or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple debuts new iPod photos with optional camera connector
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple debuts new iPod photos with optional camera connector

post #1 of 67
Thread Starter 
Apple debuts new iPod photo lineup with optional camera connector.

Apple today updated its iPod photo lineup by introducing a new slim 30GB model, holding up to 7,500 songs, for $349 and a new 60GB model, holding up to 15,000 songs, for $449. Both models sport a high-resolution display and hold up to 25,000 digital photos. They feature the ability to import photos from your digital camera via the new iPod Camera Connector for instant viewing and slide show playback on iPod photo.

The new iPod Camera Connector is an optional accessory that enables customers to connect their digital camera to iPod photo and import their photos into the iPod. By connecting the iPod Camera Connector and a digital camera, customers can transfer digital images to their iPod photo, providing tremendous storage space so they can take more pictures. Imported photos are immediately viewable on iPod photo's color screen, and can also be brought back to iPhoto on the Mac or various photo applications on the PC. The iPod Camera Connector is expected to be available in late March for $29.

These iPod models no longer ship with a dock and carrying case as standard and do not support the expected Bluetooth wireless connectivity.

Pricing & Availability

The 30GB and 60GB models of iPod photo for Mac or Windows are available worldwide immediately for a suggested retail price of $349 (US) and $449 (US) respectively, through the Apple Store, Apples retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. iPod photo includes earbud headphones, a USB 2.0 cable, a USB power adapter and a CD with iTunes 4.7.1 for Mac and Windows computers.

Optional accessories with the following suggested retail prices include the iPod Dock for $39 (US), in-ear headphones for $39 (US), the iPod Camera Connector for $29 (US) and FireWire cable for $19 (US). Laser engraving is available for iPod for free from the Apple Store and can include two lines of text with up to 27 characters per line.

iPod photo requires a Mac with a USB 2.0 port or FireWire, Mac OS X version 10.2.8 or 10.3.4 or later and iPhoto 4.0.3 or later; or a Windows PC with a USB 2.0 or FireWire port or USB 2.0 or FireWire card and Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 or later, or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later, and Adobe Photoshop Album 2.0 or Elements 3.0 or later.

Update: MacNN notes that the older iPod photo models with a FireWire cable, carry case, and dock are available at the Apple Store starting at $379 for the 40GB model.
post #2 of 67
Why is firewire an add-on feature today when it was standard along with usb2 uesterday.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #3 of 67
Because USB 2 is more widespread, allows wrt/ to the iPod all of the same functionality, and is cheaper?
post #4 of 67
I want to know more about the camera connector - can't see anything about it on Apple's site, only the old Belkin meadi reader and camera link .
post #5 of 67
well, i guess thinksecret's source was right again (and apparently has every mac rumors site on speed dial). you know, i would laugh my fool ass off if the source of all these rumors was someone like johnny ive or avie tevanian.

steve: "et tu, avie?"
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #6 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Why is firewire an add-on feature today when it was standard along with usb2 uesterday.

i think you could read this as a good sign, as i bet the numbers show a huge number of windows users buyign them up, and with usb 2.0 on all new macs (it is on all the newest models, right?), they're just going with whatever means they have to keep less in stock that might not sell. personally, i see it as a good indication that windows sales are dwarfing mac sales now, which would be awesome.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #7 of 67
dammit apple. all i want is an ipod photo that's as thin as the 'regular' ipod. the price drop is awesome though.
post #8 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
i think you could read this as a good sign, as i bet the numbers show a huge number of windows users buyign them up, and with usb 2.0 on all new macs (it is on all the newest models, right?), they're just going with whatever means they have to keep less in stock that might not sell. personally, i see it as a good indication that windows sales are dwarfing mac sales now, which would be awesome.

How does the speed of USB2 compare with firewire?
post #9 of 67
With one-way traffic, they're close, USB 2 edging out Firewire if you assume devices take advantage of the full bandwidth available (most don't). IIRC, Firewire is better for networking, where you're both uploading and downloading data at the same time.
post #10 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
With one-way traffic, they're close, USB 2 edging out Firewire if you assume devices take advantage of the full bandwidth available (most don't). IIRC, Firewire is better for networking, where you're both uploading and downloading data at the same time.

