Cool, you can look at some pictures and all, but they're not of the highest quality
Not sure what you mean by this. The quality ought to be the same as whatever you've shot. As I understand it, you can have the full quality images on the iPod photo.
The actual quality of photos, in terms of resolution and compression may be the same, but the viewing is not of a high quality. I played with them at a local Apple store and from what I saw, the thumbnails are so small that even a person with very good eyes may have difficulty finding the right one.
In light, just like laptop screens, pictures cannot be viewed at all. This is what I've meant.
What did you guys expect with a 2 inch screen. It is small. Showing pics is a nice addition but is it really necessary to carry around 25,000 photos with you? (or 25,000 songs for that matter?).
As indicated in the Appleinsider report, the low capacity iPods are selling just fine, thank you. I don't really think Apple believed the iPod photo would be a runaway best-seller anyway. Because early reports say it is not selling as well as the rest of the iPod line doesn't mean it won't sell eventually, although at the current price it isn't a great buy.
One analyst, and this was widely reported all over the Apple "net", said the iMac G5 wasn't selling a month after it was released. She hasn't been heard from since. I believe it is too early to draw any conclusions as to the final success or lack of success for the iPod photo.
Prediction: 4.95 million iPods will be sold.
Season Greetings everyone. Oops, I'm being politically incorrect - Merry Christmas.
The iPod photo is a solution looking for a problem. I'm not surprised no one is buying the damn thing. $100 for postage stamp pictures???? I want to meet the guy who thought this was a good idea.
With capacities of small HD's being what they are these days, the only thing that will justify purchasing a large capacity iPod of the future is photo/video built-in, and this means making a hybrid mp3 player/camera, and Apple so far has not gone for this. How many people need 80, 100, or more GB's for mp3s? There is a diminishing market above, say, 40 GB HD's in mp3 players, and Apple ought to find a new market to sell into.
The iPod photo is a solution looking for a problem. I'm not surprised no one is buying the damn thing. $100 for postage stamp pictures???? I want to meet the guy who thought this was a good idea.
Okay...so first...it's not that "no one is buying the damn thing"...it is that sales are "mediocre"...we (none of us) have ANY idea exactly what that means. Could mean they expected to sell 300,000 and they are only selling 200,000. Sheesh.
And second...let's get this straight...you can plug the thing into a TV and show a slide show. So enough already with the "postage stamp pictures" baloney. BTW...when you view the pictures full screen on the iPod, they are about the size of your average wallet-sized snapshot. Goodness already.
Okay...so some (many?) don't think its worth the extra $100. Fine. Don't buy it. But there are some for which it is a suitable product. I'm not sure I agree with the poster that said it is "a solution looking for a problem."
P.S. I wonder how many that are complaining about "postage stamp pictures" are ones begging for an iPod video?
I feel until the iPod photo can pull pictures from my CF card it is indeed either a solution looking for a problem, or it's a beta test of the iPod to TV connection.
The iPod photo is a solution looking for a problem. I'm not surprised no one is buying the damn thing. $100 for postage stamp pictures???? I want to meet the guy who thought this was a good idea.
I doubt I'd buy it for the pictures. But since it's the only was to get the 60GB model, I'll be sorely tempted when I upgrade in a few months. (Yeah, I have a slight music addictions problem. 60 will fit most, not all, of it.)
I feel until the iPod photo can pull pictures from my CF card it is indeed either a solution looking for a problem, or it's a beta test of the iPod to TV connection.
As much as the idea for the iPod becoming a docking station for digital cameras makes sense, I wonder if this feature would really have that much demand. Kind of like radio on the iPod, great for a few, but a bit of a yawn for must-IMHO. I have a 5 megepixel camera, quite typical for consumers Ii believe. I bought a highspeed 1GB CF card for about $70. That card holds enough pictures for most short duration trips. If I'm out longer (e.g. a multiweek vacation), I bring my powerbook to download and play with the pictures in the evenings. If my iPod could hhold pictures, i probably wouldn't use it anyway.
