Nik Rawlinson
Has the new nano and shuffle’s tiny size compromised their usability?
How small is too small? Big might not always be better, but neither is infinite miniaturisation. Enter the latest iPod nanos and shuffles. We’re lucky enough to have both models in the office – along with the new touch, so watch out for full reviews in the next issue – and needless to say we’ve all had a good play. Did they give us what we expected? By and large, yes. A great touchscreen on the nano and a welcome return to the (slightly shrunken) form factor of the second edition for the shuffle. But, but, but… The shuffle is far from perfect, with the buttons actually getting in the way when you’re trying to use the clip, while the nano has lost some features in the race to emulate postage stamps.
That doesn’t mean they won’t sell in their millions – and rightly so – but it does hint that Apple now finds itself right where processor-makers were a couple of years back.
Do you remember Moore’s Law? Espoused by Gordon Moore, the Intel co-founder, it was the one constant truth of chip design for decades, accurately predicting that the density of transistors that could be incorporated within a given integrated circuit would double every two years. The trouble with Moore’s Law, though, is that it’s becoming increasingly difficult for chip designers to keep up. In the drive towards miniaturisation, engineers will have to start looking to the atomic level or, as Intel predicts, alternative technologies.
‘Physical limits of atomic structures or power density could be reached by 2020,’ says the company that builds the processors in Apple’s desktop and notebook computers. ‘To address this, Intel will look beyond Cmos to the use of alternative computing mechanisms and logic devices.’
We can already see this happening. Processors are no longer sold on their raw headline speeds alone, and where we may once have sniffed at a 2GHz chip, we’re now happy to overlook so conservative a headline figure in return to multiple cores, multiple threads – effectively multiple processors running side by side. This is true innovation: daring to look beyond defined wisdom and stop chasing numbers.
The iPod isn’t quite there… yet. However, it will be soon. No iPod – the touch aside, perhaps – can survive many more reductions in size without becoming more difficult to use, and I worry that the fact the bulky and heavy iPod classic was royally ignored in the latest range refresh means that Apple has nonetheless set its sights on producing not only the most successful but also the smallest music players going.
So Apple, stop right where you are. iPod nano we can handle. iPod atom? I’m not so sure.
