Here's another way to look at it. You see those palm pix cameras, or handspring type PDA camera pluggins. They absolutely stink! They take bad pictures, are an ergonomic mess, and they're expensive. For the price of one you can buy nice entry level digital camera in the 1.3 to 2 megapixel range that takes exponentially better pictures. For the price of the PDA plus the pluggin, you can buy a really great consumer camera in the 3 to 5 megapixel range that'll better pictures than any amatuer is likely to produce with film. It sounds cool, but it never works out.
iPod as a SUPPLEMENTARY storage? Absolutely. Just like you could use it as supplementary storage for your mac. iPod as the primary storage for the iCamera? NEVER, NO WAY, NO MAS! You can do it cheaper and better if you give the camera its own independent storage. Try to imagine needing an iPod in order to get your iBook to work. Stupid right? This is no different.
The zdnet.com article does make a good, simplified format of the arguments for peer to peer vs. digital hub.
One of Microsoft's disadvantages is the fact that personally networked appliances can become mini-IS nightmares for consumers who only look for the obvious or the analogous.
Apple will need to keep that in mind as the spokes of the hub get connected via FW, since people will be plugging any FW port to any other FW port they have until something works. The computer desktop keeps everything sorted out in nice easy to understand icons.
An Apple camera could be cool and the iPod could be its portable HD, but the whole thing needs to evolve at a human speed, not a technological speed. I imagine that is why Apple keeps many functionalities "covered up" until needed, like the whole HD aspect of the iPod.
Apple's iApps are already approaching a level of complexity beyond the average user. Windows boxes are dog simple unless someone who wants to adds more to them. Apple boxes have all the toys already in them, especially now with the new iMac, waiting to be found. Unfortunately in the big world of the unwashed masses, those toys can become pretty mixed up.
One thing that will be interesting is that Apple has avoided tiny storage formats like Sony memory sticks. In a possible Apple camera future, will holding on to the images until you find a FW mac be enough? Will iPods really take that function? Will Apple have its own memory unit, or are optical drives all we get beyond 3rd party zip drives and the like?
The Sony Mavica camera with small CD burners have very compelling specs, especially if you want long term curation/storage of photos, but they come with compelling costs. What would Apple do?
i too would like to see the ipod used for other storage methods as well, but the way some of you are arguing it, it sounds like you think the ipod would have to be connected to the camera at all times. imagine this.
youre at some family get to gether and and youre taking pictures like crazy. you glance at your camera and see that your 256mb cf card only has room for 5 pictures, so what do you do? your computer is 45 min away at home and you want to take more pictures. you suddenly remember you left your ipod in your car. you go to your car, plug the camera into the ipod, dump your pictures, and youre set for more photos.
I agree with many that it just would not be a good idea. Job's goal seems to be, "Connect all the devices to the computer. But let them operate independently" Truth be told, I think the only device we will be seeing connect to every peripheral is the mac, or digital hub. Personally, I prefer this myself. When I was once a *shivers* Wintel user, I had a Casseopia running WINCE. Anyways, it did everything. Mp3's, video, email, you name it. The problem was, while it did all of this, it did not do any one thing WELL. That is where Apple's strategy is so ingenous. Release more than one device, piece of software, (like the iPod) that serves one purpose and does it well. I think the iPod may have some more features we have yet to see, but as a whole, it does what it was meant to do, play mp3's, and does an incredible job at it.
I LOVE the idea of the iPod as *supplementary* storage for either an Apple Camera or existing cameras.
I mean why not?
a)Because it's too complicated? If you're smart enough to sync your iPod with iTunes, you're smart enough to connect a camera to your iPod and press a button.
b) Because the iPod won't do it well (it'll only work well as an mp3 player)? Sorry, the iPod wouldn't be doing anything new. It ALREADY acts very well as a portable hard drive, all I need is a cable to connect my camera to it and voila!.
c) The Hub needs a mac. Yes, that's true, but storing your photos an an iPod also needs a mac to view them, or iPhoto-Share them.
d)Connecting peripherals to each other is conceptually confusing. Well then fine, let's all scrap this peer-to-peer Firewire nonsense and give over to USB 2, a nice clean master-slave relationship.
