or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple introduces iPod Photo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple introduces iPod Photo - Page 3

post #81 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by jbh001
Don't know, but having this screen or a derivative of it in a future iPod would be one more step closer.

http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/P...ceSolutionNews

300 ppi and 2.4" screen starts to make a real video interphase possible. I still hope that there is a lot of reseach in a Cupertino bunker for a simple wheel interface that would allow the entire front of the iPod to be a screen.
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
The Mother of all flip-flops!!
Support our troops by educating yourself and being a responsible voter. Democracy and Capitalism REQUIRE Intelligence and Wisdom if they are to be worth a damn beyond...
Reply
post #82 of 139
Just picked mine up from the local Apple Store, so I guess they're available. It's beautiful. I'm now waiting while iTunes transfuses my music into it.

My previous iPod was essentially full, and I'd had trouble wondering what to do with the rest of my music, so this is a great solution. It's been a long wait!
post #83 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think Apple is slowly "inching" the functionality up. Video would be way too much right now.

They looked and said..."Gee...60GB is an awful lot for most music collections...what else can we get on there?" Photos were the answer. They have all of the pieces in place to do SOMEthing related to video here (though I am doubtful about playback on the little screen...more likely through the TV as with the iPod Photo slide shows.)

Two years from now when the 60GB iPod Photo is the low-end ($299) of the line...perhaps the high end will be looking foer still more functionality.

P.S. As an aside...I am a tad surprised they didn't do an iPhoto Windows. Of course they didn't do that right away with iTunes either so...perhaps they are hedging here...wait to see how much people want this...then...MAYBE...port iPhoto.

They better bloody not. I have to pay for iPhoto, I don't want Windows users stealing another program - if you had to pay for the Windows version then i wouldn't mind as much. It would weaken Apple's switch campaign further, where as not making it strengthens the campaign. If iTunes does this for your music think what iPhoto does, lets buy a Mac. Anyway lots of people want choice over there photo browser, i think apple should offer further support for the actual camera makes.

"Video is not coming, at least not any time soon." Isn't that what Jobs said? I don;t see the point of it. Digital photos are no longer shown because people don;t print them, so you can carry them on your iPod, a legitimate reason not oh what can we do with a 60 GB HD? I really don't see the point of a video iPod.

Equaliser would be cool and that aqua interface does make you drool!
post #84 of 139
PICS NOW
post #85 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by SafariX
PICS NOW

Umm...dinner now. Pics later.
post #86 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by osXuser
Umm...dinner now. Pics later.

Ohhh, alright. Here's one. Sorry about the lighting. It was just a quick shot.

iPod photo
post #87 of 139
What's with all the people saying they want more? This is certainly a major step for the iPod, and I for one love it (other than the price that is). So who is actaully going to drop $600 dollars for this? As much as I like the fact of 60 gigs, all my photos in my pocket, and album art showing up on my iPod(which I particularly like because although it may seem small, I have almost all the artwork for my 5000 songs and this is certainly a cool feature). I must say that I'm prolly going to wait till I fill my 40Gb 3G before i shell out $600 dollars for this. But for those that do, tell us all about it. Also, I was wondering for someone that gets the 60Gb, how much is it after formatting because my 40gbs is roughly 37gbs after formatting?
post #88 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by osXuser
Ohhh, alright. Here's one. Sorry about the lighting. It was just a quick shot.

iPod photo

The screen looks quite nice even in your quick picture.
post #89 of 139
More pics! More pics! More pics!

What does the screen look like when the backlight is off? It must be a transflective display, right?
post #90 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by TB6387
So who is actaully going to drop $600 dollars for this?

I am. My 40 is full and I really like all of the other features of the iPP. I can't wait.
post #91 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by Louzer
This thing just blows! I mean, who the hell is Apple marketing this thing to? They seem to be snubbing their noses at the large majority of people who either don't take pictures, take crappy pictures that no one wants to see, or has no friends to show pictures to.

If you have no friends, surely you hav a substantial pr0n collection, no?
post #92 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by gsxrboy
The screen looks quite nice even in your quick picture.

