Since the advent of the iPhone these announcements haven’t meant a whole lot to me – it’s been my primary iPod since the day I got it and it’s the only device I have with me most of the time. However, running has given me a newfound appreciation for a smaller breed of iPod, a lightweight, pared-down option that I simply never had a need for in the past. Currently I’m running with a third-generation “fat” nano. Size and weight-wise I have no complaints, but I will admit to the clickwheel being somewhat finicky at times, the fact that it (like most other iPods) requires the additional receiver for Nike+ functionality, and the issue of storage when I’m lacking pockets (solution: armband).

Which is why the new iPod nano is amazing. As is usually the case, commenters on sites like such as Engadget are quick to point out the device’s shortcomings; namely that it no longer plays video or takes photos. The common sentiment is that kids like it for that sort of thing, which shows that these people are missing the point: this isn’t for kids.

There was a time when an iPod nano was the de facto teenager accessory, but as iOS has gained more attention and the devices are quickly becoming ever more competent and affordable, the iPod touch is the logical heir to that throne: the popular iPod. While the old iPods had “games” and “apps”, the touch actually makes good on that promise. And granted, the price difference is somewhat significant, but the difference in capabilities between the iPod touch and even the old, video-enabled nanos was even more pronounced. Many may even find (or have found) that the extra money is better spent there than towards a DS or PSP. And now that the touch has a (HD!) camera, the nano couldn’t/can’t compete.

Which is fine, actually, because the old lineup didn’t make sense in that regard. Apple is finally making it clear with broad strokes that if you need or want to do anything other than listen to music, get an iPod touch. Easy decision. And for those of us who only want music, and would like it in the smallest possible package (with a screen, please), this new nano is a godsend. While I’m wary of the touchscreen, I’m ready to believe it can’t be worse than the crazy scroll wheel on my current iPod, and happy to acknowledge that all my other concerns have been addressed beautifully.

And duh, Apple wants the popular iPod to be an iOS device.

You probably already know where this is going, but suffice it to say that I can be somewhat — finicky — when it comes to buying things. With that in mind, I set off on a journey to see what I could see.

Parameters

I pretty quickly remembered that one of the must-haves in a new display is LED backlighting, because it’s awesome. While this helped narrow the search considerably, it wasn’t without its share of problems. It can be rather difficult to sift through pages of displays (regardless of website) to find those that are LED-backlit, as the technology isn’t significant enough to warrant different categorization from other LCD’s. Annoying, but understandable.

Getting past this obstacle, I was able to find some potential candidates at reasonable prices. I knew when starting the search that I’d likely have to make some sacrifices, namely in terms of aesthetics. I was pretty interested in the Samsung PX2370 (no link, but it’s black, rectangular, and really shallow), but true to Samsung everybody-but-Apple form the base looks like dogshit and for some godforsaken reason it’s not even VESA compliant.

More Parameters

But I digress. Let’s forget about specific monitors for a minute and talk about where the industry as a whole is headed: 16:9. It only makes sense, considering that’s where televisions have been for years and it’s a lot easier for computers to adjust to this standard. And as a result, we’re seeing cheaper panels which is why the Samsung mentioned above is have-able for around $300.

HOWEVER. The result is that it’s nigh-impossible to find an LED-backlit monitor with a pixel height of more than 1080 (“full-HD”) – a measly 30 pixels higher than what I have now. And with that in mind, it’s hard for me to justify spending any money to upgrade. Additional width is useful, always. But additional height is just as important, and that’s just not there yet – even larger 16:9 monitors are topping out at full HD. 1080P is great (I’d even go so far as to call it overkill) for a 27″ television, but a sick joke for a computer monitor of the same size. Where’s the pixel density?

These two search parameters have made my options extremely limited, and somewhat surprisingly, the front-runner is the outgoing 24″ Apple LED Display. While the new 27″ matches the 16:9 ratio and WQHD resolution of the 2009 iMacs, the late 24″ is the last of Apple’s 16:10 desktop displays. Price, especially now, is not as bad as I initially thought after comparing it with rivals that lack LED and niceties like the built-in iSight(s) (not to mention the aesthetic points).

