The processor(s) onboard do actually have MPEG2 playback capability but this is not where Apple is going. We will have to wait until QT7/Tiger for the HVAC codecs. Third parties will have to take care of direct camera syncing, wireless etc. 80gig video out in a year's time?
I really, really hope it can play Keynote presentations (Keynote 2?)
A 2" screen is actually perfectly acceptable for personal viewing if it is of suitable quality; Apple is unlikely to screw up that particular aspect.
Apple's strategy is fantastic. Features are added at a very disciplined pace to ensure that the now considerable iPod 'community' and mass market can comfortably accept new functionality whilst retaining the whole simple device ethos. Apple are like the Sony of old; before Sony fell into the Japanese manufacturers trap of adding complexity and 20 variations of each product every 3 months.
Needless to say this will sell in truckloads.
iPhoto for PC is unlikely as it uses the Quartz/Open GL libraries for scaling etc. The PC would need Longhorn for that. There are plenty of freebee libraries on the PC side.
iPhoto for PC is unlikely as it uses the Quartz/Open GL libraries for scaling etc. The PC would need Longhorn for that. There are plenty of freebee libraries on the PC side.
Yes, but like I said, if PC people are getting it for free, I, as a long-time mac user, damn well better be able to get it for free as well. The stink that so many raised when Apple had the 'gall' to charge for iLife was bad enough, now they're going to come out and charge for iLife, but let PC people get its pieces for no charge? Like I said, there'll be rioting in the streets. (Hell, if Apple reverses course and gives away iPhoto4 to mac users, the iLife buyers will riot in the streets. I think anyway you cut it, cars will be burning).
Apple's legal team could incorporate the iPhoto + iTunes license into the purchase of the iPod, i.e. $500 buys you the iPod/accessories included, iTunes 4.x, iPhoto, QT. I don't think iPhoto free for the world is *too* far out there.
this new ipod sounds cool, but if you have a laptop then its kinda pointless. also, some digital cameras (like Sony Cybershots, have a video out port/cable and a slideshow mode. So i hope it works well for apple, but there are countless "other options" out there.
A laptop is too big to have with you everywhere--I'm often wanting to show photos of something and wishing I hadn't left my PB at home. And cameras have a very limited capacity--you have SOME of your photos, and the slideshows lack music.
I DO show photos on both my PB and my camera--often to TV in both cases. But there are big ways in which an iPod could do it better.
Quote:
Originally posted by mello
Honestly, how often are you showing photos to people?
All the time. Often on my camera's littled 1.6" screen. And people are always showing me photos the same way. Because people ALWAYS want to show photos... and sometimes you don't have a pocket full of prints or a laptop handy. And you're forgetting TV output too.
People will LOVE the idea of being able to show off any photo at any time. Set to their favorite music, no less.
dude, fucking if you want to show off your Keynote presentations that way, in Tiger you can make an Autormator actions to take the current Keynote, convert it to PDF, convert each PDF page to a single image, import into iPhoto, create a new album with the new photos. Sync with iPod.
I agree that people love to share photos, and this option is good enough for people.. add some zoom maybe, that is what people would like. iPhoto for windows is not too far fetched, and it incorporates the same idea of giving a product away, and then when people realize it is awesome start buying photos from the service...
I still don't think that a color screen or iPhoto slideshows are necessary
or a major upgrade. Honestly, how often are you showing photos to people?
I have found one of the best things in owning a powerbook is the portable iPhoto slide show (with music!). I think with the near ubiquitous nature of digital camaras, there are many folks who would love to have their slide show with them.
[Badd some zoom maybe, that is what people would like. [/B]
can you say "ken burns effect"?
hell, consider being able to put anything that can be in PDF format as displayable on the iPod and out via the video-out port. you've suddenly got a pretty mean info machine.
by the way, i assume having the click-wheel opens up some more game possibilities, since you could emulate an old-school directional pad, rather than n just the jog wheel paddle style of games (breakout).
I'd rather Apple just finished the iPod's music capabilities so that it had basic functionality... like, say, audio recording, rather than adding whiz-bang things like a color screen.
Surprised none of you have inquired about this yet: what will be the MSRP of this iPod w/ display? $599 starting price? Or is it just coming with a 60GB? If it is, I'm thinkin $699 or something ridiculous like that.
Would it be possible to have iTunes on your iPod now? A color display can drastically change the current display setup on all iPods. I'm thinking though that a color display will drain the battery pretty nicely, so they may not use it for simple things like scrolling through your playlist.
I'd rather Apple just finished the iPod's music capabilities so that it had basic functionality... like, say, audio recording, rather than adding whiz-bang things like a color screen.
It's not worth it to add audio recording capability. It would add cost, weight, and mass for a feature that *most* iPod owners would never use. On the other hand, a high-res color display makes for a more pleasant UI, something that everyone can enjoy.
As much as I think the upgrades are worthwhile, I think Apple is missing out on some crucial functionality that can really drive music sales.
Add Bluetooth support to the iPod with the ability to allow people to connect to the iTunes Music Store via the data connection on their cell phones. The interface could be written purely in WAP 2.0, or they might consider deploying a J2ME application. On EDGE and EV-DO networks there would be enough bandwidth to allow instantaneous playback of purchased songs.
The carriers would love this, simply because it would finally spur some real data usage on their networks. Right now they're barely keeping out of the red trying to recoup the costs of the on-going 3G upgrades. It wouldn't be hard to convince these carriers to drop a link to the music store right at the top of their WAP homepages.
I'd rather Apple just finished the iPod's music capabilities so that it had basic functionality... like, say, audio recording, rather than adding whiz-bang things like a color screen.
You know, it really throws a wet blanket on the proceedings when you bust in here and start demanding reasonable things, Charles.
I just want a 60 GB drive and seamless track-to-track play. So many of my albums fade from one track to the next, and that *blip* pisses me off. Don't tell me to make the whole album one track, either. that's a stop-gap work-around to make up for a missing feature, and I don't always want to listen to the whole album. But when I do, well, I do.
I am surprised at the way people are dismissing Wifi capabilities. I have Airport Express hooked up to my home stereo. It's cool being able to play music off of my laptop through the external HD attached to my iMac. However, you know what would be the greeatest thing ever? If my iPod could play my tunes through Airport Express. That would be SO much better than having to carry the laptop around the house to DJ with. I'd take connectivity to Airport Express over a color screen, photo capabilities, or any of that other business. After Wifi, video playback is the next thing I'd like to see.
2) There isn't going to be an iPhoto for Windows. Reasons:
a) when it was released, it was touted as an example of what could be done quickly with Cocoa. Its a true cocoa app. To get it to work on windows, they'd have a real porting job on their hands (whether it be re-writing iPhoto or updating the Yellow Box).
b) Who on the PC side is going to buy iPhoto for windows? <snip> And they can't give it away for free. Because if they did, you'll have a Mac riot on your hands for all those people who paid good money for iLife to get iPhoto.
Hi,
a) When Apple bought Next they got Webobjects, running using Openstep. Webobjects now uses Cocoa and is still sold on Windows 2000 Server (http://www.apple.com/webobjects/specs.html). So you're right, there must be some work to make that subset of Cocoa work on Windows XP or they'd advertise Webobjects working on XP. Still, they have a solid base and Cocoa was designed to run cross platform, including Windows. If they make it work, other apps will be more easily ported too.
b) It would be a delicate move for Apple to make money and keep existing customers happy. Who knows how they'd do that. For instance, IF Apple doesn't want to give it away, you could have 4 ways to get iPhoto for windows:
- iPhoto comes free with iPod purchase
- iPhoto comes free with .Mac subscription
- HP bundles iPhoto with their computers
- iPhoto is sold standalone for $50
So - I don't think cocoa is a barrier, nor is the selling vs giving away something that would stop them. The politics of what they release on windows is more the barrier - where do they draw the line? Will iPhoto for Windows sell more iPods?
It's not worth it to add audio recording capability. It would add cost, weight, and mass for a feature that *most* iPod owners would never use. On the other hand, a high-res color display makes for a more pleasant UI, something that everyone can enjoy.
The iPod's hardware already has recording capabilities. It's just that the software cripples them. The iPod on Linux people were able to get the iPod recording under Linux (unfortunately, Linux is currently only available for the 3rd generation iPods).
All Apple would have to do would be to add a microphone port and write some software to do the actual recording. Much more simple, much more practical, and much more useful than a color screen.
I remember those saying "who wants to watch pictures / videos on a tiny screen?" STEVE JOBS DOES.
Not exactly. You're missing the thrust of this rumored "picture" iPod. Viewing on this thing would be for reference only. The *important* part of the rumor is that this iPod would facilitate the transport and presentation of photos on TVs and other devices. Think of the iPod being more like a jump drive with the added ability to preview common data -- photos and movies (and music of course). That's where it's headed. But don't mistake it for a portable DVD/divx player.
Yes, video I think is coming too. But I will not be watching whole DVDs on it. Think of the preview column in the Finder. The iPod screen, if this is true, will work kind of like that. You figure the previews you get there are about the right size for what we're talking about too.
