Quite a dissapointment.

I have owned a number of different iPods including all of the generations of the Nano, the Mini, and the 30 gig iPod Video. This Third-Generation Nano is all in all, my least favorite (with the Second-Generation Nano my favorite).

It seems strange that the successor to my favorite iPod yet should be my least considering not a lot was changed. What I am dissatisfied with is the little that has changed, which in the end actually count for a lot.

So with this addition to the iPod line Apple again makes steps towards making the consumer pay as much as possible in as many ways as they possibly can. Their latest little ploy is adding a video feature to every single iPod they sell right now that has a screen. No longer can the consumer buy a simple, sturdy little device that plays music. Now the consumer is forced to pay for this video feature, unless they want the screenless Shuffle. This is of course regardless of how much they want or need it. I would even go as far as saying the vast majority of users will not even use it.

So, now with this video feature Apple will have to build bigger screens on their products. Oh, look at that! Another little tactic to empty the consumer of their wallet! Not only is the price raised but the portability of the device is compromised. Note again that this would not be an issue if there was an iPod with a screen that could just play music. I want an mp3 player where I can select the songs. As of now I can not find anything that fits that definition in Apple's line. Strange, no? The screen is too small to really be something you would want to watch videos on anyway. You can see everything fine, but it's not particularly enjoyable to watch videos on a screen that's not even 2 inches across. I have small hands, but when I put the tip of my pinky to one end of the screen, it barely makes it to my second knuckle. It is comparable to many cell phones to be honest. This is though personal opinion and you might be fine with that size, but I never really put any videos on it for that reason. So this video feature that we must buy with our iPods now isn't even that impressive.

But, if one were to be fine with the screen size what would the point really be? I would like to note that the alleged 5 hour battery life they advertise is an absolute lie. When it was new and fully charged, if I were to watch a full 90 min. movie there would be so little battery left that I would get about that much left in audio playback. This is because Apple is playing their games again. Oh and don't even pay attention to the 24 hour claims.

I'll expound on this. The way they test the battery life, capacity (coming up next), and other features, is that they are only honest to the extent that through it they have safely confined themselves to the parameters in which their, well, the word begins with an a, but I dare not type it here. Let's just say it's being saved. So they find that fine line between avoiding a lawsuit and maintaining as much profit as possible. I'll simplify that for the Creationists and Fred Durst's reading this. They want to take advantage of us and get away with it.

The way they pull that off is they assess everything in conditions that are favorable to the maximum for their profits. What they mean by those signs "24 Hour Battery Life" (with small text under it saying maximum) is that is what they get from fully charging a brand new iPod, and then from the moment it is unplugged playing audio on a low volume straight. Without leaving it in your pocket, not constantly having the backlight come on when changing your songs, and not left in sleep (which is what most people think is off) at all. No you aren't shutting you iPod off right then by holding the play button down. When it actually turns on, you see the loading screen and it should take a few seconds to power up. It takes a while to turn on, so it will be spending PLENTY of time in sleep.

Apple completely disregards all of these things, when they call it the maximum battery life, they aren't outright lying but they are most certainly misleading. We all know that in many cases, misleading might as well just be lying. For example Bill Clinton said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" in his-impossible to resist imitating-Arkansas brogue. We all know that he might as well have been lying because like Apple ladies and gentleman, he was playing with semantics. Oral sex wasn't included under the legal definition, so the Senate acquitted him of his impeachment due to a loophole. It is impossible to resist making fun of him, but I think many many many people miss him by this point.

So Apple used a dirty old trick, playing with Semantics. Their standards are of course unreasonable for anyone, but they can so they go for it. If you are skeptical, just ask anyone who owns an iPod how long their batteries tend to last. One wouldn't be hard to find, save if you live in Burundi.

Same story with capacity. It has a sufficient capacity for song storage, but if you are going to be storing video it will fill up fast. On the Website they claim 8 hours of playback (for the 8 gig which is what I have). This is if you do not have a single song on it. The trick bag is out again. How could they set those standards? Who doesn't have music on their iPod? It's completely misleading. They must have done their math wrong on top of that, for I have 3.8 gigs of music, and after putting rocky on my iPod I had maybe half a gig left. Rocky is not 4 hours long. I had also bought it from their own store.

Perhaps they were analyzing Camera Phone Videos, well with the standards we clearly see they hold, could we dare call it out of character? Fun fact time. The 4 gig has 4 hours of playback. I think the term playback is misleading, and that we should use the term storage, for Apple so carefully omits the fact that with the battery life you wont even be able to play back all that video on your songless iPod. Yes songless, did you forget already that it would have to be to meet their preposterous standards? See what I mean?

Isn't it a riot as well when they advertise how it is thinner and shorter than the Second Generation? They try to omit the fact that this new Wide-Screen shoved down the consumer's throat adds as much as it takes away in all the wrong places. It is now wider, which is the worst possible thing to do if you want portability. It is small enough to fit fairly comfortable on my pocket, but it is definitely bulkier than the previous Nano. If the shape is longer it fits in your pocket more easily than if it is wider, that's just common sense. I think it is a misleading tactic on Apple's part to advertise a reduction in size, when it is ALL made up for in width, exactly where you don't want it.

If one were to advertise a reduction in a device's size, but fails to note that it's made up for and actually is less portable due to where it's redistributed, then they clearly would be misleading the consumer. See? Their semantics games are littered everywhere. From capacity to unit shape. What's an inch off the top if you just throw it on the sides. Technically they can say that it's thinner or whatnot because they wouldn't be lying. But let's not ol' William Clinton. It's the same game.

One of the many things I loved about the Second-Generation was what it had fixed. It had this excellent, sturdy casing that looked and feels great. Like the Mini (which I loved to death), it has this eye-catching Aluminium (yes that's how it is spelled) Casing which covers nearly the entire device save for the very top and bottom. This is what sets it apart from the other iPods right now.

Apple stupidly (or smartly) added that horrid Stainless-Steel Casing that was on the First Generation Nano and is on the entire iPod line right now. In fact I loathe it so much that I will now buy another iPod until they do away with it. It is an absolute fingerprint MAGNET. Just like the First Generation, it gets cruddy and gross after the first two weeks. It's funny how on the site they make it look so shiny and attractive, when in reality all you need to do is place it in a regular human hand (it wouldn't even have to be sweaty) for it to look quite a lot less impressive. Fortunately it's only on the back, and the front remains beautiful and fingerprint free. The First Generation was a lot worse than it due to it being covered in fingerprint collection material. Detectives shouldn't even have to take anyones fingerprints anymore, just take their iPod.

I wouldn't take such a beating on it based on this one shortcoming if it weren't for the fact that Apple managed to fix it, and then brought it back again. I am usually not so picky, but it annoys me that Apple has to employ these measures to save prices considering the exorbitant sum they already ask for nearly all of their products. It is certainly more expensive to manufacture that excellent one-piece Aluminum Shell than to build the cases in two pieces and then assemble. I think we know where that money's going to, and it's not going to raise the wages of those workers in Asia they exploit to build their products.

Though if taken for what it is it's a perfectly fine well working device. Where it suffers is what changed from the previous model, and the fact that there are no non-video alternatives on the market. Yes Apple played the same games with every other iPod they released, so when you juxtapose it with other iPods, none of my claims against their misleading tactics matter. Really, it only suffers when compared to other devices, including other brands. If you are set on an iPod, then I suppose it is fine. But comparison is definitely a consideration when purchasing a product. No review should omit comparisons to the competition of course.

Is it a perfectly fine video/mp3 player? Yes, but where it suffers is not how it is, but what it should be.