The newest version of the ipod will have a color screen on it and you will be able to download video to it and watch it at any time. There is also talk of downloadable video games for the new ipod
I am in the minority here I guess, but if a devide like that came out, it would NOT be an "iPod." The device we all know as "iPod" will remain the same as far as it's duty: The best MP3 player you can buy. Anything that can play games, look at video and photos, etc. will be a completely new device IMHO.
That's a terrible idea. Unless someone has come out with a colour screen that takes less power than a B&W <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
what if it had like a 4" screen instead and looked like an iPod with video out so that you could hook it up to your TV. The extra space in the back could be used for more battery getting the total usage up to like 4-5 hrs again.
Aaaggghhhh!!!! This pipe dream again? Why won't it just die? Color on a device that's supposed to go in your pocket is a dumb idea. How much time do you spend looking at the screen of your ipod? I'd say not more than 30 seconds of the day unless you just bought it and like to look it at. Please make this die. If it comes out, I'll have some serious doubts about Apple's idea factory. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I'd just like to point out that lots of Cell phone companies are completely convinced people would LOVE to have this on their cell phones. So it's not like the vague idea doesn't have industry support.
Also, with Apple's new MPEG4 push, they really are planning on being a part of the internet video world. Part of that is MPEG4/QTSS automatically resizing depending on the display and connection speed of the device connecting to it. (This is confirmed. I have seen it myself. This does not mean it has anything to do with the iPod)
I would just like Apple to get to the place where it can try something like that (meaning a QT player device) without having to have it be "incredibly successful" all of the time.
Apple still feels bad about the cube thing which I don't think was a disaster. It was just an economically unsuccessful product. And whenever Apple does something short of a Time coverstory, the product is so trashed by Windozers and Mac marketing wannabe's. How many Sony computers have come and gone without a whisper as Sony has been getting its Vaio systems to prime time and Sony is doing fine. I think Apple should be close to that now or soon.
I don't know about a color screen iPod that plays Tetris, but it would be nice if Apple wasn't afraid to experiment a bit without the faithful scorning its products.
I just watched a CNN bit about the Microsoft TV Photo Viewer. What a lame piece of crap. Uses floppies that only hold 40 photos and a huge, ugly viewer box to watch slide shows on a TV set. Sells for $160.
Now, lets imagine we have an iPod like device from Apple. It would probably be about 1/10 the size, has cool looks, holds thousands of photos at TV resolution, syncs with iPhoto similar to how iPod syncs with iTunes, holds video clips as well as photos, doubles as an extra storage device for a digital camera in the field, color screen allows it to be a stand alone photo viewer without TV. Those are just a few uses I can come up with off the top of my head.
Granted, it won't sell for $160, but I think it would do just as well as the iPod has at a similar price. I don't have any inside info, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some device like this from Apple at Macworld Tokyo.
A couple more things. According to my rough calculations if a 1.4 MB floppy can hold 40 photos for TV viewing, a 5 GB iPod could hold 142,857 photos. Of course you wouldn't have that much free space just for photos and people would store higher resolutions then needed just to watch on TV. It could also be possible to sync it directly to a printer to bypass the computer completely.
The big question in my mind is wether this would be an iPod with upgraded functions allowing photos and music to share the same space, or would it be a seperate device.
[quote] Color on a device that's supposed to go in your pocket is a dumb idea. <hr></blockquote>
Huh? what a ridiculous statement! Maybe it's an expensive idea, but it's hardly ridiculous. Go out and poll people - if they could afford it I bet 10-1 would buy the color over the b&w. I'd be first in line. It's easier to look at and provides additional means of identifying items on a small screen (color-coding...near to impossible w/o color). Color adds both functionality and ease-of-use.
20 years in the future, if color was dumb in pocket devices period, then we'd never have it. However, if in 20 years, we DON'T have color in pocket devices I'll buy you a beer and admit I'm wrong.
In response to horned_frog, why are people against the idea of the iPod as something more than a mp3 player? It's already more than that when it acts as a firewire hard drive. If it was just meant to be a mp3 player why use 'Pod' in the name?
Apple isn't going to change the form factor of the iPod. That would just be idiotic. Nobody would pay $400-800 for a hugeass 5GB iPod (with a neat-o color screen for, um, colored visuals!), when they could pay $300-something for a 20GB Nomad. The iPod will stay.
There may well be an iPDA that is HD-based, small like the iPod, and with a revolutionary interface (including color touchscreen). But that won't be called an "iPod," it would confused customers and ruin a product line that satisfies something a TON of consumers want, a portable music player.
All this you speak of is probable, Apple could pull off, and would even be way cool, but it's far more than iPod's customer base wants.
Comments
Also, with Apple's new MPEG4 push, they really are planning on being a part of the internet video world. Part of that is MPEG4/QTSS automatically resizing depending on the display and connection speed of the device connecting to it. (This is confirmed. I have seen it myself. This does not mean it has anything to do with the iPod)
<strong>I really trust someone who doesn't even know that "MAC" isn't an acronym...
Media access control.... Try again
Although, I don't think that was the context in which he was using the word.
Apple still feels bad about the cube thing which I don't think was a disaster. It was just an economically unsuccessful product. And whenever Apple does something short of a Time coverstory, the product is so trashed by Windozers and Mac marketing wannabe's. How many Sony computers have come and gone without a whisper as Sony has been getting its Vaio systems to prime time and Sony is doing fine. I think Apple should be close to that now or soon.
I don't know about a color screen iPod that plays Tetris, but it would be nice if Apple wasn't afraid to experiment a bit without the faithful scorning its products.
Now, lets imagine we have an iPod like device from Apple. It would probably be about 1/10 the size, has cool looks, holds thousands of photos at TV resolution, syncs with iPhoto similar to how iPod syncs with iTunes, holds video clips as well as photos, doubles as an extra storage device for a digital camera in the field, color screen allows it to be a stand alone photo viewer without TV. Those are just a few uses I can come up with off the top of my head.
Granted, it won't sell for $160, but I think it would do just as well as the iPod has at a similar price. I don't have any inside info, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see some device like this from Apple at Macworld Tokyo.
The big question in my mind is wether this would be an iPod with upgraded functions allowing photos and music to share the same space, or would it be a seperate device.
Huh? what a ridiculous statement! Maybe it's an expensive idea, but it's hardly ridiculous. Go out and poll people - if they could afford it I bet 10-1 would buy the color over the b&w. I'd be first in line. It's easier to look at and provides additional means of identifying items on a small screen (color-coding...near to impossible w/o color). Color adds both functionality and ease-of-use.
20 years in the future, if color was dumb in pocket devices period, then we'd never have it. However, if in 20 years, we DON'T have color in pocket devices I'll buy you a beer and admit I'm wrong.
rr.
a true iPod should also have internet connectivity (or does the "i" really stand for "interim"?) to live up to the name.
pi
There may well be an iPDA that is HD-based, small like the iPod, and with a revolutionary interface (including color touchscreen). But that won't be called an "iPod," it would confused customers and ruin a product line that satisfies something a TON of consumers want, a portable music player.
All this you speak of is probable, Apple could pull off, and would even be way cool, but it's far more than iPod's customer base wants.