I have been thinking a little about the idea of directly connecting the digital camera to the iPod photo for photo downloading.
One of the things that occurs to me is whether or not there are some possibly tricky usability and even technical issues that could affect usability that might need to be resolved for this.
Some observations:
1. When you plug-in the iPod to your computer, it is in state where it must be "ejected" in order to be safely disconnected. How does this operation work with the camera. Will just plugging/unplugging be okay? Are there any potential problems with this? What are they?
2. When I plug my camera into my Mac, and iPhoto takes over, I have at least one option, which is to decide to delete all images from the camera after download. This is merely a convenience...and only an option...the default would be not to do so. How (if at all) would this need to be handled with the direct camera/iPod interface?
I suspect that there are other issues. Perhaps the Belkin device handles all of this kind of stuff. I guess the reason I bring it up, is that there are some folks that are doing the "they should just" thing...and, after thinking about it (admittedly, only a small amount) I can't help but wonder about whether there are some real issues that have prevented Apple from doing this (at least right now).
I develop software for a living, and we run into these kinds of things all the time. The user/customer wants some feature/function...but adding that has ramifications well beyond what they can conceive. It is always asked as "can't you just..." and sometimes the answer is "it's not quite so simple."
I would want a CF card slot/dongle, not connectivity with my camera. I don't want my camera's batteries to run down while xferring pics to an iPod. As for popularity, there are standalone battery operated HDs that act as 'photo wallets'. Adding this functionality could make the iPod attractive to an even wider audience than it currently commands.
This takes care of ejection issues since you only have to communicate with the RAM card, and you only have to write one driver for each kind of RAM that you make compatible with it (CF, SD, XD, memory stick) as opposed to writing drivers for each family of digital cameras.
I would want a CF card slot/dongle, not connectivity with my camera. I don't want my camera's batteries to run down while xferring pics to an iPod. As for popularity, there are standalone battery operated HDs that act as 'photo wallets'. Adding this functionality could make the iPod attractive to an even wider audience than it currently commands.
that is the wrong way to go about it. stop worrying about your camera battery. having a card slot on the iPod is impractical and opens up too many problems with design and size.
I would want a CF card slot/dongle, not connectivity with my camera. I don't want my camera's batteries to run down while xferring pics to an iPod.
Well, you still have power issues while iPod is transferring from the CF card. This isn't free (power-wise).
Quote:
As for popularity, there are standalone battery operated HDs that act as 'photo wallets'. Adding this functionality could make the iPod attractive to an even wider audience than it currently commands.
It might. It might not.
Second...isn't iPod photo a "photo wallet" already?
And...finally, as applenut said...size...cost...complexity.
iPod is about simplicity.
I don't think we'll ever see an iPod with this feature. I think that is a different product...maybe from Apple, maybe not.
Well, you still have power issues while iPod is transferring from the CF card. This isn't free (power-wise).
Correct, but I'd rather run down an accessory's battery than my camera battery.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It might. It might not.
Second...isn't iPod photo a "photo wallet" already?
And...finally, as applenut said...size...cost...complexity.
iPod is about simplicity.
I don't think we'll ever see an iPod with this feature. I think that is a different product...maybe from Apple, maybe not.
The iPod photo is a photo wallet in that it holds videos, but it isn't a photo wallet as other 'photo wallets' on the market. These wallet devices are meant to pull the pics from memory cards so the cards can be emptied and re-used.
Belkin provides a dongle to read from camera cards (albeit rather slowly). I'm sure using a USB 2.0 reader connected to the iPod's USB 2.0 slot would be faster and less expensive compared to Belkin's solution. This way you don't have to worry about CF, SD, XD, etc., card size limiting miniaturization of the iPod. Just connect the dongle to the port on the bottom of the iPod and plug the memory into that.
that is the wrong way to go about it. stop worrying about your camera battery. having a card slot on the iPod is impractical and opens up too many problems with design and size.