Sure, maybe this'll never happen - Apple pretty much does as they (read: Steve-o) please anyway - but it would still be a great feature to have for a LOT of people.
Jeez, Jay... I know they used to make Quicktakes; I had a 150. They will not however be making any in the future <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
The pro Nikons and Canons have FW connectors and I CAN see the iPod (or indeed any miniature FW drive) as a temp. portable storage for these. Those 1Gb microdrives are pretty expensive.
I think this is the main reason why they will NOT make a camera... remember when jobs came back and he axed a whole bunch of projects to save the company? well a big reason why a lot of them arnt coming back (pda, quicktake, etc.) is because STEVE WASNT AROUND WHEN THEY WERE MADE, they did not hatch from his head and do not fit his vison, so its a no go. just because Apple made a quicktake 5 years ago does not mean that they will in the future...
Personally, I think cannon/sony/hp have the market pretty well covered... Now you can say that it was the same deal with the MP3 player market before the iPod, but I disagree. MP3 players are a realtively new phenomenon(sp?) as are PDAs and I think Apple has good reason to be tooking for ways to make using them easyer... cameras and camcorders on the other hand have been around 20X longer then PDAs and MP3 players and they are MUCH more refined and MUCH more mature... even if they have only been going digital recently... Apple will stay out of these markets for that reason...
As for the iPod as a portable "dock" for things like CF, MMC, and the like, dont count on it... I would look to a SEPARATE device from the iPod to perform these functions that syncd with iPhoto. also, I think that the "iPod" monkier will be used to encompase all the "iDevices" so there will be an iPod Music player, an iPod Picture station, etc. actually on second thought, that doesnt make much sence... but then again neither does the iPod name for an MP3 player ("What is in a name? Wouldn't a rose be just as sweet if it had any other name?"---ahhh, butchered shakespeare!)
Yeah, the naming thing still gets to me about the iPod, why not say iTunesPlayer or something that emphasizes the software rather than the hardware if you hope to sell Macs with it?
The only reason i see for Apple to make a camera is to make it a QuickTime camera so that QT becomes the mp3 of video (c'mon QT6 we're counting on you!!) and it is the simplest way to "share" your video with others like the way iPhoto does with jpegs...I assume they are jpegs. Just plug in the camera and it goes to QT first rather than iMovie. The view screen on the camera would look like a QT Player. Again emphasizing the software over the hardware.
Comments
iPod as a SUPPLEMENTARY storage? Absolutely. Just like you could use it as supplementary storage for your mac. iPod as the primary storage for the iCamera? NEVER, NO WAY, NO MAS! You can do it cheaper and better if you give the camera its own independent storage. Try to imagine needing an iPod in order to get your iBook to work. Stupid right? This is no different.
One of Microsoft's disadvantages is the fact that personally networked appliances can become mini-IS nightmares for consumers who only look for the obvious or the analogous.
Apple will need to keep that in mind as the spokes of the hub get connected via FW, since people will be plugging any FW port to any other FW port they have until something works. The computer desktop keeps everything sorted out in nice easy to understand icons.
An Apple camera could be cool and the iPod could be its portable HD, but the whole thing needs to evolve at a human speed, not a technological speed. I imagine that is why Apple keeps many functionalities "covered up" until needed, like the whole HD aspect of the iPod.
Apple's iApps are already approaching a level of complexity beyond the average user. Windows boxes are dog simple unless someone who wants to adds more to them. Apple boxes have all the toys already in them, especially now with the new iMac, waiting to be found. Unfortunately in the big world of the unwashed masses, those toys can become pretty mixed up.
One thing that will be interesting is that Apple has avoided tiny storage formats like Sony memory sticks. In a possible Apple camera future, will holding on to the images until you find a FW mac be enough? Will iPods really take that function? Will Apple have its own memory unit, or are optical drives all we get beyond 3rd party zip drives and the like?