Thanks. I've got another one that shows the album art by itself (one of the screens to which you can toggle with the select button):

Another image
post #93 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
More pics! More pics! More pics!

What does the screen look like when the backlight is off? It must be a transflective display, right?

Well, I should first say that the screen looks fantastic when the backlight is on. When it is off, it's considerably darker, but it's not a fair comparison as I haven't had a chance to use it outside in natural light or using good, bright indoor light.

Also, any moiré distortion you see in my images is likely an artifact of the camera ccd and iPod screen resolution...it really does look great to the eye.

I posted another pic, btw. If I have time tomorrow, I might try to take some better ones, although my image hosting account will probably run out of bandwidth soon.
post #94 of 139
You know I was thinking.

A lot of people say that the iPod should of had video abilities. Well, here's my take on this.

When the iPod was first released, digital music (MP3's and such) were taking off. Sure they had been around for awhile, but they were becoming popular and people were using their computers more and more for storing, managing, and playing their music. So digital music players were becoming the norm and being accepted more by consumers.

Now digital photos are really taking off. Digital cameras are getting cheaper and are being used more for taking pictures. Even places that develop film for cameras are also supporting digital cameras by printing out the photos off of media cards. Consumers are adopting digital cameras more and are becoming more comfortable using their computers to store, manage, and view their digital photos (see a trend here). Apple sees this and are expanding the functionality of the iPod to support it.

Now let's talk about movies and the iPod.

While there is a demand for it, it isn't a huge demand. Consumers aren't as comfortable with digital movie content on their computer or portable media device. Many don't even know where to go to obtain let alone get it on their computer. right now as they are for digital music or photos. So why create a video iPod when the majority aren't ready for it?

I mean, don't worry. Soon video on computers will go the same way as music and photos. It's the next step. But the average customer isn't ready for it. There has to be more places to download movies and video content. Right now, the average consumer would only have the need to put their home videos they create from their computer onto the video iPod. But consumers are still used to just plugging their camcorder into the television and watching it off of that.

So the video iPod is coming, but Apple is in a very special place in the market. If they change too much and move too fast tacking on tons of features, they might confuse their customers and possibly even lose some.

The best bet is to slowly expand the functionality of the iPod and then optimize the new features so they work extremely well. Then get the customers used to the features.

I'm also sure that this iPod Photo is a testing ground for the iPod Video. Apple is probably going to be watching how customers respond the interface and the ability to hook it up to the television. Apple probably will tweak the iPod Photo so that it does its job well as to make room for the possibility of using the same system and interface for video. By then customers will be used to the new iPod Photo interface and be ready for the iPod Video interface.

Mike
post #95 of 139
the next convergence step.

when the isight came out i immediately thought of the ipod.

attach the isight to your ipod and you have still camera.

click on video mode and it can take video.

with the new codecs and compressions storage is no longer an issue.

camera phones can do it both with crappy hardware limited space

and a tiny battery so the convergence of the isight and ipod

would be a no brainer.

it would also have a mic.

you can have the isight rotate so it can rest like an itrip.

this would boost the sales of ipod photo's/video as well make the isight the

next must hardware excessories. all the pieces are already in place and

would not be surprised if this was already apple's plan when they introed the sight.

it seemed odd to me that they came out with the isight just for video conferencing when there were plenty of options on the market already.

this convergence would make the r&d expense spent on the isight make more sense.

chung lee
post #96 of 139
how about...

keynote 2.0 syncs with the ipod photo. i keep my presentations on my ipod photo and then hook it up to a projector when i am on the road. no need to take my laptop to presentations
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
post #97 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by othello
how about...

keynote 2.0 syncs with the ipod photo. i keep my presentations on my ipod photo and then hook it up to a projector when i am on the road. no need to take my laptop to presentations

Keynote 2.0? Are you insane, keynote is eol! END OF LIFE. Why is Apple talking about how great Office 2004 is - because it needs M$. Apple will release a new keynote when there is no office.