Thanks .
post #11 of 67
usb2 = 480 Mb/s
FireWire400 = 400 Mb/s

below courtesy of http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
thank you google

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture
FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer

Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison

Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and
then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
post #12 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by 12houripod
usb2 = 480 Mb/s
FireWire400 = 400 Mb/s

below courtesy of http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm
thank you google

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture
FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer

Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison

Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and
then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

Hmm... that doesn't look too impressive though .
post #13 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Abrey
How does the speed of USB2 compare with firewire?

USB2 is better on paper, but firewire is better in the real world. its kinda like the whole velocity engine thing in G4's. "slower" than pentiums, but better throughput.
post #14 of 67
Seems like this will be a boon to professional digital photographers (photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.). One of these could, first, get rid of the piles of flashmedia they tend to carry around, and furthermore, allow them to see the photos they've taken earlier in the day without reloading them onto their camera.

Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...
post #15 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by spud
Seems like this will be a boon to professional digital photographers (photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.). One of these could, first, get rid of the piles of flashmedia they tend to carry around, and furthermore, allow them to see the photos they've taken earlier in the day without reloading them onto their camera.

Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...

What I can't understand is Apple say it's a new iPod photo 60GB. Well it isn't it's the old one £120 cheaper. They're still using iPod photo 1.0 software which implies the old iPod photos will work with the new stuff. What I can't understand is the lack of the 40GB model across the line, they're not even offering it anymore.
post #16 of 67
Yeah, does anybody have a link for the iPod Camera Connector?
post #17 of 67
Bleh, not too happy about the USB cable thing. If I choose to buy an iPod photo in the future, I will also have to purchase an additional cable. My mac only has usb 1 (rev 1 17" Powerbook). I wonder if this could just add a bit of confusion instead of help... Many PC users I know that have purchased an iPod realized that they needed a firewire connector, so they simply purchased a pci card alongside the iPod. Maybe it will help sales, but I am not convinced...
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
1 Peter 1:6-7
Powerbook G4 12" 1.33ghz, 60gig hd, 1.25 gigs ram.

Powermac G4 "Sawtooth" 400 mhz, 80gig hd, 384mb of ram, Rage 128 Pro graphics.
Reply
post #18 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by 12houripod

FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison

Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and
then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:

Read Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0

Write Test:
5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0
160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0

Firewire kicks ass plain and sinple. Just when PCs started to include it as standard Apple pulls this crap.

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply

     197619842014  

     Where were you when the hammer flew?  

 

MacBook Pro Retina, 13", 2.5 GHz, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB SSD

iPhone 5s • iPad mini Retina • Chromebook Pixel • Nexus 7

Reply
post #19 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by brianru
Yeah, does anybody have a link for the iPod Camera Connector?

The only thing I could find is on http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/

It says at the lower right of the page "coming in March."
post #20 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by spud
Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...

It's not for mobile photo storage--though that's possible--it's for SHOWING photos. So it's for anyone who wants to show photos

It replaces carrying a big box of prints... not to mention, TV screens are a little bigger to look at.
post #21 of 67
I just don´t see why they don´t offer the dock alongside with the new iPods anymore. I was so happy that my 20gig 3rd Gen iPod came with a dock and a carry case, and I doubt consumers will like this.

And I agree with the USB "Problem" - Why they did choose USB over Firewire is beyond me, and don´t tell me that makes them cheaper - Apple has it´s own line of cables.
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
Now running on a 20" aluminium iMac (Fall 2008), as well as a Macboook Pro 13" (mid 2009) and an iPhone.
Reply
post #22 of 67
I dont understand why having a USB 2.0 only on the mini is such a big deal. Maybe the USB version sold 2 1 over the FireWire version. Its not like Macs dont have a USB 2.0.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #23 of 67
The iPods don't have USB or FireWire *on* them (except the Shuffle), they have a Dock Connector. The new ones are just shipping with the USB cable only, no included FireWire cable. That's all.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #24 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
The iPods don't have USB or FireWire *on* them (except the Shuffle), they have a Dock Connector. The new ones are just shipping with the USB cable only, no included FireWire cable. That's all.

I think people understand that. Well maybe not but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt.

I think people are just kind of annoyed that Apple has decided to give in to USB, even if it's in this small way of not including the firewire cable as standard equipment. When the iPod first came out, it was all about how firewire made it possible - charging, fast syncing lots of music. Firewire was an Apple technology, so it was another way for Apple to be a superior, innovating company. Now they seem to have tacitly admitted that USB 2.0 has won, at least in the PC world, over firewire.

