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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The answer to your question is simple - people are "expecting" new and wonderful features for each new incarnation of the iPod, and when the features aren't there (like the Tetris you mention) it leads to further speculation, rambling, disappointment, roadrage, etc.
Personally, I keep bringing up the iPod Video thing because I feel it's the next step up. I tend to think in terms of being able to do a lot of things with one device.
That being said...I can see I am going to have to come up with a "proof of concept" web page that shows just what a 220x176 movie will look like on an iPod. Only then will people start to see the potential. 10,000 pr0n in your pocket? Fine. Justice League or Brak show? Fine. iMovies? Fine. Watching a movie in the passenger seat on a long trip? Why not.
Part of the problem here is that Mac users currently lack a decent, compatible PDA so that they can get an understanding of where the technology currently is. My Dell Axim X5 (granted larger screen size) plays small movie clips fine, and I am only limited by the amount of space on my SD or CF card. And this is with a good portion of the screen being taken up by the player interface. Most Mac users have a Palm device, and it's waaaayyyyyy behind PocketPC right now.
And for the curious, no my PocketPC does NOT melt or use up the battery in 5 minutes when viewing video like an earlier post implied. It's kind of amazing that someone would suggest that.
That being said...I can see I am going to have to come up with a "proof of concept" web page that shows just what a 220x176 movie will look like on an iPod. Only then will people start to see the potential.
Oh, I saw the potential when I saw the "postage stamp" video of QuickTime 1 back in the day.
Quote:
Part of the problem here is that Mac users currently lack a decent, compatible PDA so that they can get an understanding of where the technology currently is. My Dell Axim X5 (granted larger screen size) plays small movie clips fine, and I am only limited by the amount of space on my SD or CF card. And this is with a good portion of the screen being taken up by the player interface. Most Mac users have a Palm device, and it's waaaayyyyyy behind PocketPC right now.
What format? 3GPP can scale down nicely to cell phones even, but I don't think I'd want to see that on a TV, or an HDTV. And there's the rub: If you're talking video meant to display on a tiny screen, sure, that's long since done. Displaying DVD-resolution video, or (God knows) H.264 HDTV video would be a whole other category of problem. And if you want to display video on a TV without traumatizing people with poor color and rampant artifacts, it's a real problem.
Quote:
And for the curious, no my PocketPC does NOT melt or use up the battery in 5 minutes when viewing video like an earlier post implied. It's kind of amazing that someone would suggest that.
For 3GPP video, yes. For the sort of movie output by iMovie, no.
You're half right. I was paraphrasing Steve, I do agree, although seeing Monty Python clips would be cool. BUT i do say things to provoke a reaction - the last statement wasn't trying to though!
And to the people who are having a go at App,e for not making a Video iPod and telling people what they want: Apple made a Cube, lots of people loved it, however not enough to make it profitable, Apple exist to make money. Yes Steve doesn't care about the money but if Apple don't make a profit Apple don't exist. Steve doesn't think it would be. Lots of people want a PDA Pod but again Steve doesn't think it would be profitable. (It is a possibility he doesn't want to take the company that way as well)
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.
I wouldn't take it so personally. I mean Steve (and others) aren't saying anythign about YOU personally, just what the market (in general) wants. Don't you think if Apple thought they could make buckets of money selling a video iPod, they would?
This makes me wonder if Apple might not port iPhoto to Windows afterall...
Interesting, but if Google is going to give it away, why would Apple unless there was a DRM issue or some other way of making it significantly cooler than Picasa on iPod Photo.
Images have a value, but mostly a personal one, thus wallet photos and perhaps the iPod Photo will do well. I have wondered if the companies and photographers with private portfolios for business and art might like a quick cheap way of getting images into the market place. Could there be an iPhoto Pro? Gates has been trying to corner the market on images in the way that Michael Jackson was trying to corner the market on Beatles songs. I know the money isn't there yet cause there are images everywhere and I dont' want copyrights on every jpeg on the web, but it is interesting to think that ANY image management software app can be really any better than any other and what would iPhoto do that isn't already being done a dozen times over?
Interesting, but if Google is going to give it away, why would Apple unless there was a DRM issue or some other way of making it significantly cooler than Picasa on iPod Photo.
Images have a value, but mostly a personal one, thus wallet photos and perhaps the iPod Photo will do well. I have wondered if the companies and photographers with private portfolios for business and art might like a quick cheap way of getting images into the market place. Could there be an iPhoto Pro? Gates has been trying to corner the market on images in the way that Michael Jackson was trying to corner the market on Beatles songs. I know the money isn't there yet cause there are images everywhere and I dont' want copyrights on every jpeg on the web, but it is interesting to think that ANY image management software app can be really any better than any other and what would iPhoto do that isn't already being done a dozen times over?
You're probably right. I am mostly just "thinking out loud". Couple of reasons I could see for Apple doing it:
1. Creates a connection to iPod Photo.
2. Increased brand identity.
3. Perhaps Apple has a larger strategy that revolves around "Trojan Horse-ing" themselves into being the "new computer" (iPod) with all of these software products (iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, etc.) as the "gateway" to it.
Again...just sort of thinking/brainstorming out loud here.
Though I'm not sure I'm ready to "predict" it...I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that we're just getting started with what iPod is going to eventually be all about.
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.
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
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)
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by TB6387
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.
The answer to your question is simple - people are "expecting" new and wonderful features for each new incarnation of the iPod, and when the features aren't there (like the Tetris you mention) it leads to further speculation, rambling, disappointment, roadrage, etc.
Personally, I keep bringing up the iPod Video thing because I feel it's the next step up. I tend to think in terms of being able to do a lot of things with one device.
That being said...I can see I am going to have to come up with a "proof of concept" web page that shows just what a 220x176 movie will look like on an iPod. Only then will people start to see the potential. 10,000 pr0n in your pocket? Fine. Justice League or Brak show? Fine. iMovies? Fine. Watching a movie in the passenger seat on a long trip? Why not.
Part of the problem here is that Mac users currently lack a decent, compatible PDA so that they can get an understanding of where the technology currently is. My Dell Axim X5 (granted larger screen size) plays small movie clips fine, and I am only limited by the amount of space on my SD or CF card. And this is with a good portion of the screen being taken up by the player interface. Most Mac users have a Palm device, and it's waaaayyyyyy behind PocketPC right now.
And for the curious, no my PocketPC does NOT melt or use up the battery in 5 minutes when viewing video like an earlier post implied. It's kind of amazing that someone would suggest that.
Originally posted by JamesG
That being said...I can see I am going to have to come up with a "proof of concept" web page that shows just what a 220x176 movie will look like on an iPod. Only then will people start to see the potential.
Oh, I saw the potential when I saw the "postage stamp" video of QuickTime 1 back in the day.
Part of the problem here is that Mac users currently lack a decent, compatible PDA so that they can get an understanding of where the technology currently is. My Dell Axim X5 (granted larger screen size) plays small movie clips fine, and I am only limited by the amount of space on my SD or CF card. And this is with a good portion of the screen being taken up by the player interface. Most Mac users have a Palm device, and it's waaaayyyyyy behind PocketPC right now.
What format? 3GPP can scale down nicely to cell phones even, but I don't think I'd want to see that on a TV, or an HDTV. And there's the rub: If you're talking video meant to display on a tiny screen, sure, that's long since done. Displaying DVD-resolution video, or (God knows) H.264 HDTV video would be a whole other category of problem. And if you want to display video on a TV without traumatizing people with poor color and rampant artifacts, it's a real problem.
And for the curious, no my PocketPC does NOT melt or use up the battery in 5 minutes when viewing video like an earlier post implied. It's kind of amazing that someone would suggest that.
For 3GPP video, yes. For the sort of movie output by iMovie, no.
Originally posted by TB6387
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
-------------------------------------------
can't they add at least a couple more games
aren't you sort of contradicting yourself here? not that i'm the contradicting police or anything, just curious
Originally posted by curiousuburb
Holy topsy turvy reality Batman!
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)
http://www.airbagindustries.com/bucket/ipod/
You're half right. I was paraphrasing Steve, I do agree, although seeing Monty Python clips would be cool. BUT i do say things to provoke a reaction - the last statement wasn't trying to though!
And to the people who are having a go at App,e for not making a Video iPod and telling people what they want: Apple made a Cube, lots of people loved it, however not enough to make it profitable, Apple exist to make money. Yes Steve doesn't care about the money but if Apple don't make a profit Apple don't exist. Steve doesn't think it would be. Lots of people want a PDA Pod but again Steve doesn't think it would be profitable. (It is a possibility he doesn't want to take the company that way as well)
Originally posted by JamesG
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.
I wouldn't take it so personally. I mean Steve (and others) aren't saying anythign about YOU personally, just what the market (in general) wants. Don't you think if Apple thought they could make buckets of money selling a video iPod, they would?
This makes me wonder if Apple might not port iPhoto to Windows afterall...
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I just noticed (okay, I'm slow) this: http://www.picasa.com/picasa/?
This makes me wonder if Apple might not port iPhoto to Windows afterall...
Interesting, but if Google is going to give it away, why would Apple unless there was a DRM issue or some other way of making it significantly cooler than Picasa on iPod Photo.
Images have a value, but mostly a personal one, thus wallet photos and perhaps the iPod Photo will do well. I have wondered if the companies and photographers with private portfolios for business and art might like a quick cheap way of getting images into the market place. Could there be an iPhoto Pro? Gates has been trying to corner the market on images in the way that Michael Jackson was trying to corner the market on Beatles songs. I know the money isn't there yet cause there are images everywhere and I dont' want copyrights on every jpeg on the web, but it is interesting to think that ANY image management software app can be really any better than any other and what would iPhoto do that isn't already being done a dozen times over?
Originally posted by MacGregor
Interesting, but if Google is going to give it away, why would Apple unless there was a DRM issue or some other way of making it significantly cooler than Picasa on iPod Photo.
Images have a value, but mostly a personal one, thus wallet photos and perhaps the iPod Photo will do well. I have wondered if the companies and photographers with private portfolios for business and art might like a quick cheap way of getting images into the market place. Could there be an iPhoto Pro? Gates has been trying to corner the market on images in the way that Michael Jackson was trying to corner the market on Beatles songs. I know the money isn't there yet cause there are images everywhere and I dont' want copyrights on every jpeg on the web, but it is interesting to think that ANY image management software app can be really any better than any other and what would iPhoto do that isn't already being done a dozen times over?
You're probably right. I am mostly just "thinking out loud". Couple of reasons I could see for Apple doing it:
1. Creates a connection to iPod Photo.
2. Increased brand identity.
3. Perhaps Apple has a larger strategy that revolves around "Trojan Horse-ing" themselves into being the "new computer" (iPod) with all of these software products (iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, etc.) as the "gateway" to it.
Again...just sort of thinking/brainstorming out loud here.
Though I'm not sure I'm ready to "predict" it...I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out that we're just getting started with what iPod is going to eventually be all about.
Doesn't seem like a huge stretch to slap a CCD and a lens on that thing and BOOM! You have "iCamera".