Comments on: iPod nano

By: Thomas

Thomas — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:29:38 +0000

I don’t think that you can edit it, but if you like, I can do it…

By: Erin

Erin — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:25:11 +0000

pardon my typos and misspellings. I ought to read what I type before I press “Say It!” Is there any way for me to go back and fix stuff Thomas?

By: Erin

Erin — Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:21:50 +0000

Im confused where did they skip mini? nano means super small to the genneral public. Never mind that nano means 10^-9. I don’t think think the ipod nano is that small relative to any metric measurment, nor is it that small relative to the ipod.

Yet another example of marketing or media using technical/scientific terms innacuratly. I seem to remember a comercial for face cream that talked about its special “amino-peptide” ingredient. amino acids make up peptides, which are small/bits of proteins. “lets makes ourselves sound smart except to the people who are smarter than us”

By: bigbrother0074

bigbrother0074 — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 07:08:00 +0000

i think the ‘i’ is for the enter-net

By: Josh

Josh — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 21:49:07 +0000

and what’s with the i in ipod? What the heck does that stand for? Ichthus? Igloo? Is it a mp3 player for eskimoes? Stupid, stupid name.

By: Cole

Cole — Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:42:32 +0000

I think the problem is the fact that they used a non-standard prefix in the first place. It is never good to mix standard and non-standard. I hadn’t heard of the iPod nano, but it seems to me that if they had used a more standard term in the first place (e.g. micro) then they wouldn’t have the problem of making a huge jump to the next version. It would be trivial to have the iPod micro, followed by the iPod nano, followed by the iPod pico, then the iPod fempto. I’m not sure where they would go once they got down to the iPod yocto, but I suppose that would just be implanted in your brain anyway.