News
Mystery chips, no PortalPlayer inside new iPod nano
As shown in our disassembly photo gallery, the new second-generation iPod nano has three Apple-marked chips of unknown origin and no chip from PortalPlayer. According to a Wedbush Morgan Securities report, one of the Apple-marked chips is a Samsung ARM processor, occupying the socket formerly supplied by PortalPlayer. Earlier this year, PortalPlayer warned that Apple would not use its chips in the next nano, followed by reports that Samsung had won an Apple contract to supply chips for new iPods.
Wolfson and Philips chips are also not apparent, but are believed to be the other two Apple-branded components. The report also noted that Cypress Semiconductor, Linear Technology, National Semiconductor, and Silicon Storage Tech maintained their sockets in the new nano. Wedbush said Apple purposely “concealed the identity of its chips and their suppliers” with the new nano models.
The Wedbush report also said that Apple is likely to generate higher gross profit margins from the new nano line this holiday season. Craig Berger of Wedbush Morgan Securities estimated that Apple’s gross margins could be as high as 50% on the new nanos due to the falling price of NAND flash. Apple’s new nano line retails for $149 to $249; Berger believes it’s costing Apple anywhere from $74.90 to $143.90 for the parts to manufacture line.
Comments
If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.
Recent News
- iPodweek newsletter coming shortly
- Ngmoco releases Rolando 2: Quest for the Golden Orchid
- L.A.-based band uses iPhone to record new single
- iPhone patent filings: haptics, fingerprints, karaoke, packaging, more
- Apple, developers wrestling over App Store pornographic content policy
- AT&T memo touts record-breaking iPhone 3GS launch
- New iPhone 3GS ad highlights video features
- Winners of iPWR SuperPack Giveaway announced
- iLounge announces Tekkeon myPower Giveaway
- Nike+ site updated, adds some iPhone/iPod touch access
Recent Reviews
- Gameloft S.A. Castle of Magic
- Altec Lansing BackBeat 903 Wireless Stereo Headphones
- id Software Doom Resurrection
- Blackmagic Design Video Recorder with H.264 Encoding
- Ultimate Ears UE 4 Pro Custom Monitors
- Kensington Bluetooth Stereo Headphones with Microphone
- Avantalk Multimedia Wireless Speakerphone BTSP-200
- Apple iPhone 3GS (16GB/32GB)
- Apple iPhone OS 3.0
- Ozaki iCommand Controller for iPod shuffle 3G
Recent Articles
- Weird + Small Apps 19: A.D.D. Lite, Archon Classic, iYamato, Warpack Grunts + More
- Ask iLounge 6-26-09
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of Apple TV 2.4
- Weird + Small Apps: Blue Block, Guess!, Idiot Test, ThreadBound, Water Toy, myXident, StamPa + More
- Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Apple’s iPhone 3GS
- Editorial: Why No Lines at iPhone 3GS’s Launch is Good For Apple, and You
- The One-Page Guide to iPhone 3G, 3GS, and iPod touch Differences
- Editorial: Developers’ iPhone OS 3.0 Features Work, With Key Caveats
- Editorial: In-App Purchasing Shame - $1-per-Minute GPS is Here, is Psychic Friends Next?
- Instant Expert: Secrets & Features of iPhone OS 3.0
1
Wow, drop your prices on 4GB Nano and increase your margins. That is a neat trick.
Posted by Countach on September 15, 2006 at 7:49 PM (PDT)
2
I am glad Apple is doing this. I for one like being surprised when they announce the presents. Who would want to take apart something just to see who made what? Let it go.
Posted by Kurt on September 17, 2006 at 8:35 PM (PDT)
3
Who would want to take apart something just to see who made what?
People do it—take ‘em apart—to Porsches and Ferraris…why not iPods?
Apple will make more. Don’t sweat it.
Posted by flatline response on September 18, 2006 at 10:04 AM (PDT)