SanDisk reveals iPod Nano rival ‘Fuze’

Table of Contents

SanDisk put a stop to the rumors that it was going to release a product to compete directly with the 3rd generation iPod Nano today, by revealing the Sansa Fuze.

The Fuze is visibly almost a direct copy of the iPod nano, featuring an almost identical design. The Fuze, like all SanDisk digital audio players, is quite different, though.

The Fuze has built in FM radio and voice recording, in addition to support for a variety of Windows Media stores and Rhapsody. Audible files and, of course, unprotected MP3 and WAV files are all supported as well.

SanDisk also points out that the player is compatible with not only Windows, but also Linux and Mac when working in mass storage mode.

The device also features a microSDCH slot allowing for up to 8 gbs of storage expansion. By default the device will sell in a 2gb version for $80 and a 4gb version for $100. An 8gb version will also be available for $130…all of which are significantly cheaper than their Apple produced counterparts.

Picture of Kokou Adzo

Kokou Adzo

Kokou Adzo is a stalwart in the tech journalism community, has been chronicling the ever-evolving world of Apple products and innovations for over a decade. As a Senior Author at Apple Gazette, Kokou combines a deep passion for technology with an innate ability to translate complex tech jargon into relatable insights for everyday users.

9 thoughts on “SanDisk reveals iPod Nano rival ‘Fuze’

  1. Unfortunately, the fact that they don’t support even unprotected AAC format is a deal killer. I’m just not going to re-rip music yet again…

  2. @Michael
    What is this:

    MP3 players » Blog Archive » SanDisk reveals iPod Nano rival ‘Fuze’

    Is this some kind of spam to redirect some traffic to their websites?

    Shouldn’t people be doing better things with their time?

  3. @The Wizard

    Yeah, that’s a spam site – I try to delete as many of them as I can, but there are literally hundreds of sites that try to rip off my RSS feed. It’s almost a full time job by itself.

  4. @Michael:

    I have created a coupleof blogs before. There was a solution for your problem by forcing your commenter either to be registered users like the case with engadget or TUAW. Or, by forcing them not to register but to enter a constatntly changing security code that appears above the commentary box and has the life span of only a few minutes then it expires. You know, those wavy characters and numbers that you have to squint in orser to be able to read. I hope you can imply something like that on your website as those blood suckers are really lurcking on your pages these days.

  5. i’m not a tech guy. i’m a law guy. all these ipod boosters keep saying sue. but lets look at it more closely. there are four bodies of law that may apply: trade secrets, copyright, trademark, and patent.

    trade secrets might apply if, and only if, sansa developed the fuze to mirror the nano after wrongfully procuring nano specs while apple was taking reasonable precautions to keep those spec confidential. in light of their comparative release dates, that is not likely the case here.

    copyright protects works of authorship from misappropriation. the shape of a device is not a work of authorship.

    trademark deals with built up associational value in a name. an offshoot of trademark law is trade dress. thus, it is unlawful for a product to deceptively adopt a competitors packaging in a manner likely to cause condusion in the market place. nevertheless, regardless of registration status or distinctiveness, you can never trademark a design that has a functional benefit. thus, cvs has been able to justify packaging its house brand mouth wash in bottles shaped just like listerine’s distinct bottle (boxy indent in the middle) on the premise that it aids in carrying and storing. clearly, there are functional benefits to the size of the ipod and fuze. therefore, apple can sue – but won’t likely win.

    that leaves patent. patents apply to non-obvious inventions and processes. for example, smuckers was denied a patent for peanut butter and jelly filled bread pockets because it was too obvious. the functional benefit of making an mp3 player a small square is even more obvious. again, apple likely has no suit.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts