Will iPhoto 2 herald a new iDevice?

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I have just read a rumor on Think Secret that a new version of iPhoto will be released around Halloween.



Of course that could just be a wild rumor but, given that iTunes 2 saw the release of a device which integrated with the application directly (the iPod) how likely do you think it is that a version 2 of iPhoto will herald a similar hardware release?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    nijiniji Posts: 288member
    yes, i think you are correct.
  • Reply 2 of 32
    Although as someone pointed out to me, there is far more competition in the Digital Camera world. So maybe some other kind of device or maybe it will be a 1.5 release just to get the application up to speed and add a couple of tweaks.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    A BlueTouth pic frame (iFrame)
  • Reply 4 of 32
    merlionmerlion Posts: 143member
    [quote]Originally posted by fridgemagnet:

    <strong>Although as someone pointed out to me, there is far more competition in the Digital Camera world. So maybe some other kind of device or maybe it will be a 1.5 release just to get the application up to speed and add a couple of tweaks.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well... seems there was also a lot of competition in the MP3 player marker when Apple came out with the iPod. So it is possible.



    Perhaps we can get the latest from Kormac about this.





    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    [ 10-02-2002: Message edited by: Merlion ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 32
    jpfjpf Posts: 167member
    I believe there will be (1 or 2) iDevice(s) for both iphoto and imovie. Competition has got nothing to do Apple going to a market. Do you guys think the computer industry is competitive? It is a competition nightmare.



    I think if Apple gets 5% of the digital camera and also camcorder markets, that still would be a huge revenue stream for them.



    5% marketshare of every cool high tech market would be a cool thing.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    Making computers and making cameras (even digital ones) are two totally totally different things.



    Polaroid went bankrupt last year because (some speculate) they waited too long to get into the digital camera market. I can't see how Apple could jump in now. It's not just the competition (which is fierce) but the technology.



    MP3 players had only been around a couple of years when Apple made the iPod. Digital cameras have been around for more than a decade.



    I've been wrong before but I don't think Apple will be making a digital camera anytime soon. Maybe a firewire webcam or something that lets you store/view photos, but not a mid-to-high end megapixel camera. I could see a PDA or cell phone type device before a camera.
  • Reply 7 of 32
    bradbowerbradbower Posts: 1,068member
    You're living in a dream world, people... Apple has only made one agreement with PIXO, and that's for two devices: an audio player, and a combination audio player and communication device with numerous technologies. Heh, and if you think they're going to write their own operating system for these iDevices, you're nuts. Of course, it could come from another vendor, but... I'm not waiting.



    Fact is, digital cameras and DV cams (the industry in general) don't need Apple's help with products like the digital portable music player did, or the PDA/cell phone/audio player/wireless web device does. There just isn't much Apple could DO with a camera that hasn't been done a million times over. Oh wait, they could waterproof it and make it all round and pritty!! Yeah, that'll sell!!



    Don't hold your breath.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Michael Grey:

    <strong>I've been wrong before but I don't think Apple will be making a digital camera anytime soon. Maybe a firewire webcam or something that lets you store/view photos, but not a mid-to-high end megapixel camera. I could see a PDA or cell phone type device before a camera.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A FireWire webcam? I just think it's funny you suggest this over and over when FireWire webcams are pretty much dumbed down MiniDV cams...They use the same transport / driver shim as DV camcorders do.



    If Apple's going to make a webcam, it's going to be as a tertiary function on a much bigger device. Apple sells expensive gadgets like $500 mp3 players. There's little or no chance we'll see somethng as cheap or simple as a plain old FireWire webcam.
  • Reply 9 of 32
    trevormtrevorm Posts: 841member
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>



    A FireWire webcam? I just think it's funny you suggest this over and over when FireWire webcams are pretty much dumbed down MiniDV cams...They use the same transport / driver shim as DV camcorders do.



    If Apple's going to make a webcam, it's going to be as a tertiary function on a much bigger device. Apple sells expensive gadgets like $500 mp3 players. There's little or no chance we'll see somethng as cheap or simple as a plain old FireWire webcam.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think I asked this once in another thread but anyhow are many people really interested in web cams?? I didnt think they were all that possible... Perhaps video confrence is in the Businss market but for consumers?
  • Reply 10 of 32
    It won't be a digital video camera, it will be an iFrame type device. Think about it, does the iPod create music? No, it is a medium to take your music with you and listen to it.



    Having said that, I don't think Apple will release an iFrame device because the market isn't mature enough yet. There is no real certainty that an iFrame would sell (especially if they are charging standard Apple prices).
  • Reply 11 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by trevorM:

    <strong>



    I think I asked this once in another thread but anyhow are many people really interested in web cams?? I didnt think they were all that possible... Perhaps video confrence is in the Businss market but for consumers?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    NO kidding. All this talk of webcams, LCD picture frames, and iPod like video playback devices. What the heck is going on here? Suggesting these niche-niche products over less risky products like a still camera...that could potentially (though unlikely) function as both a webcam and so-so video playback device?
  • Reply 12 of 32
    here's my 2 cents



    rendezvous + imovie + itunes + iphoto =



    tivo-esque device that allows movies, images and audio to be wirelessly shared with your television and home stereo system. play itunes Mp3's through your stereo. play itunes visuals and iphoto slideshows through your television. this device becomes a link in the bridge between your digital lifestyle stuff and your existing consumer equipment. at least, i wish...
  • Reply 13 of 32
    I think Apple brand loyalty comes into play here. Apple knows that if it releases an Apple camera or frame, that a million fanatic Mac loyals will buy one just b/c it is Apple, the rest of the market is just icing on the cake (ala the iPod). Apple needs things to get people over to their platform and their computers are not enough. Most everyone here knows that if Apple made a good camera, or frame, or even a phone, that was useful and valuable they would buy it...just like the ipod. The iPod was huge for Mac users then PC users jumped on the bandwagon, that is Apple's goal for all iDevices...that and to gouge us with their huge margins.