Video will not take off like CDs and Pictures, it['s not going to happen you can't store movies on your computer, and why would you want to?
post #98 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Keynote 2.0? Are you insane, keynote is eol! END OF LIFE. Why is Apple talking about how great Office 2004 is - because it needs M$. Apple will release a new keynote when there is no office.

you are talking out of your a**e
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
post #99 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by othello
you are talking out of your a**e

Maybe eol is a bit harsh! Apple have had keynote for how long now? They've released new apps since the launch and updates for them, yet keynote still remains not updated - part from a minor stability update. Apple have done a deal with M$ and part of the deal was that Apple would support Office and Apple would stop AppleWorks development, or something (read previous threads)! I don't see Apple trying to piss of M$ because switchers need a familiar package, the most important questions for new users is can i get office?

Keynote is also lacking serious features, like timings and links to slides and stability. It is also anti-intuitive. These are reasons for an upgrade but i don't see it happening. Anyway this is an iPod discussion so I'll shut up now.

(I'm so negative cos I've been waiting for an upgrade for so long and just feel it's not going to happen - ( i hope you're right)
post #100 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
(I'm so negative cos I've been waiting for an upgrade for so long and just feel it's not going to happen - ( i hope you're right)

It appears Steve Jobs was using a prerelease version of Keynote 2.0 during his iPod presentation.
post #101 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
It appears Steve Jobs was using a prerelease version of Keynote 2.0 during his iPod presentation.

Does this mean there will be an upgrade? He used the program for years before keynote actually came out. Could this be for Steve only? And how come his is so stable?
post #102 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Maybe eol is a bit harsh! Apple have had keynote for how long now? They've released new apps since the launch and updates for them, yet keynote still remains not updated - part from a minor stability update. Apple have done a deal with M$ and part of the deal was that Apple would support Office and Apple would stop AppleWorks development, or something (read previous threads)! I don't see Apple trying to piss of M$ because switchers need a familiar package, the most important questions for new users is can i get office?

Keynote is also lacking serious features, like timings and links to slides and stability. It is also anti-intuitive. These are reasons for an upgrade but i don't see it happening. Anyway this is an iPod discussion so I'll shut up now.

(I'm so negative cos I've been waiting for an upgrade for so long and just feel it's not going to happen - ( i hope you're right)

Err... I think it's actually the other way around... bacts fackwards.
MS settlements with Apple are due to expire soon
Apple is more likely to target Office with forthcoming apps.
Keynote 2 is definitely in the pipeline and will continue to toast PP for quality.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #103 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Err... I think it's actually the other way around... bacts fackwards.
MS settlements with Apple are due to expire soon
Apple is more likely to target Office with forthcoming apps.
Keynote 2 is definitely in the pipeline and will continue to toast PP for quality.

Maybe but switchers want Office compatibility, that's all I'm saying. PP may be beaten by Keynote when it comes to graphics handling, but by sure ease of use and functionality, and i hate to say this, i think PP wins. I tired keynote at the weekend for the first time. I found it really difficult to get to grips with, it wasn't as intuitive as Apple's other programs, that inspector actually is more annoying than a long toolbar, too many clicks required for basic things.
post #104 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy

Video will not take off like CDs and Pictures, it['s not going to happen you can't store movies on your computer, and why would you want to?


You can't? I can and do. For instance, it is very easy to rip onto my iBook G3 dvd movies that I own. Why would I do this? Well, when taking a flight somewhere, my trust 12'' is my movie watching station? Why not bring along the dvds instead? Well, my batteries tend to last about twice as long when playing a movie off of the hd rather than having to spin the dvd disk. So, instead of only being able to watch one movie, I can watch two. I like that.

There are also a host of other, not so legal reasons that people like to store movies on their computer, but those reasons obviously shouldn't be sanctioned by Apple. Well, at least not any more than the extent that the iPod sanctioned pirating music (which I believe is not at all, but some people argue otherwise).
post #105 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by jnrjr79
You can't? I can and do. For instance, it is very easy to rip onto my iBook G3 dvd movies that I own. Why would I do this? Well, when taking a flight somewhere, my trust 12'' is my movie watching station? Why not bring along the dvds instead? Well, my batteries tend to last about twice as long when playing a movie off of the hd rather than having to spin the dvd disk. So, instead of only being able to watch one movie, I can watch two. I like that.