But it shouldn't be forgotten that, although Apple didn't invent USB, it may have died without Apple and the iMac.
post #25 of 67
So Apple's position is pay extra if you own an older Mac. Typical.
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
PC Free Since 1999

"Don't copy that floppy!"
Reply
post #26 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by jante99
So Apple's position is pay extra if you own an older Mac. Typical.

yeah, those bastards! why don't they offer an iPodSCSI version, too???

(sorry, couldn't resist...)
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #27 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by spud
Seems like this will be a boon to professional digital photographers (photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.). One of these could, first, get rid of the piles of flashmedia they tend to carry around, and furthermore, allow them to see the photos they've taken earlier in the day without reloading them onto their camera.

Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...

No, this is aimed at consumers.

Pro photographers usually can't be stood around waiting for photos to download to an iPod. They usually have a stack of non-hard disk based flash cards and they'll switch them out and continue shooting only to offload the images off the cards later when they have time. They use non-hard disk based cards as the microdrives are too fragile and they can't afford to lose photos.

Could you imagine a wedding photographer asking guests to wait for the ipod to transfer the photos? Or the crap they'd be in if they dropped the camera and screwed up the hard disk. Or some paparazzi asking a celeb to hold that embarrassing shot, my iPod still says downloading?

On the other hand, it is useful for a Pro to offload their images to an iPod when they have the time or if they are away on a longer trip. But that's exactly when I'd use it as a non-pro too. On my last week away I took 300+ photos, because you can when it's digital. If I'd not taken a laptop with me then I'd have needed 10-15 128MB cards instead of 1.
post #28 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No, this is aimed at consumers.

Pro photographers usually can't be stood around waiting for photos to download to an iPod. They usually have a stack of non-hard disk based flash cards and they'll switch them out and continue shooting only to offload the images off the cards later when they have time. They use non-hard disk based cards as the microdrives are too fragile and they can't afford to lose photos.

Could you imagine a wedding photographer asking guests to wait for the ipod to transfer the photos? Or the crap they'd be in if they dropped the camera and screwed up the hard disk. Or some paparazzi asking a celeb to hold that embarrassing shot, my iPod still says downloading?

On the other hand, it is useful for a Pro to offload their images to an iPod when they have the time or if they are away on a longer trip. But that's exactly when I'd use it as a non-pro too. On my last week away I took 300+ photos, because you can when it's digital. If I'd not taken a laptop with me then I'd have needed 10-15 128MB cards instead of 1.

my camera is temperamental and so I bought a belkin card reader an backed my photos last year on holiday. This meant when my camera said i had no photos i just put it into my belkin (where it found them!) and copied to the iPod. Then reformatted the disk and took more photos. I took hundreds with this new freedom.
post #29 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeremiah Rich
Bleh, not too happy about the USB cable thing. If I choose to buy an iPod photo in the future, I will also have to purchase an additional cable. My mac only has usb 1 (rev 1 17" Powerbook). I wonder if this could just add a bit of confusion instead of help... Many PC users I know that have purchased an iPod realized that they needed a firewire connector, so they simply purchased a pci card alongside the iPod. Maybe it will help sales, but I am not convinced...

The iPod hasn't required a firewire card for a long time. They did require a USB cable, if you didn't have a firewire card, though. But the 4G included both cables and was platform agnostic, and the 3G it was an extra (I believe, I don't recall having a USB cable, but it might still be in the box), but the iPod was platform agnostic. The thing is, people, that Apple sells much more of these things to the PC world then the Mac world, so why should a good hunk of the iPod users be forced to buy extra hardware? Isn't that the kind of attitude that causes people to say they're elitists ("We're going to charge you more because you don't own a mac. Ha!").

So, basically, Apple's cutting prices by removing the extras, allowing you to pick and choose which extras you want. I have a dock but have barely used it in the last year. The same goes for the power adapter sitting around somewhere (where is that, anyway).

I know, you're all just pissed because the bluetooth is missing, plus Apple's not speaking the 'truth' and marketing this not as a price drop but "We've broken up the pricing so you can pick and choose your accessories, but once your done, the price will be the same. Apple ignited the computer...."
post #30 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
yeah, those bastards! why don't they offer an iPodSCSI version, too???

