Analyst: 2GB iPod nano now outselling 4GB model | iLounge News


Analyst: 2GB iPod nano now outselling 4GB model

Apple’s 4GB iPod nano, which was widely seen as the best-selling iPod since its introduction, is apparently now being outsold by its lower-capacity sibling. American Technology Research analyst Shaw Wu believes that Apple is benefiting from better than expected sales of 2GB iPod nanos during the holiday shopping season. The analyst said in a research note today that shoppers are appearing to be swayed by the device’s $199 price tag.

“We believe a surge in demand for 2GB iPod nanos at $199 may surprise most iPod followers,” Wu wrote in the report. “This is because in the first several weeks of iPod nano, 4GB models, particularly black colored ones, were outselling the 2GBs and white 4GB nanos by a wide margin. Since then we believe Apple’s bet on a $199 price point has paid off (like it did with the $199 4GB iPod mini) as it built more of these models (and with better margins versus the $249 4GB nanos) as it appears that holiday shoppers (particularly first-time iPod buyers) are more concerned with the price point as opposed to the storage capacity. Demand for the $249 4GB nanos remains strong but appears to be outpaced by its lower-priced, and lower capacity version.”

Related Stories



It’s interesting.  I guess some do not wish to pay $249 for the 4GB, as it is so close in price to the 30GB 5G iPod.  $199 makes more sense to me.  If I am looking at a $249 price tag, I’d probably opt for the $299, and get far more space, newer design, video, etc.  I think the 4GB was outselling because the new 5GB iPods were not yet released.

(sorry for the crappy English…I’m trying to learn!)

Posted by Jing on November 29, 2005 at 12:21 PM (CST)


Most likely it’s because at $249 you could add just $50 and get a 30gig 5th gen iPod.  When you see it in person, you realize it’s still really small, so why not just get that instead of the 4gig nano?

So I bet it’s just that now you still have the same base that want the $199 nano, but then the 4gig nano purcahsers are jumping for the 30gig iPod.

Posted by m.sherman on November 29, 2005 at 12:49 PM (CST)


I think Apple should ditch the 2 different capacity levels for the shuffles and the Nanos and stick w/ a $99 & $199 price. Oh, & make the next shuffle available in white and black like the rest of the ipod lineup.

And Jing, your English is fine.

Posted by bluehoo on November 29, 2005 at 12:50 PM (CST)


ipod nanos r better then the other ones alot less weight but thats only from a guy that does bmx

Posted by chirs on November 29, 2005 at 11:07 PM (CST)


sorry about the english i was on msn but to go on jack i think the batterie is just fine. why would you want it to run of double a’s (it would die quickly) then they already do.

Posted by chris on November 29, 2005 at 11:15 PM (CST)


One other reason the 2GB Nanos might be outselling the 4GB ones is, at least here in Australia, a drastic shortage of the latter.

I went to buy a 4GB Nano on Monday. A dozen stores all told me the same thing - “it’s completely out of stock, Apple cannot supply more, and we don’t expect to see more stock until next year”.

I ended up coughing up the extra AU$90 for the 30GB hard disk-based iPod. I’m sure many others are doing the same, because that model’s about to run out here as well (plenty of 60GB models left though, which is not surprising given that the price jump from the 30GB is AU$150)

Posted by Neon Kitten on November 30, 2005 at 1:23 AM (CST)


jack, you have no idea what you’re talking about.  the nano is already at an extremely low price point.  there is no chance in hell they can’t just “price them lower and give the top-of-the-line Nano twice as much memory as it has—say 8GB” when they are already selling the only 4gb player at the price of most 2gb players.
16gb by next year?  right… we’ll see about that.  and “My best advice is work a bit harder, kick in four extra GB and have it be a 20 GB” proves how little you know.

heres a fun fact, the nano is only 10% bigger than a 9v battery. 

removable batteries and built-in rechargeable batteries both have their pros and cons, but for a device you use (presumeably) everyday, built in rechargeable is better.

