Apple introduces iPod Photo - Page 4

The answer to your question is simple - people are "expecting" new and wonderful features for each new incarnation of the iPod, and when the features aren't there (like the Tetris you mention) it leads to further speculation, rambling, disappointment, roadrage, etc.

Personally, I keep bringing up the iPod Video thing because I feel it's the next step up. I tend to think in terms of being able to do a lot of things with one device.

That being said...I can see I am going to have to come up with a "proof of concept" web page that shows just what a 220x176 movie will look like on an iPod. Only then will people start to see the potential. 10,000 pr0n in your pocket? Fine. Justice League or Brak show? Fine. iMovies? Fine. Watching a movie in the passenger seat on a long trip? Why not.

Part of the problem here is that Mac users currently lack a decent, compatible PDA so that they can get an understanding of where the technology currently is. My Dell Axim X5 (granted larger screen size) plays small movie clips fine, and I am only limited by the amount of space on my SD or CF card. And this is with a good portion of the screen being taken up by the player interface. Most Mac users have a Palm device, and it's waaaayyyyyy behind PocketPC right now.

And for the curious, no my PocketPC does NOT melt or use up the battery in 5 minutes when viewing video like an earlier post implied. It's kind of amazing that someone would suggest that.

Oh, I saw the potential when I saw the "postage stamp" video of QuickTime 1 back in the day.


What format? 3GPP can scale down nicely to cell phones even, but I don't think I'd want to see that on a TV, or an HDTV. And there's the rub: If you're talking video meant to display on a tiny screen, sure, that's long since done. Displaying DVD-resolution video, or (God knows) H.264 HDTV video would be a whole other category of problem. And if you want to display video on a TV without traumatizing people with poor color and rampant artifacts, it's a real problem.


For 3GPP video, yes. For the sort of movie output by iMovie, no.

aren't you sort of contradicting yourself here? not that i'm the contradicting police or anything, just curious

You're half right. I was paraphrasing Steve, I do agree, although seeing Monty Python clips would be cool. BUT i do say things to provoke a reaction - the last statement wasn't trying to though!

And to the people who are having a go at App,e for not making a Video iPod and telling people what they want: Apple made a Cube, lots of people loved it, however not enough to make it profitable, Apple exist to make money. Yes Steve doesn't care about the money but if Apple don't make a profit Apple don't exist. Steve doesn't think it would be. Lots of people want a PDA Pod but again Steve doesn't think it would be profitable. (It is a possibility he doesn't want to take the company that way as well)

I wouldn't take it so personally. I mean Steve (and others) aren't saying anythign about YOU personally, just what the market (in general) wants. Don't you think if Apple thought they could make buckets of money selling a video iPod, they would?

I just noticed (okay, I'm slow) this: http://www.picasa.com/picasa/?

This makes me wonder if Apple might not port iPhoto to Windows afterall...

Interesting, but if Google is going to give it away, why would Apple unless there was a DRM issue or some other way of making it significantly cooler than Picasa on iPod Photo.

Images have a value, but mostly a personal one, thus wallet photos and perhaps the iPod Photo will do well. I have wondered if the companies and photographers with private portfolios for business and art might like a quick cheap way of getting images into the market place. Could there be an iPhoto Pro? Gates has been trying to corner the market on images in the way that Michael Jackson was trying to corner the market on Beatles songs. I know the money isn't there yet cause there are images everywhere and I dont' want copyrights on every jpeg on the web, but it is interesting to think that ANY image management software app can be really any better than any other and what would iPhoto do that isn't already being done a dozen times over?

You're probably right. I am mostly just "thinking out loud". Couple of reasons I could see for Apple doing it:

1. Creates a connection to iPod Photo.

2. Increased brand identity.

3. Perhaps Apple has a larger strategy that revolves around "Trojan Horse-ing" themselves into being the "new computer" (iPod) with all of these software products (iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, etc.) as the "gateway" to it.

Again...just sort of thinking/brainstorming out loud here.

Though I'm not sure I'm ready to "predict" it...I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that we're just getting started with what iPod is going to eventually be all about.

Back to iPod Photo though...

Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to slap a CCD and a lens on that thing and BOOM! You have "iCamera".

Yes but my point was everyone else is talking about adding features such as video etc. I was just suggesting something a s simple as a couple extra games being added. Surely it wouldn't be that hard to do.

I would rather they opened up the SDK so anyone who wanted to could make and sell games for the thing. It's a new platform.

That was exactly my thought. Everyone can see how good iTunes is for your music, people will now want it for their photos, but how? They'll have to buy a Mac. Also Apple aren't acting unfairly for Mac users, iTunes gets your photos from the program, iPhoto isn't compatible itself, therefore it isn't anti windows users. I would've been really angry if windows got iPhoto, as I've said before, I have to pay for it.

Under Windows, iPod Photo syncs from the 'My Pictures' folder, which is in the 'My Documents' folder, or any other folder you nominate.

You don't need to buy Adobe Elements at all, it just happens to work with it if you already have it.

Hmmmm...nice idea. But any idea on if licensing fees must be paid to make iPod accessories? If support was added for camera syncs (many cameras use PictBridge protocol for transfers) I could see some one using that as a way to get out of paying. (Note:Since I don't know whether or not there are licensing fees this is just speculation).

I don't think it is impossible. Archos put a CF card reader in their 20 gig gMini 400 and it is about the same size as an iPod. On the otherhand I do agree with you on support for all card types. If you choose one format than you are kinda leaving people with other formats out of the loop.

But once you have the support fot CF cards creating adapters for other card types is trivial.

Color iPod is 4.1x2.4x0.75
gMini 400 is 4.2x2.4x0.7
(units in inches)

As someone who has (over)used the CF slot on their HP iPAQ, I would strongly discourage Apple from considering this, for the following reasons:

- a CF slot opens the internals of the unit to dust, moisture, and pistachio nut residue (don't ask!)

- the pins of CF connectors are flimsy and while they may last a few hundred times of dainty insertions in a showroom, office or photographic studio, they are less suited for kicking around in the places that iPods are taken to.

- the virtually seamless sealed unit of the iPod has a great attraction, which is why Apple hasn't made a battery compartment, and having a slot would work against this design philosophy.

In short, I believe that claiming the iPod should have slots merely indicates you should instead be looking at a Nikon CoolWalker for your intended use:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04...coolwalker.asp

Yeah but if Apple could have made it smaller they would. They're using all the space up, they could put on in but it would get a lot thicker and the battery life would be crap - what would be the point then?

That will be the biggest question. Beyond adding a slot here or a port there, will the iPod become a new platform and in what sense. It already has its own division. How can it expand in the way the pda did, but not make the same mistakes for Apple? Apple does not own the iPod os, does it? And anything you do to that os will affect all of those international contracts regarding music and DRM's. The music companies would "love" [sarcasm] for the SDK's to admit all sorts of hacking and viruses into their products.

I think most of the conservative nature of the iPod has to do with DRM's and the need for control rather than Apple just keeping it simple.

I am no engineer but I have full confidence in Apples ability to pull something like this off while still producing something that is easy to use, small, and power efficient.