There are also a host of other, not so legal reasons that people like to store movies on their computer, but those reasons obviously shouldn't be sanctioned by Apple. Well, at least not any more than the extent that the iPod sanctioned pirating music (which I believe is not at all, but some people argue otherwise).

legally you cannot copy DVDs to your hard drive. That is what I meant, Apple would not get away with it, Jobs does not want a video Pod, he said so for a number of reasons.

1) Too much competition - video stores, movies, rentals, lots of places to get a movie
2) u will watch ur favourite movie only a few time in your life
3) watching a movie on that screen would be absolutely pointless (and painful!)
4) even when the capacity goes up who's going to want to store their entire DVD collection on their computer? People don;t just decide, oh lets watch a clip from Clockwork Orange, they do decide to listen to a Day in the Life by the Beatles spontaneously, for example.

there are other reasons but hey i wont list them
post #106 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by MacCrazy
legally you cannot copy DVDs to your hard drive. That is what I meant, Apple would not get away with it, Jobs does not want a video Pod, he said so for a number of reasons.

1) Too much competition - video stores, movies, rentals, lots of places to get a movie
2) u will watch ur favourite movie only a few time in your life
3) watching a movie on that screen would be absolutely pointless (and painful!)
4) even when the capacity goes up who's going to want to store their entire DVD collection on their computer? People don;t just decide, oh lets watch a clip from Clockwork Orange, they do decide to listen to a Day in the Life by the Beatles spontaneously, for example.

there are other reasons but hey i wont list them

Holy topsy turvy reality Batman!

Plenty of examples of how wrong these points are.

1. competition isn't an issue...
music stores (brick and mortar) don't deter iPod, they offer more sources to fill it
video will follow the same pattern.
Jobs may have been referring to the market for an iTVS, but purely from a market growth standpoint, the more data people fill iPods with, the more demand grows for the (premium) top capacity model, ergo more profit.
2. so all those idiots who buy vhs and dvd copies for their library are fools and not a market?
3. dude, nobody is seriously suggesting most people will watch films on a 2 inch iPod LCD, they're appreciating the fact that you can take your iPod to any TV or projector with rca cables and jack in your portable collection of clips.
4. there are plenty of clips that people like to watch and show rather than the whole movie. I'm not going to sit through Attack of the Clones again, but I might watch fight scenes. Ditto the Matrix trilogy or comedy routines or car chases extracted from otherwise long-ass films. I could watch Monty Python all day, but just a few select moments from Life of Brian or Holy Grail might be enough.

It strikes me you're expressing contrary or outlandish positions purely for trolling sake.
(If you're just trying to paraphrase Steve, I apologize for misconstruing the origin)

Legality arguments can be countered by contrasting IP rights and Apple's warning sticker "Don't Steal Music". Their legal obligation is partially served by such an up front position/reminder, but if the user legally owns an audio or video performance on one digital medium, it is permissible in most jurisdictions to back up that performance for personal use, whether to timeshift or enable alternate playback.

The UK might have different rules, but copying for personal or archival use, provided it is for non-commercial purposes of the owner, is not considered legally actionable here in Canada or in most US jurisdictions, to my knowledge.

And since some of the above might seem cranky and I don't want to give a bad impression, here's some hilarity somebody posted at AN riffing on iPod and Ashlee.

http://www.airbagindustries.com/bucket/ipod/
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
Reply
post #107 of 139
My thoughts:

-You shouldn't have to buy Photo variant of the iPod to get a 60GB hard drive. There are plenty of people who are exceeding their 40GB iPods' capacity, and don't want to drop an extra $100 for a color screen that doesn't improve the listening experience.

-$100 is a lot to pay for a color screen. Seriously, it should've been $50 more, it would have been much more compelling.

-Although I agree that watching DVDs on your iPod is stupid, I think that they should have still included a Quicktime Player function in the iPod, for... you guessed it.... Music Videos! That would've been a hit.

-There's no iTunes-style visualizer. That would have sold it for me.