Conclusion

If I had to buy new monitors right this second, I’d probably cry a little bit and then give my money to Apple. But fortunately I don’t have to buy anything right now, so I probably won’t. It’s a tougher decision to make when a few hundred dollars turns into nearly three times that much, and fortunately my current Apples are working just fine.

Addendum

After further research, some additional (and expensive) voodoo is required to mate a DVI Mac Pro with one of the Mini DisplayPort-only Apple displays. The search continues.

The unboxing process was nice enough but I wasn’t nearly as excited about this iPhone as I had been about the 3G, mainly because I didn’t expect this transition to be nearly as drastic. I was both right and wrong about this, in a good way, so let’s break it down:

Design

This – THIS – is what an iPhone should look like. I liked the original aluminum iPhone, and very much disliked the glossy plastic 3G and 3GS so this new design is a very welcome change.

Unsurprisingly, it feels great to hold – Apple has few peers in this area. In recent history their influence over competitors’ designs is somewhat obvious, but photos can’t portray just how big the difference in build quality is. At the risk of stepping into fanboy territory, it’s often the difference between buying a gadget and a functional work of art.

Interestingly, I did run up against what is mostly a psychological problem when setting the phone down. In a situation where I’m about to put the phone on a desk or other flat surface, I’d tend to hold it with my thumb on the left, four fingers on the right, and the screen facing up. The curved back of the iPhone 3G meant that the back of the phone would make contact before my fingers, so I could then release. The flat back of the iPhone 4 results in the opposite, meaning I either have to reposition my fingers or “drop” it slightly. I wouldn’t go so far as to call it an issue as it doesn’t result in any harm to the phone; it’s just an oddity.

Experience

I found the initial startup to be a little underwhelming, actually. I think there was a lot of buildup for the Retina display and at first I didn’t notice a tremendous improvement. It is definitely nicer – a little whiter and a lot sharper, but it’s something that requires a slightly closer look for me to really appreciate. Where the difference is most pronounced for me is the app icons, as some of them are still formatted only for the old resolution and are quite grainy as a result.

What I wasn’t expecting was for the increase in performance to be so noticeable. Everything is significantly faster than on my old phone, but for me the two most useful instances of this are:

1. The camera. It still takes a couple seconds to launch, but shutter actuation is much, much faster. It could still benefit from a bigger lens, but so could every camera ever made.
2. Wifi. Locking the iPhone 3G would result in a loss of wifi (understandable), but it would take its sweet time reconnecting when unlocked. Not so with the iPhone 4, which retains a wifi connection even while locked (presumably for short periods of time) or reconnects almost instantly when unlocked.

The wifi in particular is an example of what Apple does well: continually refining things that were already okay until they’re great. The 3G’s wifi performance was a little annoying at times, but it wasn’t a situation where identical behavior from the iPhone 4 would’ve prevented a purchase. The newfound responsiveness has been particularly useful when using Touchpad, the remote app for our Windows Media PC.

Gripes

I may be a fanboy, but I’m not so rabid as to admit that Apple’s devices don’t have their flaws. In this case, though, I think the nits I have to pick are mainly software-based except for two, both of which are self-explanatory:

1. More storage is always better.
2. The camera could be better still.

Even iOS 4 is pretty solid, in that it would take me a fair amount of time to remember and compile any of the complaints I would’ve had. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is with Apple’s implementation of Facetime. I certainly understand their reasoning for putting it front and center within the in-call menu, but they did so at the expense of the hold button. This resulted in a panic when I tried to put a call on hold the first time, and the end result was not pretty.

There’s been some coverage of this already, with the “official” response from Apple being that hold is just a glorified mute button. I get that, and now that I realize there even is a mute button I find myself a bit less peeved by the whole thing. The obvious question becomes: why did the two exist in the first place?

Also, I guess they’re having antenna problems or something? I wouldn’t really know as I haven’t experienced any.

And finally, still no 3G around here. Just go suck a dick, AT&T – you guys are terrible. On that note, though, I am now on the new DataPlus plan so I don’t feel like I’m being totally robbed every month. I guess that’s an advantage.