Comments
It won't play videos
...yet
The processor(s) onboard do actually have MPEG2 playback capability but this is not where Apple is going. We will have to wait until QT7/Tiger for the HVAC codecs. Third parties will have to take care of direct camera syncing, wireless etc. 80gig video out in a year's time?
I really, really hope it can play Keynote presentations (Keynote 2?)
A 2" screen is actually perfectly acceptable for personal viewing if it is of suitable quality; Apple is unlikely to screw up that particular aspect.
Apple's strategy is fantastic. Features are added at a very disciplined pace to ensure that the now considerable iPod 'community' and mass market can comfortably accept new functionality whilst retaining the whole simple device ethos. Apple are like the Sony of old; before Sony fell into the Japanese manufacturers trap of adding complexity and 20 variations of each product every 3 months.
Needless to say this will sell in truckloads.
iPhoto for PC is unlikely as it uses the Quartz/Open GL libraries for scaling etc. The PC would need Longhorn for that. There are plenty of freebee libraries on the PC side.
Originally posted by vinney57
iPhoto for PC is unlikely as it uses the Quartz/Open GL libraries for scaling etc. The PC would need Longhorn for that. There are plenty of freebee libraries on the PC side.
four words:
google, picasa, strategic partnership
*microsoft loses bowel control*
or a major upgrade. Honestly, how often are you showing photos to people?
Would showing photos from a little color screen be that impressive? If
anything I would have expected:
Greyscale Screen
Powerful New Battery (20+ hours)
Integrated AM-FM Radio (useful at ballgames & at the gym)
Different Color Options like the Minis
New games or mini-apps that you can download from Apple.com
As for video, it would be sweet to be able to download shows from my directv
tivo to an iBook or Powerbook but I don't think it will happen for the iPod. If
it had a big screen like Sony's upcoming PSP, that would be a different story.
As for iPhoto for windows, I'd expect to see iChat with a compatible iSight
camera way before iPhoto.
Originally posted by Louzer
Yes, but like I said, if PC people are getting it for free, I, as a long-time mac user, damn well better be able to get it for free as well. The stink that so many raised when Apple had the 'gall' to charge for iLife was bad enough, now they're going to come out and charge for iLife, but let PC people get its pieces for no charge? Like I said, there'll be rioting in the streets. (Hell, if Apple reverses course and gives away iPhoto4 to mac users, the iLife buyers will riot in the streets. I think anyway you cut it, cars will be burning).
Apple's legal team could incorporate the iPhoto + iTunes license into the purchase of the iPod, i.e. $500 buys you the iPod/accessories included, iTunes 4.x, iPhoto, QT. I don't think iPhoto free for the world is *too* far out there.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
this new ipod sounds cool, but if you have a laptop then its kinda pointless. also, some digital cameras (like Sony Cybershots, have a video out port/cable and a slideshow mode. So i hope it works well for apple, but there are countless "other options" out there.
A laptop is too big to have with you everywhere--I'm often wanting to show photos of something and wishing I hadn't left my PB at home. And cameras have a very limited capacity--you have SOME of your photos, and the slideshows lack music.
I DO show photos on both my PB and my camera--often to TV in both cases. But there are big ways in which an iPod could do it better.
Originally posted by mello
Honestly, how often are you showing photos to people?
All the time. Often on my camera's littled 1.6" screen. And people are always showing me photos the same way. Because people ALWAYS want to show photos... and sometimes you don't have a pocket full of prints or a laptop handy. And you're forgetting TV output too.
People will LOVE the idea of being able to show off any photo at any time. Set to their favorite music, no less.
I agree that people love to share photos, and this option is good enough for people.. add some zoom maybe, that is what people would like. iPhoto for windows is not too far fetched, and it incorporates the same idea of giving a product away, and then when people realize it is awesome start buying photos from the service...
hopefully
Originally posted by mello
I still don't think that a color screen or iPhoto slideshows are necessary
or a major upgrade. Honestly, how often are you showing photos to people?
I have found one of the best things in owning a powerbook is the portable iPhoto slide show (with music!). I think with the near ubiquitous nature of digital camaras, there are many folks who would love to have their slide show with them.
Originally posted by Nebagakid
[Badd some zoom maybe, that is what people would like. [/B]
can you say "ken burns effect"?
hell, consider being able to put anything that can be in PDF format as displayable on the iPod and out via the video-out port. you've suddenly got a pretty mean info machine.
by the way, i assume having the click-wheel opens up some more game possibilities, since you could emulate an old-school directional pad, rather than n just the jog wheel paddle style of games (breakout).
Would it be possible to have iTunes on your iPod now? A color display can drastically change the current display setup on all iPods. I'm thinking though that a color display will drain the battery pretty nicely, so they may not use it for simple things like scrolling through your playlist.
Originally posted by CharlesS
I'd rather Apple just finished the iPod's music capabilities so that it had basic functionality... like, say, audio recording, rather than adding whiz-bang things like a color screen.
It's not worth it to add audio recording capability. It would add cost, weight, and mass for a feature that *most* iPod owners would never use. On the other hand, a high-res color display makes for a more pleasant UI, something that everyone can enjoy.
What I think would be good is if there were a way to download on the fly from your camera phone. Maybe there is.
Add Bluetooth support to the iPod with the ability to allow people to connect to the iTunes Music Store via the data connection on their cell phones. The interface could be written purely in WAP 2.0, or they might consider deploying a J2ME application. On EDGE and EV-DO networks there would be enough bandwidth to allow instantaneous playback of purchased songs.
The carriers would love this, simply because it would finally spur some real data usage on their networks. Right now they're barely keeping out of the red trying to recoup the costs of the on-going 3G upgrades. It wouldn't be hard to convince these carriers to drop a link to the music store right at the top of their WAP homepages.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Originally posted by CharlesS
I'd rather Apple just finished the iPod's music capabilities so that it had basic functionality... like, say, audio recording, rather than adding whiz-bang things like a color screen.
You know, it really throws a wet blanket on the proceedings when you bust in here and start demanding reasonable things, Charles.
I just want a 60 GB drive and seamless track-to-track play. So many of my albums fade from one track to the next, and that *blip* pisses me off. Don't tell me to make the whole album one track, either. that's a stop-gap work-around to make up for a missing feature, and I don't always want to listen to the whole album. But when I do, well, I do.
Originally posted by Louzer
2) There isn't going to be an iPhoto for Windows. Reasons:
a) when it was released, it was touted as an example of what could be done quickly with Cocoa. Its a true cocoa app. To get it to work on windows, they'd have a real porting job on their hands (whether it be re-writing iPhoto or updating the Yellow Box).
b) Who on the PC side is going to buy iPhoto for windows? <snip> And they can't give it away for free. Because if they did, you'll have a Mac riot on your hands for all those people who paid good money for iLife to get iPhoto.
Hi,
a) When Apple bought Next they got Webobjects, running using Openstep. Webobjects now uses Cocoa and is still sold on Windows 2000 Server (http://www.apple.com/webobjects/specs.html). So you're right, there must be some work to make that subset of Cocoa work on Windows XP or they'd advertise Webobjects working on XP. Still, they have a solid base and Cocoa was designed to run cross platform, including Windows. If they make it work, other apps will be more easily ported too.
b) It would be a delicate move for Apple to make money and keep existing customers happy. Who knows how they'd do that. For instance, IF Apple doesn't want to give it away, you could have 4 ways to get iPhoto for windows:
- iPhoto comes free with iPod purchase
- iPhoto comes free with .Mac subscription
- HP bundles iPhoto with their computers
- iPhoto is sold standalone for $50
So - I don't think cocoa is a barrier, nor is the selling vs giving away something that would stop them. The politics of what they release on windows is more the barrier - where do they draw the line? Will iPhoto for Windows sell more iPods?
This is the first step towards a video iPod.
I remember those saying "who wants to watch pictures / videos on a tiny screen?" STEVE JOBS DOES.
It's coming, people... First pictures... then video.
Originally posted by frozenstar
It's not worth it to add audio recording capability. It would add cost, weight, and mass for a feature that *most* iPod owners would never use. On the other hand, a high-res color display makes for a more pleasant UI, something that everyone can enjoy.
The iPod's hardware already has recording capabilities. It's just that the software cripples them. The iPod on Linux people were able to get the iPod recording under Linux (unfortunately, Linux is currently only available for the 3rd generation iPods).
All Apple would have to do would be to add a microphone port and write some software to do the actual recording. Much more simple, much more practical, and much more useful than a color screen.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
This is the first step towards a video iPod.
I remember those saying "who wants to watch pictures / videos on a tiny screen?" STEVE JOBS DOES.
Not exactly. You're missing the thrust of this rumored "picture" iPod. Viewing on this thing would be for reference only. The *important* part of the rumor is that this iPod would facilitate the transport and presentation of photos on TVs and other devices. Think of the iPod being more like a jump drive with the added ability to preview common data -- photos and movies (and music of course). That's where it's headed. But don't mistake it for a portable DVD/divx player.
Yes, video I think is coming too. But I will not be watching whole DVDs on it. Think of the preview column in the Finder. The iPod screen, if this is true, will work kind of like that. You figure the previews you get there are about the right size for what we're talking about too.