I'm serious about the music videos part. That would've been very successful. There's no need for watching DVDs on the 'pod, but being able to play short quicktime clips would have been nice, at least.
post #108 of 139
god, i want an iPP so bad... my old school 5 GB first-gen is packed, and i seriously need to upgrade. i was originally thinking of just going for the 20 GB, but i've been waiting for the color-screen forever, and now that its here, its better than i ever could have imagined. the problem is, i'm in HIGH SCHOOL. which sucks, cuz that means NO MONEY. soon i'll be at college, and that'll mean EVEN LESS MONEY, so i'm stuck. the U2 ipod looks absolutely awesome, but i dunno if i can go for the regular screen knowing there's color out there... such a dilemma... *cries* i wish i had 500 dollars laying around... the problem is i need a new comp too... so much to buy, so little to buy it with...
Macbook Pro
2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo
160GB HD
2GB RAM
Reply
Macbook Pro
2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo
160GB HD
2GB RAM
Reply
post #109 of 139
A few random comments:

I think Apple does a decent job of communicating the limitations of the iPod's support for importing viewable photos (ie., from a computer only) by only allowing importation through an optional third-party gadget. Nobody expects or wants to have to buy a third-party gadget to access a complete feature set; conversely, anyone who does buy that gadget understands that it's an extension of the base feature set, so the limits are easier to understand.

Why are there limits at all? I'll take a crack at the problem. Obviously, there's a lot of speculation in here, but I believe it's well-founded:

1) Why no USB? USB is not only big, it's a fairly high-level, packet-based protocol. In English, that means that even minimal USB support is a fairly intensive proposition. To make matters worse, a lot of USB peripheral makers cut corners, just plain screw up or otherwise mangle the spec, and this requires a truly formidable driver to manage seamlessly (go check out the size of USB Overdrive sometime). If Apple supported USB, they'd not only have to cram this driver into iPod Photo's already cramped RAM at the expense of even more playback buffer, they'd have to issue firmware updates every time someone came out with a camera model that featured some new and fascinating interpretation of the USB standard. Which also means they'd have to maintain a camera compatibility list, which would narrow the market and leave people with the wrong cameras out in the cold.

The dock connector is (presumably, because it only makes sense) much lower-level and requires much less overhead to support, like the serial and parallel ports of old. Furthermore, since Apple controls it, and works closely with everyone whose peripherals use it, they have tight control over who implements what and how well, with the end result that peripherals that use the dock connector Just Work™. Meanwhile, the trouble and overhead of doing USB right is no big deal on a far more powerful personal computer.

2) Why not Compact Flash? Because not every camera comes with it (you got a Sony? so sorry...), it's bulky, it opens another, relatively large hole in the case that compromises reliability and durability, etc.

3) Why not display shots right off the camera? Because iPod, again, would be required to support every RAW file spec known to man, and update frequently to support new ones, and maintain a compatibility list, etc. (Cameras can display their own RAW formats, obviously, but would you expect them to display anyone else's?) Or, it could restrict the camera owners to JPEGs, limiting the iPod's use and possibly forcing the owners to navigate their cameras' reliably horrible menu interfaces to change the file format for pictures — and if they get that far, they'll be ahead of most people. Again, personal computers can deal with this. They already do, quite admirably. If the standard RAW format that Adobe's currently pushing takes hold, Apple might be able to update the iPod Photo to support that standard.

Remember, the RAM available for audio buffering took a 30% cut so that the iPod Photo could offer what it currently offers. There's not a lot of memory or computational power in there to work with.

I'm not saying any of these things are impossible or (certainly) undesirable. I'm only pointing out what I think are serious obstacles to implementing them any time soon.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #110 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by exhibit_13
god, i want an iPP so bad... my old school 5 GB first-gen is packed, and i seriously need to upgrade. i was originally thinking of just going for the 20 GB, but i've been waiting for the color-screen forever, and now that its here, its better than i ever could have imagined. the problem is, i'm in HIGH SCHOOL. which sucks, cuz that means NO MONEY. soon i'll be at college, and that'll mean EVEN LESS MONEY, so i'm stuck. the U2 ipod looks absolutely awesome, but i dunno if i can go for the regular screen knowing there's color out there... such a dilemma... *cries* i wish i had 500 dollars laying around... the problem is i need a new comp too... so much to buy, so little to buy it with...

well, if you celebrate it, christmas is almost here. you can at least get a little money
post #111 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by Rmh1572
It also joins multiple tracks for gap-free listening. MANY people have wanted that for awhile. I think that is new anyway


yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (repeat exclamations points as may be necessary)
I think I think...therefore, I think I am.