The Sony Mavica camera with small CD burners have very compelling specs, especially if you want long term curation/storage of photos, but they come with compelling costs. What would Apple do?
<strong>Apple will NEVER produce either a still or video camera...accept and move on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As Gustav said earlier, they ALREADY did. It was called the <a href="http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n17410"; target="_blank">QuickTake</a> I had one.
youre at some family get to gether and and youre taking pictures like crazy. you glance at your camera and see that your 256mb cf card only has room for 5 pictures, so what do you do? your computer is 45 min away at home and you want to take more pictures. you suddenly remember you left your ipod in your car. you go to your car, plug the camera into the ipod, dump your pictures, and youre set for more photos.
dosent somthing like this seem at all plausable?
I LOVE the idea of the iPod as *supplementary* storage for either an Apple Camera or existing cameras.
I mean why not?
a)Because it's too complicated? If you're smart enough to sync your iPod with iTunes, you're smart enough to connect a camera to your iPod and press a button.
b) Because the iPod won't do it well (it'll only work well as an mp3 player)? Sorry, the iPod wouldn't be doing anything new. It ALREADY acts very well as a portable hard drive, all I need is a cable to connect my camera to it and voila!.
c) The Hub needs a mac. Yes, that's true, but storing your photos an an iPod also needs a mac to view them, or iPhoto-Share them.
d)Connecting peripherals to each other is conceptually confusing. Well then fine, let's all scrap this peer-to-peer Firewire nonsense and give over to USB 2, a nice clean master-slave relationship.
Sure, maybe this'll never happen - Apple pretty much does as they (read: Steve-o) please anyway - but it would still be a great feature to have for a LOT of people.
rr.
[ 02-05-2002: Message edited by: ricRocket ]</p>
The pro Nikons and Canons have FW connectors and I CAN see the iPod (or indeed any miniature FW drive) as a temp. portable storage for these. Those 1Gb microdrives are pretty expensive.
<strong>
As Gustav said earlier, they ALREADY did. It was called the <a href="http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n17410"; target="_blank">QuickTake</a> I had one.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think this is the main reason why they will NOT make a camera... remember when jobs came back and he axed a whole bunch of projects to save the company? well a big reason why a lot of them arnt coming back (pda, quicktake, etc.) is because STEVE WASNT AROUND WHEN THEY WERE MADE, they did not hatch from his head and do not fit his vison, so its a no go. just because Apple made a quicktake 5 years ago does not mean that they will in the future...
Personally, I think cannon/sony/hp have the market pretty well covered... Now you can say that it was the same deal with the MP3 player market before the iPod, but I disagree. MP3 players are a realtively new phenomenon(sp?) as are PDAs and I think Apple has good reason to be tooking for ways to make using them easyer... cameras and camcorders on the other hand have been around 20X longer then PDAs and MP3 players and they are MUCH more refined and MUCH more mature... even if they have only been going digital recently... Apple will stay out of these markets for that reason...
As for the iPod as a portable "dock" for things like CF, MMC, and the like, dont count on it... I would look to a SEPARATE device from the iPod to perform these functions that syncd with iPhoto. also, I think that the "iPod" monkier will be used to encompase all the "iDevices" so there will be an iPod Music player, an iPod Picture station, etc. actually on second thought, that doesnt make much sence... but then again neither does the iPod name for an MP3 player ("What is in a name? Wouldn't a rose be just as sweet if it had any other name?"---ahhh, butchered shakespeare!)
-Paul
The only reason i see for Apple to make a camera is to make it a QuickTime camera so that QT becomes the mp3 of video (c'mon QT6 we're counting on you!!) and it is the simplest way to "share" your video with others like the way iPhoto does with jpegs...I assume they are jpegs. Just plug in the camera and it goes to QT first rather than iMovie. The view screen on the camera would look like a QT Player. Again emphasizing the software over the hardware.