Why shouldn't I worry about the camera battery? My camera can take about 450 pics on a single battery charge. Why would I want to cut into the max. amount of pics I can take before I get back to a power source?
It might be impractical depending on how your imagination pictures it in your mind. I'm sure the engineering dept. at Apple could design a solution that no one here would ever think of and at the same time seem so amazingly obvious everyone will be like "Why didn't I think of that?"
Just because you can't think of an elegant solution doesn't mean no one can.
Ideally, it wouldnt be plugging the card reader in. It would be plugging the camera in.
I do believe there is a standard protocol most cameras have for transferring files and that's how Apple supports them all in OS X. I'm sure there are exceptions of course. But, I think the only elegant solution would be to be able to plug your camera in and just have them download.
Sorry to dissapoint folks, but music doesn't sound any better whatsoever just becuase u can look a pretty colour screen at the same time.
Eyes and Ears where born seperated. Lets keep them that way shall we?
As for iPOD sales, well - duh - in a word. However, I'm surprised that more people aren't going for the sex appeal of the mini of the masss, and frequesntly unused, storage space of the larger and less sexy iPods.
Ideally, it wouldnt be plugging the card reader in. It would be plugging the camera in.
I do believe there is a standard protocol most cameras have for transferring files and that's how Apple supports them all in OS X. I'm sure there are exceptions of course. But, I think the only elegant solution would be to be able to plug your camera in and just have them download.
Not really "elegant" once you consider the powerdraw from a USB camera, the processing required to negotiate that connection (which the ipod might not yet be capable of), and the fact that having a USB port on the iPod (or a dongle) would get people demanding Apple put in support for keyboards, mice, and everything else under the sun.
I think a better solution would be to make a multi-medium card reader that attaches to the iPod, or a cradle that you put the iPod into with the card reader built in.
This way you have room for a couple AA batteries and the dongle/cradle would be doing most of the work so the iPod would not have to be upgraded.
Not only that but cameras are usually much slower than dedicated card readers.
edit: the best would be, if they did this dongle they might get mobile ipod 2 ipod syncing
I think a better solution would be to make a multi-medium card reader that attaches to the iPod, or a cradle that you put the iPod into with the card reader built in.
This way you have room for a couple AA batteries and the dongle/cradle would be doing most of the work so the iPod would not have to be upgraded.
There already is such a "dongle". It's made by Belkin and is called the Media Reader for iPod.
Seems to me a number of people want a direct camera link (i.e. without a middle device) and a number of people want some sort of card slot in the iPod. And unless Apple provides both, on all models of the iPod, someone is going to be disappointed.
Comments
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Cool, you can look at some pictures and all, but they're not of the highest quality
Not sure what you mean by this. The quality ought to be the same as whatever you've shot. As I understand it, you can have the full quality images on the iPod photo.
In light, just like laptop screens, pictures cannot be viewed at all. This is what I've meant.
As indicated in the Appleinsider report, the low capacity iPods are selling just fine, thank you. I don't really think Apple believed the iPod photo would be a runaway best-seller anyway. Because early reports say it is not selling as well as the rest of the iPod line doesn't mean it won't sell eventually, although at the current price it isn't a great buy.
One analyst, and this was widely reported all over the Apple "net", said the iMac G5 wasn't selling a month after it was released. She hasn't been heard from since. I believe it is too early to draw any conclusions as to the final success or lack of success for the iPod photo.
Prediction: 4.95 million iPods will be sold.
Season Greetings everyone. Oops, I'm being politically incorrect - Merry Christmas.
With capacities of small HD's being what they are these days, the only thing that will justify purchasing a large capacity iPod of the future is photo/video built-in, and this means making a hybrid mp3 player/camera, and Apple so far has not gone for this. How many people need 80, 100, or more GB's for mp3s? There is a diminishing market above, say, 40 GB HD's in mp3 players, and Apple ought to find a new market to sell into.