We get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number, really. How many more...
Reply
I think I think...therefore, I think I am.

We get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. Yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number, really. How many more...
Reply
post #112 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think Apple is slowly "inching" the functionality up. Video would be way too much right now.

I don't think it would be way too much. The iPod already has the ability to decompress and play encoded audio. The next step up to video shouldn't be too drastic, especially with a color screen.

Want to know what I'm really sick of? Apple, Steve Jobs, and all of these other analysts telling me that I don't want a Video iPod. I think I know what I want. If I want to play my iMovies for someone via video out, or watch Battlestar Galactica on the 2" screen before I go to bed, I should be entitled to do so.

Once some enterprising developer makes a hack to allow the iPods to show video, download it right away before Apple Legal messes it up somehow. And that person will get my dollars. And I *then* will buy an iPod with a color screen.
post #113 of 139
Quote:
It strikes me you're expressing contrary or outlandish positions purely for trolling sake.

Thanks for making this point clear. Why should anyone else give a crap if we want an iPod that plays videos? How does that hurt them? Would it hurt Apple in some way to produce one? We are going to buy them, despite what they think.

Will Apple be left behind in this potential market because Steve doesn't think I want a Video iPod?
post #114 of 139
What part of truly sucky battery life do people not understand?! No decent battery = no video on iPod. Not yet.

Further, those who see the Photo iPod as a platform for viewing pictures miss a HUGE part of the new device: connectivity to a TV (or projector).

Finally, while I am just as interested in the convenience of minimizing the number of gadgets I have to carry around with me, history has shown, and Apple is specifically aware of this, that technologies do not converge, they diverge cyclically. I think Apple is trying to position the iPod to eventually be a series of devices in order to capture markets, not trying to shoehorn every pocket function you could dream of in one device. For one, nothing Apple makes follows this philosophy. They have different hardware for different markets, discrete software functions instead of giant uber-apps. I think of it as typical Microsoft mindset to try to cram everything but the kitchen sink into one place in the name of functionality and convenience. I generally hate it when people label something as a "Microsoft thing to do" but history has shown us that everything from Windows to Office, to WebTV, to the PocketPC has tried this approach and how well this approach works. At some point, the burden on the device is too great -- jack of all trades but master of none, otherwise known as the swiss army knife approach.

I think Apple is using the iPod platform to ultimately expand the platform, not pile up stuff into a single device. You will see a form of the video iPod, but its main feature will be its connectivity to TVs and such, and it will grow into its own device, with its own feature set while remaining communicative to other devices in the iPod platform. I mean, I think one day we might see something like the Newton again from this platform, but only as part of a range of devices that people can choose from.
post #115 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by JamesG
I don't think it would be way too much. The iPod already has the ability to decompress and play encoded audio. The next step up to video shouldn't be too drastic, especially with a color screen.

The specific challenges would be the codec (because the iPod can't handle all audio codecs, even: Ogg Vorbis is too compute-intensive), and buffering. As it stands, the iPod would need more RAM before it could even buffer a music video.

I would expect Apple's first crack at the problem to sync with iDVD, actually, since that's what you use to organize your videos (and, in some cases, photos). You could "burn a DVD" to your iPod, which could use the labels and still shots (or short videos) you pick for your menus to identify your movies/slideshows, and the background picture/loop you pick for your DVD menus to identify the "DVD". Then it could stream out to a television through the cord that iPod Photo ships with. But that's down the road. I think the technology will get there before the market does, for various reasons. Which brings me to:

Quote:
Want to know what I'm really sick of? Apple, Steve Jobs, and all of these other analysts telling me that I don't want a Video iPod. I think I know what I want. If I want to play my iMovies for someone via video out, or watch Battlestar Galactica on the 2" screen before I go to bed, I should be entitled to do so.

