iPod Nano cosmetically fragile
Apple’s latest breakthrough in MP3 technology exists in the form of the small, attractive iPod Nano. The Nano, with dimensions of only 3.5 x 1.6 x 0.27 inches and weighing 1.5 ounces, features a 1.5-inch LCD color screen and holds up to 1,000 songs or 25,000 pictures (4-gigabyte model). Sporting the tagline “Impossibly small,” the iPod Nano looked to be a promising media player that would crush the competition. Unfortunately, this is one Apple product that is far from perfect.
Most iPod owners will admit their main reason behind choosing an iPod over other MP3 players with similar functionality: The simple fact that an iPod looks cool. It’s a slick piece of technology just like every other Apple product. Many people would agree that without the iPod’s smooth, shiny finish, there’s really nothing to brag about. The new iPod Nano lacks a necessity for all cool gadgets: A scratch-resistant surface.
Users have complained that their iPod Nano shows rapid wear-and-tear after only a few hours of normal usage. Scratches would appear all over the front of the device (including the screen) after handling it or keeping it in their pocket. Some users have even reported scratches from wiping the Nano with a cotton cloth to clean the very noticeable and recurring fingerprints off of the screen.
Since the release of the iPod Nano, tech forums have been overwhelmed with rants about Apple’s new easy-to-scratch MP3 player. Some have even gone as far as buying a domain devoted to the Nano’s scratching problems. One such site is called www.nanoscratch.com, where owners of the iPod Nano can post pictures of their scratched device or e-mail the owner of the site with their personal story about the Nano. The site also features a few suggestions on how to initially protect your Nano or half-way restore your already-scratched Nano. While this site may be useful, the best source of information about the Nano’s problems is Apple.com’s own message board.
“I’ve never had a problem with Apple until I bought my first Apple product,” said first-time Apple customer Jarad Spatola. “Within three hours of it being in my jeans pocket, the Nano looked like it had been dragged across concrete, and Apple won’t do anything about it.”
After an hour of talking to Apple’s tech support, Jarad was only able to get Apple to send him a free iPod case. He feels this is not satisfactory.
“No one buys an iPod only to cover it up,” he said.
In addition to unsightly scratches, many more users have reported their Nano to have a cracked screen after mere hours of having it in their pocket. For most people, the screen cracked after sitting down with the iPod in their pocket.
Apple’s return policy states that cosmetic issues are not covered in the warranty, as it is considered to be normal wear-and-tear. However, a cracked screen is more than a cosmetic issue. In most cases, the iPod ceases to function after that type of damage.
Fortunately, Apple has acknowledged the screen-cracking problem and will replace your Nano if this occurs, but Apple refuses to address the scratching issue because they have only agreed to cover hardware malfunctions. Most users with a scratched iPod Nano will be sending theirs back once they’ve intentionally cracked the screen.
The Nano’s predecessor, the iPod Mini, did not have the same scratching problems. However, the Mini is no longer being sold by Apple. You can still get one from eBay, which is what most people are doing in light of the Nano being prone to so much wear-and-tear.
Apple insists that the Nano is made of the same material as the iPod and the iPod Mini, but because their acknowledgement of the screen-cracking issue, expect a new, more scratch-resistant Nano to be released when Apple decides to fix the screen problem.

d
Comment by Stephen Phillips — March 27, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
I appreciate the support, but I am the writer of this article that you’ve ripped from the Tiger Weekly website. Tiger Weekly is a local paper around Baton Rouge, but we’d still like credit for our work.
Comment by Stephen Phillips — March 27, 2006 @ 8:28 pm