Posted by tyler on November 30, 2005 at 3:46 AM (CST)


oh, and i originally intended to agree with neon kitten.  i had a friend who was looking for a 4gb and couldn’t find them anywhere.  he was looking at best buys i think (he had a gift card)

Posted by tyler on November 30, 2005 at 3:48 AM (CST)


The supply is definitely driving this IMHO.  When I went to buy a 4GB black nano about a month ago, all stores in a 20 mile radius were out of stock.  I then found out there was an apple store at a nearby mall, and they had tons of them in stock (thereby confirming the rumors in another news thread here about apple hanging onto stock for their own stores).

While supplies of 4GB nanos have recently improved, sales figures are always retrospective, and I would guess the higher sales of 2GBs are driven in large part by the fact that that’s all people can get hold of in many places.

Posted by dopial on November 30, 2005 at 10:38 AM (CST)


I sold my 20GB iPod (3G) and bought a 2GB nano. My main point in doing so, was that I found it difficult to look through my 40GB library and pick out 20GB of music to load onto the 3G iPod. Now, with my small-capacity Nano, the task is much simpler. I pick out what I want to listen to at this very moment. It’s much easier to select a hundred songs or so, and then just swap them more often. While I briefly considered a 4GB nano, I felt that it would defeat my goal of simplification. Anyway, that was my own reason for choosing the small nano.

Posted by Pablo on November 30, 2005 at 3:19 PM (CST)


RE: Storage capacity for the Nano during the next year.

I live in South Korea, and Samsung, the world’s biggest flash memory company, says it aims to double flash capacity each year. And it has done this for the past five years.

Since this firm supplies most of the flash memory to Apple for its iPod Nanos, it’s reasonable to expect that Apple will be able to double the Nano’s flash capacity each year.

This means we should be seeing 8GB Nanos towards the end of next year.

Posted by Scott on November 30, 2005 at 9:25 PM (CST)


I should also add that I prefer removable batteries. Apple’s iPod doesn’t have removable batteries, and many people complain that after only a few months, the battery capacity drops sharply. Who wants to shell out major ping for something with a limited lifespan? At least with removable (and rechargable) AA or AAA batteries, you can simply replace them when they crap out.
For this reason, I’m looking at buying a Cowon Iaudio instead of an Apple, as soon as the flash-based Cowons hit 4GB-8GB

Posted by Scott on November 30, 2005 at 9:29 PM (CST)


you would have to change AAs all the time.  just pluggin in the ipod is much simpler.  battery compartments are often the weak point of many players.  if you could get the same battery life out of an AA that you do with the nano now, you would need to purchase 500 batteries to get the same amount of life.  thats a lot of batteries and lot of time spent changing them out.  the player would also have to be significantly bigger.  rechargeable batteries are smaller, lighter, cheaper, and easier.  the one single drawback is that you can’t buy them in a store and if you run out, you need to recharge. 
scott, the capacity does not drop sharply after a few months.  it slowly decays and drops below 90% after 500 charge cycles.
you’re an idiot jack. lets see how flash memory works.  first there were 128KB 256KB 512KB (are we seeing a pattern yet?) 1GB 2GB 4GB 8GB 16GB and then your wonderful 20GB flash chip.  its brilliant.  you should be an engineer.  “work a little harder guys, you can make it do 20”  haha, right.  i think maybe 8GB by the end of next year.

Posted by z2 on December 1, 2005 at 2:08 PM (CST)


show me the 8gb memory stick, Jack.  I found 8Gb compact flash memory (not on sonys store, but elsewhere), it costs around $650. 

what do you mean you don’t have to change the batteries all the time?  don’t you have to change them when they run out?  or do you have some new type of battery that doesn’t do that at your 20gb flash manufacturing plant?  most players that run off AAA or AA get close to the same battery life of the nano, maybe a little more.  that means changing the battery every 20 hours of usage.  like i said before, a 9v battery is the size of the ipod nano.  the thing that makes the nano so awesome is that its not the size of the regular ipods. 

8gb is old news for flash (well, about a year) but its still rediculously expensive.  theres no way they will be using them in devices anytime soon.