They're not telling you what you don't want, because they can't work on an individual scale. They're looking at the market generally.

Remember Apple's big push for iMovie? Steve saying that the next big thing was going to be home movies? Remember Apple being so intently focused on this that they were a year late to the CD burning party? What Steve did, essentially, was come out and admit that he was wrong. He's got the numbers, because he was the great champion of the cause only a few years ago, and we know he tracked the numbers because he gave them early on in keynotes, and then stopped when it was clear they were going nowhere. He's all but admitted that he's talking to movie and television studios. Hell, he runs one. And iTMS has music videos. If Steve says there's no content, he's not talking out of his ass. There's no content. And however much you feel entitled to watch Battlestar Galactica in three minute bursts on a tiny screen attached to a very hot iPod that has to be plugged into the wall to make it even a quarter of the way through, Steve can't sell into a market of one.

Quote:
Once some enterprising developer makes a hack to allow the iPods to show video, download it right away before Apple Legal messes it up somehow. And that person will get my dollars. And I *then* will buy an iPod with a color screen.

Well, this is a different story, because a small software developer can target a far more niche market than Apple can. The main limitations there are the hardware—the current iPods simply are not designed to meet the demands of video, and the fact that MPEG-4 licenses don't come cheap.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #116 of 139
Everyone is thinking feature length movies, why not just music videos?

They take up a lot less space, and would still keep the iPod as a digital music player. Apple could also use the new mpeg 4(?) codec they showed during the OS Tiger preview and offer the videos for download through the iTMS, so that the files wouldn't be too big to download (although broadband would obviously be required) and the codec can apparently scale well from high resolutions for displays to lower resolutions suitable for portable devices.

I think this would be more likely than getting films onto an iPod.
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
Abhor the Stereotype, respect the Individual.
1.33Ghz 15" Powerbook: 80GB HD, 1GB RAM, OSX.4.7, Soundsticks II, 320GB LaCie FW800 EXT HD, iPod 20GB 4G
Reply
post #117 of 139
Why do all thread's about iPod's end up being about what the iPod should be or what crazy features its going to have in the future, namely video support. Why can't we keep on the topic, the new iPod Photo. Let's hear what people that have one have to say.

Also, I am some what dissapointed that the new iPod Photo does not include any more games, just the same old four. I know its supposed to be strictly for music and now photos, but can't they add at least a couple more games for $600 dollars. How about Tetris? Thats a classic and would work with the click-wheel.
post #118 of 139
Quote:
Originally posted by mattyj
Everyone is thinking feature length movies, why not just music videos?

They take up a lot less space, and would still keep the iPod as a digital music player. Apple could also use the new mpeg 4(?) codec they showed during the OS Tiger preview and offer the videos for download through the iTMS, so that the files wouldn't be too big to download (although broadband would obviously be required) and the codec can apparently scale well from high resolutions for displays to lower resolutions suitable for portable devices.

I think this would be more likely than getting films onto an iPod.

Something along the lines of a video iPod will happen, but the codec you're talking about isn't apparently in use *yet* and the chipset/OS will have to be updated for it. It couldn't happen on Tuesday, and it probably won't happen for at least several months if not a year or so. We seem to be arguing over timing, and to some degree, the ultimate purpose of such features. I contend that it will be primarily for output to a monitor, while others imagine that they'd use the iPod screen solo. I haven't seen too many people declaring that no one wants or needs a video iPod. I haven't even seen that from Apple. We clear on that at least? It's a matter of when and how, not any question of the validity of the idea in general.
post #119 of 139
True to form, iPoding has dissected one already.

It's not Halloween yet! Don't scare me! Put it back together!

pics
post #120 of 139
Aren't most iPod users now PC users? Seem to recall hearing that.

If the photo stuff is going to be a hit, they need to bring iPhoto to Windows. Telling people to go off and buy some third party effort does not cut it. You either go the whole way, or don't bother. Right now it's a poor deal for PC sorts.

Not to say I wouldn't like one, if only for the cool colour screen, but I have a PC desktop.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple introduces iPod Photo