Apple's iPod line didn't get much in the way of updates this year for the first time in roughly a decade. During Apple's fall media event earlier this month, the company announced that just two of its current lineup of four iPods would see any kind of update at all. The iPod touch, previously only available in the traditional black, would now be available in both black and white (ooh, ahh), while the iPod nano gained a handful of clock faces and the ability to track workouts via Nike+ without the need for the accompanying shoe dongle.

It was the latter announcement that piqued my interest. As a runner and an iPod nano aficionado who has been following the development of the Nike+iPod partnership since 2006, I'm familiar with how both Apple and Nike have tweaked the functionality of the Nike+ product over the last five years. Before the iPod nano that was introduced this month, the iPod nano's built-in Nike+ functionality usually required the use of a wireless dongle that only fits into a special divot underneath the insole of a Nike+ shoe—this, the companies argued, was to ensure that the app's measurements were accurate and more precise to your own walking or running style instead of merely estimating your distance or speed.

But runners have never really liked the fact that they were being forced to not only buy Nike shoes, but certain models of Nike shoes in order to use the feature. (Yes, there are plenty of third-party answers for carrying the Nike+ dongle on or around your non-Nike+ shoe, and they work OK, but none are particularly elegant.) Add the fact that the iPod nano has featured a built-in pedometer that doesn't require any sort of external dongle for a few generations now, it only makes sense that Apple and Nike would eventually ditch the dongle.

But what about that old accuracy argument? Indeed, it appears as if there's no longer a way to calibrate the iPod nano's walk/run readings to match your actual step distance and cadence. (Update: please see note at the end about calibration.) And since the nano doesn't have the benefit of built-in GPS like the iPhone (or any number of third-party GPS-based running devices), it can't possibly be at or above the accuracy level of something that can actually track your real-world movements. Or can it? That's what I decided to find out when a new iPod nano arrived at my doorstep, and on a running day, no less.

I'll start by saying that I am currently a RunKeeper fan. The company offers apps for both iOS and Android that lets users track their activities via GPS or manual entry, plus socially network and connect with other runner friends on the RunKeeper website. The site is easy to use, lets people comment on each other's activities, allows users to show which races they'll be attending, and so on.

Conversely, I used to be a fan of Nike+ until RunKeeper came along, but I didn't have as many nice things to say about its website. The Nike+ website has always been in Flash, and although I don't actually have anything against Flash websites like some people do, this particular site has never been good. For one, it's incredibly slow compared to pretty much any other modern website hosted in the US—it always has been, and apparently still is. It's not as easy to figure out how to find your friends on Nike+, much less connect with them or leave feedback on how great or terrible their runs were. To be frank, it's somewhat surprising that Apple even continues to partner with Nike—the experience on the iPod side is fine, but the experience outside of that is worse than what you could find elsewhere.

Now you know where I stand on these two services, but there's one glaring disadvantage to using RunKeeper on the iPhone over Nike+ on the iPod nano: size. Who wants to carry around a bulky and (comparatively) heavy phone that will bounce around and annoy you while running when you could just clip on a tiny, practically weightless music player and go?

Accuracy schmaccuracy

I took the 2011 iPod nano out with me on several runs in order to see how accurate the device might be on its own, without any GPS or shoe dongle to give it any additional help. I also brought my iPhone with RunKeeper, not because I want to directly compare the two, but because I wanted to have other data to check against. I also mapped out my routes on Google Maps to confirm the distance. Finally, I wore a watch to keep track of the time while I was out.

I'll cut to the chase: Nike+ on the new iPod nano was not particularly accurate for me on speed or distance, but the poor speed calculation is likely because of the inaccurate distance estimate. On the three runs I did with the nano, Nike+ over-estimated my distance by about 25 to 33 percent. In some cases, that added up to more than a mile of extra distance. The nano did keep the time correctly though—this is the easiest part, of course—but because of that, the data on how fast I ran was grossly over-estimated. (I sure would like to believe that I can put away 5 miles at 7 minutes per mile, but it just ain't the truth.)

By comparison, RunKeeper very slightly underestimated my mileage—I've learned that it often does this as a result of only semi-good GPS signal where I am, but it's not as big a deal since the difference is usually miniscule when compared against a real map—I'm talking one tenth of a mile or less, usually. Here, too, the time was accurate, so when averaged out, my estimated average mile time was significantly closer to reality.

Obviously RunKeeper and any other GPS-based apps—including the Nike+ GPS app for iOS—have an advantage because they're able to check your actual location at regular intervals, while the iPod nano cannot. With the previous iPod nano and the Nike+ dongle, this was less of a problem because of what I mentioned earlier: there was a way to calibrate the device with the shoe dongle so that it knew what your stride length was instead of using an arbitrary estimate. When you did this, you could get a much more accurate result out of Nike+, but this is no longer possible with the dongle-less iPod nano introduced this year.

Data isn't everything, is it?

If you're a hardcore data nerd and you like to track your runs and walks, the 2011 iPod nano won't suit you—the distance estimates won't be right, and in turn, pretty much all other data associated with it won't be right either. That's the long and short of it, and the only way to improve the situation is to use the old Nike+iPod Sport Kit (with the shoe dongle) with your new iPod nano, but then you're limited on the shoes again.

But not everyone works out in the same way, and not everyone cares about maintaining intense accuracy. If, for example, you're a walker who squeezes in one or two miles on your lunch break and just need something small to record your activity, a 25 percent distance markup may not matter much to you as long as you can see that you're doing something and can listen to music while you do it. Not everyone can afford an iPhone either (or comparable GPS-enabled smartphone), and perhaps you're not ready to invest in a Garmin GPS watch.

There are people who will want to use Nike+ on the 2011 iPod nano, but unfortunately I am not one of them. I say "unfortunately" because I really would like to do so; I don't enjoy taking my iPhone with me on every run, but it has my music and RunKeeper, so that's what I do. Alternately, I could use a GPS watch like the one I linked above and still use a nano for the music, but why would I spend money on those things when I already own an iPhone?

Update on calibration: a handful of readers have told us that there is a way to calibrate the latest iPod nano after all to be slightly more accurate, but most of those same readers have told us that their iPod nanos still over-estimated their milage after calibration. Your milage, of course, will vary depending on your own stride length.