On July 27, 2017 Apple announced the discontinuation of the iPod Nano line. Over the years, the black sheep of Apple’s music line took many forms and shapes as the company tried to find a successful build that hit with consumers. In the era of music streaming, a dedicated offline music player fell out of favor dragging down most of the iPod line with it.

This article is an appreciation for all of the wild designs the Nano took on, both good and bad.

2005

         

In September of 2005, Apple unveiled their revolutionary new product in the iPod line of devices. The Nano would be considered one of the smallest music players of the time. The iPod was small enough to fit in the watch pocket of the average pair of jeans. The small frame also helped the device become popular for those exercising as the build added little weight as an accessory compared to larger iPods.

The design itself was widely a smaller version of the then-current iPod Video. The main difference was the Nano was taller than it was wide, similar to the shape of the average flash drive. One of my main complaints about the design, along with the iPod Video it was inspired by, was that the glass front and shiny metal rear were prone to scratches; an issue amended in Generation 2.

2006

The second generation of iPod Nanos went back to the iPod’s roots from the era of iPod Minis. The next generation of the product brought color back into the iPod line, an option I have missed for quite a long time. The new design featured a rounded metal finish that dealt with scratches better. The matte finish became a staple with the Nanos going forward along with the many color options.

2007

Here’s where Apple starts shaking things up in the Nano line. The third generation of the the iPod Nano featured a more squared off design closer to the width of its older brother, the iPod Classic. The scratch-resistant aluminum returns once again in a variety of colors. The shape of the iPod pushed for more media consumption than the Nanos of the past. The wide screen made it possible to watch videos and play the newly introduced iPod games, an addition I consider to be a wet-test for the coming App Store.

To me the third generation design is peak weirdness for the Nano line. Previously the Nano was for ultra-portable music whereas the new generation muddled the message. The device was still small, but the square design made it odd to hold in your hand. Not to mention the low storage options made it difficult to justify the device as a multimedia player. Apple seemed aware of the issue and went back to design closer to the original in the next generation. When I think of the iPod Nano, I always imagine this iteration first, and I honestly can’t explain why. Maybe it is the separation from all the devices before and after that makes it truly stick out in my mind.

2008

The fourth generation brought a greatest hits compilation of ideas from the entire Nano history leading up to it. The matte metal, multiple colors and the relatively large screen returned from the third generation. The main difference was the return to the narrow form of the first and second generation. Some new features like the accelerometer to put the device into cover flow mode and shaking the device to shuffle were added as well.

2009

The fifth generation was the most iterative design of all the Nanos thus far. Nothing changed between 2008 and 2009 besides the addition of a camera and a shinier finish on the metal. The camera, to me, was a weak addition and more of a novelty at 0.3 megapixels. Under the hood the new pedometer was an ahead-of-its-time feature considering how popular step-trackers are. It also had a built in speaker to listen to recorded audio without needing headphones.

2010-2011

Here is where things get interesting. The sixth generation of the iPod Nano could be considered by many to be the prototype of the now popular Apple Watch. This model dropped the iconic click wheel in favor of a near-perfectly square frame with only a touch screen. The new device stripped most of the features from before away; it was centered around audio playback. No games or videos could be sycned to the music player.

The device also adapted some of the iPhone’s physical features in the form of volume up and down buttons similar to the iPhone 4 and the familiar sleep/wake button on top. An update was added later that added watch faces to the device making it closer to a watch than before.  Watchbands that the Nano clicked into which allowed you to wear it as a watch were designed by third party companies.

2012-2017

The seventh and final generation of the iPod Nano was yet again a return to the more traditional Nano design. The tall design returned, however a home button similar to the iPhone replaced the click wheel. The touch screen remained the primary input method. The design always seemed a bit off to me as the software featured, strangely enough, round icons that clashed with the rectangular screen. This time around, the frame was released in five different colors far more pastel-like than the previous color options. Unfortunately besides the redesign, very few features set the 7G Nano apart from the rest of the line. The added features seemed more focused on health as Bluetooth speaker support was added and heart rate monitors came standard.

The iPod Nano went out not with a bang but with a whimper. The formerly groundbreaking line of small music players was widely ignored up until the quiet discontinuation half a decade after the latest model was released. While many admired the tiny frame that kept shrinking and expanding over the years, the rise of streaming services including Apple’s own Apple Music made the idea of an offline music player obsolete and deprecated.

One day after launching, Nintendo’s mobile app in charge of voice chat and other communication among Switch users is being heavily criticized.

So far, a limited number of users have been able to access the main app functionality; these users consist of press members, early game reviewers, and Nintendo Treehouse employees.

Press members from various outlets have revealed that the app functions only while running with the phone screen on. This means that answering text messages, reading email, and taking other calls among other things will end the current chat. If the phone screen goes to sleep, the app shuts off as well.

The app’s design is troubling for many for a variety of reasons. Some are citing the Switch’s lack of on-board messaging and chat functionality as the main reason for their disappointment. Other users are citing the price of Nintendo’s online service being too high for the experience thus far.

More information should become available over the next few days as the app’s first major test will come with the release of Splatoon 2, a heavily anticipated 3rd person shooter with a heavy online component.

The Dream of a Modular Smartphone

Imagine dropping your phone face down on concrete. I know, the thought alone can be enough to make you cringe, but stay with me. Say you pick up the phone, and the screen is shattered beyond usable. Instead of going to a repair center, and paying up to a $100 to have it take all day; imagine popping into Best Buy, grabbing a new one, sliding the old one out, and sliding the new one on.

Google’s cancelled Project Ara was one of the most exciting ideas in smartphone tech in years. The idea of upgrading your phone with cameras, RAM, storage space, and batteries over time instead of locking yourself into a phone for a couple of years had me very excited about what the future of smartphones held.

That was the promise of Ara; a phone you could mix and match on the fly so you had a phone that adapted to your day instead of hoping the smartphone you had fit most of your needs.

Early Days: A Company Called Modu

Before Project Ara Google, an Israeli phone company named Modu held the Guinness Book of World Records’ award for smallest phone at three inches tall. Modu’s “T”  was the company’s foray into modular design, which helped them arrive at the small design. The phone was a complete product in its own right, but consumers could by add-ons for the device. Fully QWERTY keyboards and an attachment that solely allowed Voice Over Internet Protocol or VoIP were the only two ever released.

In 2011, Google purchased many modular patents as Modu was in the process of shutting its doors for good. The $4.9 million deal included all of Modu’s patents, most interestingly the ones covering modular design.

Following the acquisition of Modu’s patents, Google purchased Motorola Mobility. The Mobility team initially began development of Ara in April of 2013.

2013: The Year of the Modular Phone

Amidst Google’s silence on plans for the modular patents, a new modular player entered the ring in the form of Dutch designer Dave Hakkens’s new modular phone project Phonebloks. According to the Phonebloks Website Hakkens built the idea when his “camera broke and there was no means to fix it.”  That event spiraled into a thought about how so much waste is from consumer electronics. Out of that idea came Phonebloks, a device that would let you customize your phone to fit your day to day by buying modules that attach to the rear of the phone. In September of 2013, a video was released, displaying the idea of Phonebloks to the world for the first time.

One month after the Phonebloks announcement in October of 2013, Google pulled back the curtain and revealed to the world Project Ara, the company’s entry into the modular ring. The interesting detail about the two reveals which differed from the average tech announcements was, rather than fighting each other for market share, both Moto and Phonebloks would work together to bring the idea to market.

Following the event, Motorola hit the road on a five-month trip around America to build hype around modular phones.

What Good is a Phone if it Doesn’t Boot?

Slightly over one year after initial development began, Google dedicated a segment of their 2014 I/O event to speaking at length the ideas Ara brought to the table. All was going well until the team decided to do a live boot sequence displaying the phone powering on for the very first time publicly.

After a few seconds of booting, the prototype loaded a small portion of the Android lock screen and froze. The failure showed how early in the development process Project Ara was, but to many the screen turning on was a victory in itself.

2016: The Dashed Hope

After a very quiet 2015, silence was broken by an exclusive story from WIRED’s David Pierce with a piece titled “Project Ara Lives: Google’s Modular Phone is Ready for You Now.” I was beyond excited as I read the article because so much was announced and many questions about the device had finally been answered. The day before Google’s I/O 2016 event the article went live saying he saw the device on, taking photos, and functioning as 30 developers’ daily phone. The article spoke of the phone’s software, right down to asking OK, Google to safely eject modules before removal. The article ended with the news that the developer units would be shipping out a few months after I/O.

After finally getting the positive news many tech enthusiasts had clamored for since the Ara was first announced, four months after the working prototype had been revealed to the world Google told a writer at Venture Beat that Ara would not be coming to market at all and development was suspended indefinitely. The official reason for cancellation is Google’s chief of hardware Rick Osterloh wanted to get rid of clutter in Google’s product lineup. For many the reason was not good enough, and many other tech sites have speculated the true reason was cost efficiency. The tech was simply too advanced for what was on offer now, and performance may have been worse and costs been higher than conventional smart phones as a result.

As someone who was waiting on this phone to come to light, I was very disappointed with the phone I had waited for for so long would never actually arrive in my hands.

Ara’s Legacy

While Project Ara may never see the light of day again, the phone’s failure has not stopped some manufacturers from trying their hands at a modular smartphone. The results are mixed.

In 2016, LG released the LG G5 in their line of flagship smartphones. The device featured a removable chin which held the battery inside as well as allowed other attachments to replace it. The “Friends” line of modular attachments included analog camera controls, larger speakers for media, and a receiver for a 360 degree camera. While many thought the idea was novel, consumers did not take to the optional attachments and the modular design was abandoned in 2017’s LG G6.

On a more positive note, Motorola has found more success with the Moto Z line of smartphones. The device is available at a much lower price point than the G5 was, making the phone more attractive to consumers. The phone is overall a standard phone with a connector on the back which allows many different attachments including a true optical zoom camera sensor, LBJ speakers, larger batteries, and even a projector.

Currently the Moto Z is on it’s second iteration with the Moto Z2. An event detailing more features and possibly a release date will be happening July 25.

Wrap Up

Project Ara was an ambitious device that may have been too far ahead of its time for its own good. While Google’s vision of a modular future has fizzled out, many of the team’s ideas have inspired other devices.

As far as the project itself, I hope we have not seen the last of it despite what Google has said. In the next few years when technology catches up to the innovation, maybe Google have another go at the modular phone. Until then we will have to see how smartphones evolve and change.