Posted by z2 on December 1, 2005 at 5:51 PM (CST)


some more information:
-an AA battery is twice as thick as the ipod nano
-AAA is 1.5 times as thick

so, the nano would probably have to at least double in thickness to accomodate a removeable battery.  they would also need to put in a battery cover which, as i have already stated, is frequently a weak point of players.  a removeable battery would cost more, and make the player bigger, heavier, and weaker.

Posted by z2 on December 1, 2005 at 6:05 PM (CST)


ooo, nice. capital letters. 
a.  battery issue - li-ion batteries last approximately 500 charge cycles before they drop below 90%.  even though the battery isn’t close to dead at 500 charge cycles, lets say it is. 

so, 500 charge cycles at 14 hours of use per cycle = 7000 hours of playing.  lets give an AA battery a leg up and say it will play for 20 hours.  thats 350 batteries you would need to buy. 

how about we buy them at walmart?  its a good store, all around so i figure it’ll be a good choice for comparison.  now, instead of buying a bunch of smaller packs, we’ll buy the 20 pack.  (350/20)x$8.87 = $155.225.  and i’m not even including tax.  it will cost you $65.95 for apple to replace the batter for you, or a third party company will do it for even less. 

you might need to help me out with this, but last i checked $155.225 > (is greater than) $65.95.  that means, rechargeable battery is cheaper. 

b. size - a little bit bigger?  if you strap a 9-volt battery to the side of the nano, it will be twice as big as it was before.  then the nano isn’t so special.  in business, you need something to set yourself apart from the other players.  the nano does this a couple ways:
-size - if you have seen one in person you know what i mean.  anyone who sees it thinks ‘damn thats tiny’.
-capacity - there are no other players on the market at 4gb of flash and only a couple at 2gb
so, if you strap in a removeable battery, you lose the ‘damn thats tiny’ factor, and you just have to wait for the other guys to get ahold of some flash memory. 

a built in battery also helps keep the ipod clean and more durable. (no, i’m not talking about scratches, yes i know they scratch like crazy, thats not what i’m refering to) have you ever had other players or walkmans that got junked because the battery door broke?  i know i have.  having something like a door creates a weak point in the player.  its just asking to snap off, loose a piece, or just stop working right.  on top of all the other reasons (cost, size, weight), player rubustness is improved with the built in battery. 

and i honestly cannot find mention of an 8gb memory stick anywhere.  on the entire internet.  weird, isn’t it?  especially since you just saw it there.  huh…

Posted by z2 on December 1, 2005 at 11:57 PM (CST)


replaceable costs $155.225/7000 = $0.02275 / minute
rechargeable costs $65.95/7000 = $0.009421 / minute

for the replaceable to overcome the rechargeable, you would need to loose more than half of the life of the battery to the loses you claim plague rechargeables. unfortunately, that is just not true.  i have never seen anything claiming that you lose more than half the life of your ipod (on average) every time you leave it sitting off. 

you are doing a superb job at arguing your points.  all the facts and links to actual information are stunning.  you’re keeping it on topic and to the point.  very professional.  i commend you.

Posted by z2 on December 2, 2005 at 1:09 AM (CST)


for the replaceable to overcome the rechargeable, **every 14 useful hours of the charge cycle** you would need to loose more than 7 hours of the battery to the loses you claim plague rechargeables. unfortunately, that is just not true.  i have never seen anything claiming that you lose more than half the life of your ipod (on average) every time you leave it sitting off.

Posted by z2 on December 2, 2005 at 2:45 AM (CST)


actually, the first 500 charge cycles are included in the cost of the player (total extra cost $0), the second 500 charge cycles are what you pay for.  so in reality, the replaceable batteries cost much more than 4 times as much.  oh, what pitiful final blow.

Posted by z2 on December 2, 2005 at 4:15 PM (CST)


Jack claimed that “Chicks exaggerate much of the time because they cannot argue a point to save their lives.” I take it from Jack’s own admission (not to mention her glaring lack of debating skills), that she must be female herself, is that right Jackie? Yeah… you go girl! Now go back to watching Oprah or whatever it is that you normally do during the daytime once you’ve finished your ironing.

Posted by HHolly on December 6, 2005 at 2:27 PM (CST)

Subscribe to iLounge Weekly

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2018 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy