for quick file transfer of 1 or 2 images, only bluetooth! bluetooh also fits nicely into the iPod shell.
however, one of the main uses for a photo iPod is to do iPhoto shows on yr television.
for this, bluetooth is too slow.
therefore video/audio out is essential. so, a connector like the one available for the 12 inch Powerbook will be required.
Well, if you hate wires, then it sounds like you won't be buying this, as it would need wires to do video out (oh, and Apple would be stupid to do bluetooth video out on this thing. Why? Not because its slow, its because you'd still need to carry around something to link the bluetooth to the TV.)
Quote:
someone else in this thread also mentioned the photo iPod as being able to sync yr entire home directory. this is definitely coming, as it is announced as a feature in Tiger, to work with .mac
look for somesort of tie in with .mac in order to transfer yr photos or make them viewable on the net, etc. apple will not give up with .mac
First, I don't recall Apple announcing the home folder on the iPod with tiger. You may have read reports or rumors about current features in Tiger, but that's a wholly different thing (because its in the pre-releases doesn't mean it'll be in the final).
Second, they won't tie any of this to .mac. The only major ties Apple has from the OS to .Mac is iSync. Beyond that, its all minor little details, like posting photons from iPhoto (actually, that's all I can think of). I never understood people's predisposition about Apple and .Mac. You'd think it was like without it, half your OS was useless or something.
Quote:
i think the way that i would use and the main motivation for me to purchase a US$500 device is the portability of having a variety of data always with me. work related files first; then entertainment related files like music and photos. it is a portable, compact hard disk, with limited play back feature set.
Great, but how do you feel about a $600-700 device, because that's what Apple's going to charge for it, if its real.
Quote:
my mobile already has bluetooth, music playback, video playback, 1.3 megapixel camera, 2.2 inch TFT screen, and SD removable card. it weighs 128 grams, and is connected to the net 24/7 through gprs.
Wow, you have all that? Then why would you spend a ton more money on another device that would be mostly redundant (and less capable).
My phone doesn't have bluetooth (nor connects to my computer not at all), doesn't playback music nor videos, has no camera, has a B&W screen, and no SD card. It can connect to the net, but that brings so little benefit compared to the cost that its not even close to be worth it. I must be missing something, I guess.
Quote:
steve has always said that convergence is at play. he had better get a move on, and pack more features into what has emerged as his main platform (iPod)....
First off, you have to be careful about asking for all those features. There's a reason Windows is such a oerbloated OS. Its because all they do is add features, whether they make sense or not. The goal isn't just adding features, its adding them in such a way as to keep the device as user-friendly and simplistic as possible. If they just start slapping in features for all you "convergence heads" that believe they need one device to do everything, the iPod could turn into some kludgy device. And there goes its rep. And then goes the sales...
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.
Hear, hear! Gapless playback is my number one feature request for both the iPod and iTunes.
For those comparing iPods to GameBoy DS and mobile phones, consider that they are both sold under a subscription type system. In the case of mobiles, they are heavily subsidised by the service provide, as you have a contract for a year, while the GBDS relies on the royalties from game sales to make a profit, just like any other game console. Apple does not make sufficient money from the ITMS, so the iPod is the profit maker, so while the tech may be comparable, the price is not.
David
Like it was already pointed out, it's the Nintendo DS, this is not a GameBoy. (GBDS? no one ever used this acronym) And though you have to pay for games, you don't need a subscription to play multi-player games wirelessly on it. Using it's own wireless protocol (it can use wi-fi too) it automatically finds other DSes in the area (up to 100-150 feet) using something like Rendez-Vous. It even downloads the game in the other DS so with only one copy of the game you can play with 16 persons. It also comes with a built-in text/picture messenger program. All that for 150$. Nintendo don't generally sell it's consoles at a loss like MS and Sony do.
Sorry I had to rant about it, as both Apple and Nintendo are my favorite companies .
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? There's already a slew of cheaper/better alternatives on the Windows side (you may not think they're better, but most do a lot more with photos than iPhoto, with just as good a job, if not better, of organizing them - many people still don't like iPhoto's organization). 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.
Quote:
Originally posted by darkestbeforedawn
Does this mean iPhoto for windoze?
You can bet that this means iPhoto for Windows. And no one is going to have to buy it either. How do you woo windows users over to your side when you are Apple and you have a cashcow like the iPod? First, you use the iPod as a trojan horse, for ram-rodding through the front door of every Windows user's house. And what comes out of that Trojan Horse, once it has entered their living room? First, and most importantly, Quicktime. Next comes iTunes, followed by it's new compatriot iPhoto. The iPod which, combined with iTunes, revolutionized the ways computers and music integrate. Windows software support in iTunes has wooed more than a few people over from the dark side; but what's better advertising than a simple, fun, easy-to-use piece of Apple software running on your Windows computer? Maybe ANOTHER piece of software, made by the same company, which does for your photos what iTunes did for your music? A plug-and-play photo syncing program that does for your digital camera what iTunes did to your iPod. Ever plugged in a digital camera into a USB port on a windows machine? It's hardly elegant. It shows up as a hard drive in Explorer, if you know what to look for. And it doesn't sync automatically. What will the price for iPhoto be? Free. How do you KILL the competition? Give it away. And if you don't think apple is deeply dedicated to making huge inroads with the PC crowd, what exactly do you think that whole HP-branded iPod was about? Why would Apple want to share the limelight with another company on such an amazing product? Bigger than iPod brand recognition, bigger than iTunes Music Store, the answer is simple---the deal with HP wasn't about selling iPods. It's about something a little deeper, and a lot more ambitious:Quicktime. On every new HP PC now, Quicktime is the default media player for most every media type. We all know that EVERYTHING that is audio/video media-related in OS X (and ESPECIALLY iLife) goes through Quicktime. Once you are in the door with quicktime, you can start SLOWLY releasing iLife apps, one at a time, that integrate with Windows and iPods and digital devices the same way that they do on the mac. But you don't want to give the game away. Where do you stop? Putting out iMovie and iDVD doesn't make sense, since there isn't that guaranteed installed base of Windows XP-based computers that have DVD burners and Firewire ports (the firewire port is a crucial component of iMovie--since every decent video camera these days has a IEEE-1394 port). Once people have their music and photos together, they will want to make movies, make DVD's, make quicktime clips. They already know how to use the Windows versions of iTunes and iPhoto..they like the interface and the ease of use...they want to take it to the next level. What is that next level? A mac with the ENTIRETY of iLife included for free. You like the apps? You'll probably like the O.S. too...running on a true digital hub. What apple will sell these people on is the ease of use. People like to accomplish things with their computers, not just continue to hit brick walls with a 10-year-old antiquated Windows O.S. with a bunch of poor drivers and creaky software piled on top of it.
Apple is using the iPod as a Trojan horse for selling their computers. It's a dangerous thing to make TOO much windows software---you'll give the game away. You just need to give the Windows users a taster. The more the iPod can do with a Mac that it CAN'T do with Windows, the more intrigued people will be over time with your platform. Apple is pacing itself. They know they have a superior O.S. to anything out there and they know that Quicktime makes it possible. Anything that requires PC users to use Quicktime is a good thing. If you need a little reminder of just how important Quicktime is in Apple's business plan, first take a look at where Quicktime sits in the OS X architecture. Then look at how many things in Apple's entire product line incorporate it in some way:
OS X Panther Server-which can be used for Quicktime streaming--you'll definitely sell more copies of Panther Server if you are doing Quicktime streaming.
G5 XServe-the de facto standard for any company dealing with hosting media content, and an excellent host for selling Panther server. Take that, Real Audio. Now no one is going to want to shell out thousands of dollars for your turnkey proprietary streaming systems.
iSight
Quicktime Pro
Logic
iChat A/V
Keynote
Motion
Final Cut Pro
DVD Studio Pro
Quicktime VR Studio
Apple is going to use Windows as a cheap way of advertising, whether Microsoft likes it or not. It will take some time, but Apple has a lot of money in the bank and they have put more money into multimedia R&D than anyone else. They are going to make this work for them, at Microsoft's expense. So, Yes. iPhoto will be coming out for Windows.
But it might come for free with a new $499 slide-show enabled iPod. We'll see.
And you might remember, prior to iLife, iPhoto was a free download. The rest of the apps might have still BEEN free, had it not been for the gargantuan file sizes of GarageBand and iDVD. At $50 a pop of the iLife suite, that doesn't BEGIN to recoup the development costs of GarageBand alone. Apple doesn't want Adobe Photo Album software to go any farther, which is yet another reason that they will be giving the Windows version away for free or with the purchase of the iPod. We might well expect an upgraded version of iTunes as well, which will play let the new iPod download Quicktime trailers.
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.
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie. I say 'supposed' because I have yet to see any real-world application of it. When Panther was first released, there was initially a link that should have led to more information or possibly a demo of Pixlet. The link was dead from the inception. I tried back every so often and found that the link had been removed. Supposedly it is built into Panther and work any 1GHz G4 or faster Mac---which means that maybe the new iPod uses a scaled-down, less-intensive version for optimizing the storage of video content on a 40 or 60 GB disk. That sounds like a lot of space, but movies can fill up a drive faster than anything. I woudn't be entirely surprised if Apple does to DVD's what they have done to CD's---turned them into data disks that can have their content ripped to the hard drive in a compressed format (AAC, or the Pixlet Codec for example), so that they can be synced to a playback device such as the new iPod, or streamed from your .mac idisk. Another thing...the Apple Records dispute is over once for all. I'll tell you one thing---when Apple paid that ungodly sum to permanently bury the hatched with Apple Computers/Apple Records Corp disbute, you can be sure that a certain multimedia-mogul/merciless negotiator/self-confessed raging Beatles fan didn't just walk away from the settlement with a simple piece of paper. That will be quite the catalog of music to see online in it's digital entirety.
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.
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie.
I like the Pixlet connection. What about a movie version of the iTunes Music Store? Download a movie (broadband users only...) to the iPod and play where you want.
Okay, maybe a few years in development, for Internet speeds to catch up.
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie.
Keep in mind even MPEG-2 used for DVDs has compression ratios of around 20:1 so they aren't going to be using the Pixlet codec to deliver media anytime soon. That really was aimed at the high end of town.
Pixlet is waaaaaaay too big for portable use. It's not designed at all for that, it's designed for very high fidelity images. Think something more like h.264 or whatever that next MPEG standard is dubbed that they're going to be using in iChat and next-gen cell phones soon.
I have a question about how apple will integrate photo support...
I do not name my photos, so the names of my thousands of photos are generally IMG_2043, or something like that. I do have some decent albums made for organization purposes, but I don't think I'd care enough to go through and rename all of my photos so I could find them on my ipod.
I guess apple could have small previews of each pictures, but then you could only fit a couple on the screen at the same time - it might take a while to find that one shot you're looking for.
Does anyone else see this interface problem, or am I missing something?
sworthy- I'm sure your not alone, but may I suggest you use "batch change".
Spend an afternoon tossing your photos into folders and giving them some sort of name. It's really made prety easy for you by iPhoto. Otherwise, learn to scroll really fast- like the pig in Toy Story 2
But it might come for free with a new $499 slide-show enabled iPod. We'll see.
Sure, but its not going to be a $499 iPod, it'll be, at the very least, $599. This is apple, the purveryor of all things 'over-priced' (and I use the term not that I think no one will buy, but to indicate that every iPod has been deemed 'too expensive' and always missing the 'sweet spot'. So, if everyone here thinks it should go for $499, then you know one thing for sure, it won't go for that.
Quote:
Originally posted by iDave
And you might remember, prior to iLife, iPhoto was a free download. The rest of the apps might have still BEEN free, had it not been for the gargantuan file sizes of GarageBand and iDVD. At $50 a pop of the iLife suite, that doesn't BEGIN to recoup the development costs of GarageBand alone. Apple doesn't want Adobe Photo Album software to go any farther, which is yet another reason that they will be giving the Windows version away for free or with the purchase of the iPod. We might well expect an upgraded version of iTunes as well, which will play let the new iPod download Quicktime trailers.
First off, prior to iLife, everything was free. But iLife 03 was also a boxed software costing money (to get iDVD) with everything else a free download. Why not now? It has nothing to do with GarageBand being too big (iDVD is/was too big, but that didn't affect the others).
Second, iLife 03 was NOT going to be free. They were going to charge for the updates, but relented at the last minute when rumor got out that it was going to cost, and there was an uproar (even though iMovie 2.0 WAS a paid upgrade). This was proven in many places, not the least was a book on iLife that said "iLife, a $xxx upgrade" or the like.
So, except for iTunes, Apple has done free iApps only reluctantly, and changed that last year fully. The only reason iTunes is free is to sell iPods and the iTMS. Is iPhoto support such a big deal with the iPod that its worth giving it away (and pissing off all current Mac owners of iPhoto 4?)
But, then again, I don't find iPhoto to be that great of an app to store/sort/group photos. It certainly isn't heads & shoulders above other apps on the Windows side that will cause such a great transition. It still has stability problems, grouping problems, isn't as intuitive as you mac-lovers make it seem, and many have issues with the ways it handles photos internally.
BTW, if the iPod adds photo support, it will NOT be grouped by file name, so, sworthy, don't waste your time;. They'll be grouped at however they're set up in iPhoto. Just like iTunes (your file names don't show up, its all in the metadata entered in iTunes, people sometimes store their files with file names with track numbers, album titles, etc, and the iPod stores them in generic invisible directories with garbage names, everything is handled by the software to map the real names and genres/albums/etc).
Sure, but its not going to be a $499 iPod, it'll be, at the very least, $599.
My guess was based only on the rumor posted by thinksecret.com which suggested the $499 price.
I don't like iPhoto myself. Tried it once for awhile and went back to the old method of organizing my pictures by date and folder. After liking iTunes so much, I was surprised iPhoto just didn't do it for me.
It's weird. When I first saw it, I didn't think much of it. It didn't strike me as being one of Apple's breakthrough products, though it was nice to look at.
I don't particularly like the way it does things. There should be a batch renamer, it should open multiple pictures the way that Preview does it, and it should have more than 3 exporting options!
If they'd integrated Preview's features into iPhoto but still kept Preview separate, I'd like it a lot more.
It's just that you can almost do more useful things in Preview than you can in iPhoto...
mmm sounds OK. I still think colour screens a bit of a gimick. Be nice if you could put mov,avi,mpeg etc on the iPod and play them to thr TV. Another thing that would be cool is if they somehow put iTunes visualisers on the iPod so you could play that on your TV. That would be nice. As for 60gigs mmm sweet.
Thing is, a nice colour screen would be great just for the extra clarity it would give. I thought that it was a gimmick when I got my t610 phone, but now going back to any monochrome screen (incl. my revA iPod), seems difficult to read in comparison, and the STN screen on the SE phone is low-end.
Comments
Originally posted by niji
i would not buy it if it doesnt have bluetooth.
wires i hate.
for quick file transfer of 1 or 2 images, only bluetooth! bluetooh also fits nicely into the iPod shell.
however, one of the main uses for a photo iPod is to do iPhoto shows on yr television.
for this, bluetooth is too slow.
therefore video/audio out is essential. so, a connector like the one available for the 12 inch Powerbook will be required.
Well, if you hate wires, then it sounds like you won't be buying this, as it would need wires to do video out (oh, and Apple would be stupid to do bluetooth video out on this thing. Why? Not because its slow, its because you'd still need to carry around something to link the bluetooth to the TV.)
Quote:
someone else in this thread also mentioned the photo iPod as being able to sync yr entire home directory. this is definitely coming, as it is announced as a feature in Tiger, to work with .mac
look for somesort of tie in with .mac in order to transfer yr photos or make them viewable on the net, etc. apple will not give up with .mac
First, I don't recall Apple announcing the home folder on the iPod with tiger. You may have read reports or rumors about current features in Tiger, but that's a wholly different thing (because its in the pre-releases doesn't mean it'll be in the final).
Second, they won't tie any of this to .mac. The only major ties Apple has from the OS to .Mac is iSync. Beyond that, its all minor little details, like posting photons from iPhoto (actually, that's all I can think of). I never understood people's predisposition about Apple and .Mac. You'd think it was like without it, half your OS was useless or something.
Quote:
i think the way that i would use and the main motivation for me to purchase a US$500 device is the portability of having a variety of data always with me. work related files first; then entertainment related files like music and photos. it is a portable, compact hard disk, with limited play back feature set.
Great, but how do you feel about a $600-700 device, because that's what Apple's going to charge for it, if its real.
Quote:
my mobile already has bluetooth, music playback, video playback, 1.3 megapixel camera, 2.2 inch TFT screen, and SD removable card. it weighs 128 grams, and is connected to the net 24/7 through gprs.
Wow, you have all that? Then why would you spend a ton more money on another device that would be mostly redundant (and less capable).
My phone doesn't have bluetooth (nor connects to my computer not at all), doesn't playback music nor videos, has no camera, has a B&W screen, and no SD card. It can connect to the net, but that brings so little benefit compared to the cost that its not even close to be worth it. I must be missing something, I guess.
Quote:
steve has always said that convergence is at play. he had better get a move on, and pack more features into what has emerged as his main platform (iPod)....
First off, you have to be careful about asking for all those features. There's a reason Windows is such a oerbloated OS. Its because all they do is add features, whether they make sense or not. The goal isn't just adding features, its adding them in such a way as to keep the device as user-friendly and simplistic as possible. If they just start slapping in features for all you "convergence heads" that believe they need one device to do everything, the iPod could turn into some kludgy device. And there goes its rep. And then goes the sales...
Originally posted by chris v
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.
Hear, hear! Gapless playback is my number one feature request for both the iPod and iTunes.
Originally posted by iMacfan
For those comparing iPods to GameBoy DS and mobile phones, consider that they are both sold under a subscription type system. In the case of mobiles, they are heavily subsidised by the service provide, as you have a contract for a year, while the GBDS relies on the royalties from game sales to make a profit, just like any other game console. Apple does not make sufficient money from the ITMS, so the iPod is the profit maker, so while the tech may be comparable, the price is not.
David
Like it was already pointed out, it's the Nintendo DS, this is not a GameBoy. (GBDS? no one ever used this acronym) And though you have to pay for games, you don't need a subscription to play multi-player games wirelessly on it. Using it's own wireless protocol (it can use wi-fi too) it automatically finds other DSes in the area (up to 100-150 feet) using something like Rendez-Vous. It even downloads the game in the other DS so with only one copy of the game you can play with 16 persons. It also comes with a built-in text/picture messenger program. All that for 150$. Nintendo don't generally sell it's consoles at a loss like MS and Sony do.
Sorry I had to rant about it, as both Apple and Nintendo are my favorite companies
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? There's already a slew of cheaper/better alternatives on the Windows side (you may not think they're better, but most do a lot more with photos than iPhoto, with just as good a job, if not better, of organizing them - many people still don't like iPhoto's organization). 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.
Originally posted by darkestbeforedawn
Does this mean iPhoto for windoze?
You can bet that this means iPhoto for Windows. And no one is going to have to buy it either. How do you woo windows users over to your side when you are Apple and you have a cashcow like the iPod? First, you use the iPod as a trojan horse, for ram-rodding through the front door of every Windows user's house. And what comes out of that Trojan Horse, once it has entered their living room? First, and most importantly, Quicktime. Next comes iTunes, followed by it's new compatriot iPhoto. The iPod which, combined with iTunes, revolutionized the ways computers and music integrate. Windows software support in iTunes has wooed more than a few people over from the dark side; but what's better advertising than a simple, fun, easy-to-use piece of Apple software running on your Windows computer? Maybe ANOTHER piece of software, made by the same company, which does for your photos what iTunes did for your music? A plug-and-play photo syncing program that does for your digital camera what iTunes did to your iPod. Ever plugged in a digital camera into a USB port on a windows machine? It's hardly elegant. It shows up as a hard drive in Explorer, if you know what to look for. And it doesn't sync automatically. What will the price for iPhoto be? Free. How do you KILL the competition? Give it away. And if you don't think apple is deeply dedicated to making huge inroads with the PC crowd, what exactly do you think that whole HP-branded iPod was about? Why would Apple want to share the limelight with another company on such an amazing product? Bigger than iPod brand recognition, bigger than iTunes Music Store, the answer is simple---the deal with HP wasn't about selling iPods. It's about something a little deeper, and a lot more ambitious:Quicktime. On every new HP PC now, Quicktime is the default media player for most every media type. We all know that EVERYTHING that is audio/video media-related in OS X (and ESPECIALLY iLife) goes through Quicktime. Once you are in the door with quicktime, you can start SLOWLY releasing iLife apps, one at a time, that integrate with Windows and iPods and digital devices the same way that they do on the mac. But you don't want to give the game away. Where do you stop? Putting out iMovie and iDVD doesn't make sense, since there isn't that guaranteed installed base of Windows XP-based computers that have DVD burners and Firewire ports (the firewire port is a crucial component of iMovie--since every decent video camera these days has a IEEE-1394 port). Once people have their music and photos together, they will want to make movies, make DVD's, make quicktime clips. They already know how to use the Windows versions of iTunes and iPhoto..they like the interface and the ease of use...they want to take it to the next level. What is that next level? A mac with the ENTIRETY of iLife included for free. You like the apps? You'll probably like the O.S. too...running on a true digital hub. What apple will sell these people on is the ease of use. People like to accomplish things with their computers, not just continue to hit brick walls with a 10-year-old antiquated Windows O.S. with a bunch of poor drivers and creaky software piled on top of it.
Apple is using the iPod as a Trojan horse for selling their computers. It's a dangerous thing to make TOO much windows software---you'll give the game away. You just need to give the Windows users a taster. The more the iPod can do with a Mac that it CAN'T do with Windows, the more intrigued people will be over time with your platform. Apple is pacing itself. They know they have a superior O.S. to anything out there and they know that Quicktime makes it possible. Anything that requires PC users to use Quicktime is a good thing. If you need a little reminder of just how important Quicktime is in Apple's business plan, first take a look at where Quicktime sits in the OS X architecture. Then look at how many things in Apple's entire product line incorporate it in some way:
OS X Panther Server-which can be used for Quicktime streaming--you'll definitely sell more copies of Panther Server if you are doing Quicktime streaming.
G5 XServe-the de facto standard for any company dealing with hosting media content, and an excellent host for selling Panther server. Take that, Real Audio. Now no one is going to want to shell out thousands of dollars for your turnkey proprietary streaming systems.
iSight
Quicktime Pro
Logic
iChat A/V
Keynote
Motion
Final Cut Pro
DVD Studio Pro
Quicktime VR Studio
Apple is going to use Windows as a cheap way of advertising, whether Microsoft likes it or not. It will take some time, but Apple has a lot of money in the bank and they have put more money into multimedia R&D than anyone else. They are going to make this work for them, at Microsoft's expense. So, Yes. iPhoto will be coming out for Windows.
Stark Harbinger of the Nether-Realm
Originally posted by Eugene
iPhoto isn't free unless you buy a new Mac to go along with it.
But it might come for free with a new $499 slide-show enabled iPod. We'll see.
Originally posted by iDave
But it might come for free with a new $499 slide-show enabled iPod. We'll see.
And you might remember, prior to iLife, iPhoto was a free download. The rest of the apps might have still BEEN free, had it not been for the gargantuan file sizes of GarageBand and iDVD. At $50 a pop of the iLife suite, that doesn't BEGIN to recoup the development costs of GarageBand alone. Apple doesn't want Adobe Photo Album software to go any farther, which is yet another reason that they will be giving the Windows version away for free or with the purchase of the iPod. We might well expect an upgraded version of iTunes as well, which will play let the new iPod download Quicktime trailers.
Originally posted by Sonicom
You can bet that this means iPhoto for Windows.
...
Stark Harbinger of the Nether-Realm [/B]
BAM..
Just BAM.
Seems like you've got their game-plan sorted out good and proper..
Jimzip
Originally posted by BuonRotto
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.
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie. I say 'supposed' because I have yet to see any real-world application of it. When Panther was first released, there was initially a link that should have led to more information or possibly a demo of Pixlet. The link was dead from the inception. I tried back every so often and found that the link had been removed. Supposedly it is built into Panther and work any 1GHz G4 or faster Mac---which means that maybe the new iPod uses a scaled-down, less-intensive version for optimizing the storage of video content on a 40 or 60 GB disk. That sounds like a lot of space, but movies can fill up a drive faster than anything. I woudn't be entirely surprised if Apple does to DVD's what they have done to CD's---turned them into data disks that can have their content ripped to the hard drive in a compressed format (AAC, or the Pixlet Codec for example), so that they can be synced to a playback device such as the new iPod, or streamed from your .mac idisk. Another thing...the Apple Records dispute is over once for all. I'll tell you one thing---when Apple paid that ungodly sum to permanently bury the hatched with Apple Computers/Apple Records Corp disbute, you can be sure that a certain multimedia-mogul/merciless negotiator/self-confessed raging Beatles fan didn't just walk away from the settlement with a simple piece of paper. That will be quite the catalog of music to see online in it's digital entirety.
Originally posted by CharlesS
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.
Uhm, it's already here:
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/italk/
Originally posted by Sonicom
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie.
I like the Pixlet connection. What about a movie version of the iTunes Music Store? Download a movie (broadband users only...) to the iPod and play where you want.
Okay, maybe a few years in development, for Internet speeds to catch up.
Originally posted by Sonicom
If the iPod is to truly support movie-playback cabability, then perhaps this will be the point where we finally see some real-world application of Apple's Pixlet codec. Co-Developed by Apple and Pixar, it is supposed to allow for 20-25:1 compression, meaning that a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie.
Keep in mind even MPEG-2 used for DVDs has compression ratios of around 20:1 so they aren't going to be using the Pixlet codec to deliver media anytime soon. That really was aimed at the high end of town.
I do not name my photos, so the names of my thousands of photos are generally IMG_2043, or something like that. I do have some decent albums made for organization purposes, but I don't think I'd care enough to go through and rename all of my photos so I could find them on my ipod.
I guess apple could have small previews of each pictures, but then you could only fit a couple on the screen at the same time - it might take a while to find that one shot you're looking for.
Does anyone else see this interface problem, or am I missing something?
Spend an afternoon tossing your photos into folders and giving them some sort of name. It's really made prety easy for you by iPhoto. Otherwise, learn to scroll really fast- like the pig in Toy Story 2
Originally posted by iDave
But it might come for free with a new $499 slide-show enabled iPod. We'll see.
Sure, but its not going to be a $499 iPod, it'll be, at the very least, $599. This is apple, the purveryor of all things 'over-priced' (and I use the term not that I think no one will buy, but to indicate that every iPod has been deemed 'too expensive' and always missing the 'sweet spot'. So, if everyone here thinks it should go for $499, then you know one thing for sure, it won't go for that.
Originally posted by iDave
And you might remember, prior to iLife, iPhoto was a free download. The rest of the apps might have still BEEN free, had it not been for the gargantuan file sizes of GarageBand and iDVD. At $50 a pop of the iLife suite, that doesn't BEGIN to recoup the development costs of GarageBand alone. Apple doesn't want Adobe Photo Album software to go any farther, which is yet another reason that they will be giving the Windows version away for free or with the purchase of the iPod. We might well expect an upgraded version of iTunes as well, which will play let the new iPod download Quicktime trailers.
First off, prior to iLife, everything was free. But iLife 03 was also a boxed software costing money (to get iDVD) with everything else a free download. Why not now? It has nothing to do with GarageBand being too big (iDVD is/was too big, but that didn't affect the others).
Second, iLife 03 was NOT going to be free. They were going to charge for the updates, but relented at the last minute when rumor got out that it was going to cost, and there was an uproar (even though iMovie 2.0 WAS a paid upgrade). This was proven in many places, not the least was a book on iLife that said "iLife, a $xxx upgrade" or the like.
So, except for iTunes, Apple has done free iApps only reluctantly, and changed that last year fully. The only reason iTunes is free is to sell iPods and the iTMS. Is iPhoto support such a big deal with the iPod that its worth giving it away (and pissing off all current Mac owners of iPhoto 4?)
But, then again, I don't find iPhoto to be that great of an app to store/sort/group photos. It certainly isn't heads & shoulders above other apps on the Windows side that will cause such a great transition. It still has stability problems, grouping problems, isn't as intuitive as you mac-lovers make it seem, and many have issues with the ways it handles photos internally.
BTW, if the iPod adds photo support, it will NOT be grouped by file name, so, sworthy, don't waste your time;. They'll be grouped at however they're set up in iPhoto. Just like iTunes (your file names don't show up, its all in the metadata entered in iTunes, people sometimes store their files with file names with track numbers, album titles, etc, and the iPod stores them in generic invisible directories with garbage names, everything is handled by the software to map the real names and genres/albums/etc).
Originally posted by Louzer
Sure, but its not going to be a $499 iPod, it'll be, at the very least, $599.
My guess was based only on the rumor posted by thinksecret.com which suggested the $499 price.
I don't like iPhoto myself. Tried it once for awhile and went back to the old method of organizing my pictures by date and folder. After liking iTunes so much, I was surprised iPhoto just didn't do it for me.
It's weird. When I first saw it, I didn't think much of it. It didn't strike me as being one of Apple's breakthrough products, though it was nice to look at.
I don't particularly like the way it does things. There should be a batch renamer, it should open multiple pictures the way that Preview does it, and it should have more than 3 exporting options!
If they'd integrated Preview's features into iPhoto but still kept Preview separate, I'd like it a lot more.
It's just that you can almost do more useful things in Preview than you can in iPhoto...
Jimzip
David