"Apple Watch vs iPod Nano watch: Comparing Apple's two watches, four years apart"
will start after this message from our sponsors.
Apple Watch vs iPod Nano watch: Comparing Apple's two watches, four years apart
Hey I'm Scott Stein and I'm wearing two Apple watches on my wrists.
One from 2015 and one from 2011.
Apple made a watch before but it was called the Ipod Nano and I wore this for years, proudly.
Why did I do it?
Well it was fun and it didn't cost that much.
You could buy an iPod nana for 129 or 149 and then you get the band separately.
But you could attach it, look at the time.
Ton of nice watch faces.
But it was an iPod.
It stored 8 or 60 gigabytes of music.
It actually had apps, so you could use an FM radio, voice memo.
It had a fitness tracker, Nike support.
So it acted like a pedometer.
What did it lack?
Well, it didn't have any Bluetooth, for one, so it was completely disconnected from your phone.
Had a headphone jack for listening to music, but if you wanted to put music on it, you had to actually connect a 30 pin cable and sync it to your computer to get all of your music and podcasts onto it.
It also didn't have any of the other extra features, like heart rate monitor or Apple Pay, obviously.
Any of that stuff.
But it was more affordable, and it was simpler.
That's something that the Apple Watch, for all of its extra features, maybe could aspire to a bit more.
Now you can still buy an iPod nano, but it doesn't have this little design.
You can't turn it into a watch anymore.
You gotta pay $350 for the Apple Watch.
Maybe Apple will make a more affordable watch someday.
In the spirit of the detachable iPod Nano.
That'd be a pretty fun idea.
The Apple Watch Series 4 delivers on its fitness promises
Pixel 3 and 3 XL: CNET editors react
First Man stars on their personal trip to the moon
The team behind Microsoft's Surface Headphones
Behind the scenes of Science Fair with co-director Cristina Costantini