    The DV camera idea seems a little far fetched though, small market high prices. Apple is aiming iDevices at consumer markets, and due to CURRENT tech and prices DV cameras, DV is in the pro range right now.
  • Reply 14 of 32
    and I agree Apple Tivo would be awesome, however unlikely it is I want it.
  • Reply 15 of 32
    Um...okay, firewire webcams are pointless.



    So, uh, why did Apple build in support for them in Jaguar? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 16 of 32
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Web cams could be available, cheap ones, if Apple were to find a way to make vid-con stone simple and reliable. If they manage to get the equation down to 2 macs with a 56K connection delivering [email protected] with not so much configuring as asking rendezvous to find your conversation partner and letting your OS/iApp take care of the rest. If they refined and simplified video-conferencing to that level, then we might see a web-cam with an Apple logo on it. Such sophistication may not yet be possible, I dunno.



    However, there's plenty of money to be made in digital cameras, and I could certainly see Apple going there.
  • Reply 17 of 32
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by Michael Grey:

    <strong>Um...okay, firewire webcams are pointless.



    So, uh, why did Apple build in support for them in Jaguar? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Like I said, they really didn't build support fo webcams in the OS. They built-in a generic driver for video transport from DV camcorders. Webcams have since evolved to behave more like DV camcorders. Of course I mentioned this in my last post and you completely ignored it.



    And support for these cameras already existed in 10.1.



    ---



    Matsu, I can barely stream 240x180 Apple MPEG-4 video at 10 FPS with no sound at 128 kbps upstream. Now add the need to download equivalent bandwidth an even a 256 kbps SDSL line would choke. Add sound and you'd get garbage. This is with QuickTime Broadcaster.



    For example, the best quality Apple Expo Paris stream is 256x192 Apple MPEG-4 @ 15 FPS with a mono AAC audio track averages over 300 kbps.



    No friggin' way with a modem.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Yeah, unless it could be done well, really "Wow! that's F-ing cool" good, then I don't think Apple would touch it.



    There's this <a href="http://www.aboutbeamer.com/"; target="_blank">Beamer</a> thingy from <a href="http://www.vialta.com"; target="_blank">Vialta</a>. It gives 15fps (dunno the rez, probably 240-180ish) but it needs an analogue line to work. In their site they say it uses 33.6 kbps max, so maybe an extension of v92 type features could pull this off. But it'd only be direct dial computer to computer, you're on-line, find your buddy, the 2 v92 modems put their respective connections on hold and one dials up the other, or somethng like that. It's remotely possible, but wierd, doesn't sound ready by at least a couple of years yet.



    Europe and Japan will be playing with video on their digital wireless networks, and something may be possible then, but you won't need a computer for it. When bandwidth isn't a problem anymore, we might see something then. Like I said, only IF all those quality conditions could be met... it's not practical yet.
  • Reply 18 of 32
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by off/lang:

    <strong>It won't be a digital video camera, it will be an iFrame type device. Think about it, does the iPod create music? No, it is a medium to take your music with you and listen to it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    When Steve J introduced "Digital Hub" at MacWorld SF 2001, he said there were 2 kinds of digital devices. Devices which are enchanced by a computer (DVD player, DV Camera) and devices which require a computer (iPod... or at the time a Rio 500 ).



    The iPod is not a content creation device. It plays music, displays you calander and contents, doubles as a hard drive. Where the f*** did anyone say that EVERY digital device is only for play-back???



    Digital picture frames are BS. Way too expensive. If they were the same price as an actual picture frame, sure! But like hell they ever will be.



    There wasn't much more innovation left in the MP3 player market, was there? Hang on, let's make it both small and with a high (5-20GB) capacity. Let's add FireWire. Let's add calender, contacts and hard drive functionality. Let's add automatic syncing. Let's add a solid state scroll wheel.



    Apple could do for DV cameras what they did for the iPod. Not revolutionary, just improve on the concept incredibly. Unfortunatly, Apple got rid of the digital-hub diagram from the iBook web-site a while ago



    Barto
  • Reply 20 of 32
    I?d like to see Apple produce an iCam. I think Apple can avoid many of the expenses associated with conventional digicams by just providing a housing for the digital sensor. Have it be compatible with existing SLR camera lens mounts (eg. Nikon F-mounts), and use the iPod as a storage medium. Most people will already have one or both already purchased and the iCam will complement their investment in these. Price it at $299 USD and you?ll have a winner.





    mika.
Sign In or Register to comment.