks and toys, why dont you spend a little more time sorting out your pathetically expensive and crap server line up? or are you really aiming to become a glorified consumer gimmicks firm?”

And, my personal favorite:

nobody special: “All that hype for an MP3 player? Break-thru digital device? The Reality Distiortion Field™ is starting to warp Steve’s mind if he thinks for one second that this thing is gonna take off.”

Still tripping on smug nostalgia? Here’s how Steve Jobs packaged it for the masses, at a “low key” event:

I disagree that the iPod was a “quantum leap”, as Steve Job insisted, as there were already MP3 players with hard disks on the market when the iPod was launched. But there’s no doubting the iPod’s appealing usability, nor the willingness of Apple to stick with its own vision.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

In a statement to the AFP, Apple says ” To date, there are no confirmed battery overheating incidents for iPhone 3GS and the number of reports we are investigating is in the single digits… The iPhones with broken glass that we have analysed to date show that in all cases the glass cracked due to an external force that was applied to the iPhone.”

In non-marketese layman-friendly terms, Apple is characterizing these incidents as isolated, most likely caused by user carelessness. What’s interesting are reports that at least one customer complaining of an iPhone exploding or cracking “without explanation… has so far refused to hand over the phone to Apple’s management for testing”.

Obviously, Apple’s using this to support their case, as it’s a case of the customer’s word versus the company’s. Still, if your iPhone exploded in your face, and you’ve heard that Apple is trying to keep things quiet, what would you do? Would you willingly hand over your destroyed gadget, even if it’s perhaps the only evidence that you had nothing to do—intentionally or accidentally—with its failure?

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

At first glance, Apple is protecting its bottom line—which any publicly-listed company has a legal an obligation to do, given it’s responsibility to shareholders to increase share value and dividends. What I personally find disturbing about reports requiring silence in exchange for refunds is that the company wants to be held unaccountable for obvious design faults with its products. Something that literally explodes in your face and causes injury is a flaw that needs definite addressing.

I’m pretty sure Apple’s working on the problem as I write this, but the reality is that while patches (usually) do a good job of fixing software bugs, there’s really nothing much you do about hardware bugs, especially since iPhone users are locked into two-year contracts using the same device.

What Apple can do though is tell owners what steps to take with their iPhones and iPods—which the company already does to a certain degree, on its website. But that’s not enough. What’s needed is a clear announcement revealing that iPods and iPhones have actually exploded and caused injury to a minor percentage of owners. They should detail what steps they’ve taken to investigate the problem, making clear their findings to help people avoid the same fate.

Granted, this approach is honestly bad for business, as it sullies Apple’s reputation for great industrial design, and may even lead to government-mandated recalls. You can also bet it will lead to class action suits.

But the company should also consider the long-term benefits of being honest with their customers. I’m pretty sure the Steve Jobs fan club would immediately paint any explicit admission of exploding iPhones and iPods as a sign that the company has its customers’ best interests in mind—and they would be right. This is definitely better than trying to buy the silence of people, only seeing them complain to the media of Apple’s attempt to keep its slate clean.

Source

Post from: The Gadget Blog

So it comes as no surprise that the latest iTunes update basically “disables devices falsely pretending to be iPods, including the Palm Pre.” Palm’s reaction to this isn’t clear yet, but here are some possibilities:

Palm Sues Apple. Given Apple’s dominance of the portable music industry, could Palm’s lawyers argue that Apple is being anti-competitive?

Someone hacks iTunes to restore Pre compatibility. Or simply comes out with a program that fools any version of iTunes into accepting non-iPods for syncing. You know it’s going to happen, especially if the Pre was able to re-motivate the Palm faithful.

Apple Sues Palm. So the iTunes+iPod ecosystem is a closed, proprietary setup. Which Palm tried to violate. There should be a legal liability or two somewhere there, and Apple could imply industrial espionage at the very least, especially since a former Apple executive was responsible for the Pre’s creation.

What do you think will happen? Feel free to comment below, especially if your possibility wasn’t listed above.

Post from: The Gadget Blog

According to Gearlog, at least two companies are working on earphones designed for the iPod shuffle. Like the earphones that come with the music player, these planned products feature playback controls right on the earphone cords.

A few days ago, I wrote that the shuffle’s lack of playback controls represents an opportunity for third-parties. Looks like at least Scosche is turning it into a gold mine; the most expensive of their rumored earphones will cost $100, definitely higher than the $80 iPod shuffle. The only information gathered on V-Moda’s development plans point to a Q2 2009 release.

Any further thoughts on Apple’s hardware DRM? I just realized that Apple would’ve avoided all the uproar if they bundled a pair of earphones that plugs into a cord with playback controls on them, which plugs into the iPod itself.

No doubt, this setup is a bit messier, but I think giving customers a bit of versatility regarding their headphone or earphone choice is more important than marketing-oriented design.

(image from Gearlog)

Post from: The Gadget Blog

If nothing else, the Shuffle’s inline control interface definitely isn’t the same as that used in iPhones and other iPods. The Griffin SmartTalk inline iPod headphone controls pictured here don’t work, for example, in the 3rd-gen Shuffle. They have the same triple-ringed version of the headphone plug and nearly identical functionality, but do nothing.

-BBG\

The silence from the other side is deafening: Could it be that, for the first time, those Apple-can’t-do-wrong fanboys have nothing to say?

Post from: The Gadget Blog

But why make the playback controls available only on the earphones that come with the product? Everyone knows default iPod earphones aren’t the best out there, so what if you wanted to use your own earphones or headphones with the latest iPod shuffle?

I understand the earphone controls are great for those who want to change the music while keeping the player in their pocket, but again, what if the user doesn’t use the bundled earphones?

In any case, this represents another Apple shortcoming that third-parties can take full advantage of. Expect lots of accessories to be available for this tiny media player, which is available in dark or light gray (or is that black and silver?) from Apple.com at $79.

Another feature I’d like to see Apple engineer back into the shuffle: the USB plug found in its first-generation predecessor.

(image from Apple)

Post from: The Gadget Blog

Post from: The Gadget Blog