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

Screw that! I want one that'll connect via my 128K's floppy drive port. I've got it running 10.2.7 (10.2.8 was flaky on this thing), and iTunes 4.7.1 (the visualizer looks really cool on the 8" screen). I just can't seem to get the iPod to connect right.
post #31 of 67
This update seems designed to make sure that no one else gains any sort of traction in the market. How is that a bad thing? It protects the eco-system that makes the iPod great.

Nice price moves, when are we going to see a cheaper iMac?
IBL!
Reply
IBL!
Reply
post #32 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Matsu
This update seems designed to make sure that no one else gains any sort of traction in the market. How is that a bad thing? It protects the eco-system that makes the iPod great.

Nice price moves, when are we going to see a cheaper iMac?

colour screen would've been nice though. I didn't see the point of bluetooth
post #33 of 67
BT will be useful for three things:

1) Car hookup, but that'll require a car link of some sort

2) Wireless earphones, would be sweet

3) Syncing, but would be tragically slow - maybe for iSync-ish data only
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #34 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha

3) Syncing, but would be tragically slow - maybe for iSync-ish data only

exactly. and wouldnt xml-ish data like ratings and playcounts sync easily?
post #35 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by ipodandimac
exactly. and wouldnt xml-ish data like ratings and playcounts sync easily?

One would think.

I was thinking AddressBook/Notes/etc, but that would be a likely candidate as well.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #36 of 67
I think the (continued) move to USB 2 is dissapointing.

My 3rdG ipod wont charge over USB, so if I forget my cable at work and need a quick charge all I can borrow are USB cables - I then get the "but you can go and buy an extra firewire cable" from my windoze workmates

um, HELLO? why should those of us with apples be forced to explain or apologise, or justify our situation?? PC users should be forced into buying extra cables or cards!!

makes me mad :/
post #37 of 67
Quote:
Originally posted by starwxrwx
I think the (continued) move to USB 2 is dissapointing.

My 3rdG ipod wont charge over USB, so if I forget my cable at work and need a quick charge all I can borrow are USB cables - I then get the "but you can go and buy an extra firewire cable" from my windoze workmates

um, HELLO? why should those of us with apples be forced to explain or apologise, or justify our situation?? PC users should be forced into buying extra cables or cards!!

makes me mad :/

Apple do what makes money. Originally it was FireWire. Then they decided PC users couldn't connect so made it USB and FireWire but extra cable. They then shipped both USb and FireWire (my iPod photo) NOW all macs have had USB 2.0 for a couple of years, all PCs ship with USB 2. They want the iPod to be plug and play for as many people as possible so they use the common format USB 2.0. FireWire is better, i wish they supported firewire 800 cos then that would take off. I prefer to use FireWire cos I can have lots of devices plugged into firewire with no need for hubs. Look how cheap the iPods are, I'm sure you can afford a wire!!
post #38 of 67
Bluetooth would be nice because then I could stream my iPod to airtunes and carry the iPod around the house with me, instead of having to keep it linked to a base. The iPod would in essence be the remote control, a really nice, easy to sort through and organize remote control. It's all about getting rid of wires!
-Meeces
Some of the Apple's of my life-Apple IIe, Many a box Mac, Mac LCIII, First Bondi Blue iMac, now the 17" 1.3 pb w/ 1gb of ram(damn that display is nice!)
Reply
-Meeces
Some of the Apple's of my life-Apple IIe, Many a box Mac, Mac LCIII, First Bondi Blue iMac, now the 17" 1.3 pb w/ 1gb of ram(damn that display is nice!)
Reply
post #39 of 67
Er, no.

AirTunes/AirPort Express is over WiFi, not BT. And Bluetooth has a 10-15' range, that's it. Not much wandering possible there.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #40 of 67
Man, this update really pisses me off. I've owned an iPod since the first generation, but I do not understand this move at all. Not including firewire means I have to pay extra to use the iPod with my Mac, since they don't have USB2 Ports. The price cuts are an illusion since they simply made up the cost by not including a dock and firewire connectors.

And mostly, I just don't understand the iPod photo. In the normal iPod, they had a great selling products, but the Photo has underperformed since they introduced it. Mostly because no one really want's to look a photos on a little midget screen.

So what does Apple do? Drop the successful product and produce more models of the bomb. Yeah, that'll work. Oh, yeah, and then eliminate a differentiator by dropping firewire. What's next, the iPod 5G only supports WMA?

It's been a long time since Apple annoyed me this much. I guess I'll have to grab a 40 off the discount site before they're gone, and hope it lasts.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple debuts new iPod photos with optional camera connector