Originally posted by Lunchable Food Product
The iPod photo is a solution looking for a problem. I'm not surprised no one is buying the damn thing. $100 for postage stamp pictures???? I want to meet the guy who thought this was a good idea.
Okay...so first...it's not that "no one is buying the damn thing"...it is that sales are "mediocre"...we (none of us) have ANY idea exactly what that means. Could mean they expected to sell 300,000 and they are only selling 200,000. Sheesh.
And second...let's get this straight...you can plug the thing into a TV and show a slide show. So enough already with the "postage stamp pictures" baloney. BTW...when you view the pictures full screen on the iPod, they are about the size of your average wallet-sized snapshot. Goodness already.
Okay...so some (many?) don't think its worth the extra $100. Fine. Don't buy it. But there are some for which it is a suitable product. I'm not sure I agree with the poster that said it is "a solution looking for a problem."
P.S. I wonder how many that are complaining about "postage stamp pictures" are ones begging for an iPod video?
Originally posted by Lunchable Food Product
The iPod photo is a solution looking for a problem. I'm not surprised no one is buying the damn thing. $100 for postage stamp pictures???? I want to meet the guy who thought this was a good idea.
I doubt I'd buy it for the pictures. But since it's the only was to get the 60GB model, I'll be sorely tempted when I upgrade in a few months. (Yeah, I have a slight music addictions problem. 60 will fit most, not all, of it.)
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I feel until the iPod photo can pull pictures from my CF card it is indeed either a solution looking for a problem, or it's a beta test of the iPod to TV connection.
As much as the idea for the iPod becoming a docking station for digital cameras makes sense, I wonder if this feature would really have that much demand. Kind of like radio on the iPod, great for a few, but a bit of a yawn for must-IMHO. I have a 5 megepixel camera, quite typical for consumers Ii believe. I bought a highspeed 1GB CF card for about $70. That card holds enough pictures for most short duration trips. If I'm out longer (e.g. a multiweek vacation), I bring my powerbook to download and play with the pictures in the evenings. If my iPod could hhold pictures, i probably wouldn't use it anyway.
One of the things that occurs to me is whether or not there are some possibly tricky usability and even technical issues that could affect usability that might need to be resolved for this.
Some observations:
1. When you plug-in the iPod to your computer, it is in state where it must be "ejected" in order to be safely disconnected. How does this operation work with the camera. Will just plugging/unplugging be okay? Are there any potential problems with this? What are they?
2. When I plug my camera into my Mac, and iPhoto takes over, I have at least one option, which is to decide to delete all images from the camera after download. This is merely a convenience...and only an option...the default would be not to do so. How (if at all) would this need to be handled with the direct camera/iPod interface?
I suspect that there are other issues. Perhaps the Belkin device handles all of this kind of stuff. I guess the reason I bring it up, is that there are some folks that are doing the "they should just" thing...and, after thinking about it (admittedly, only a small amount) I can't help but wonder about whether there are some real issues that have prevented Apple from doing this (at least right now).
I develop software for a living, and we run into these kinds of things all the time. The user/customer wants some feature/function...but adding that has ramifications well beyond what they can conceive. It is always asked as "can't you just..." and sometimes the answer is "it's not quite so simple."
Just food for thought.
This takes care of ejection issues since you only have to communicate with the RAM card, and you only have to write one driver for each kind of RAM that you make compatible with it (CF, SD, XD, memory stick) as opposed to writing drivers for each family of digital cameras.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I would want a CF card slot/dongle, not connectivity with my camera. I don't want my camera's batteries to run down while xferring pics to an iPod. As for popularity, there are standalone battery operated HDs that act as 'photo wallets'. Adding this functionality could make the iPod attractive to an even wider audience than it currently commands.
that is the wrong way to go about it. stop worrying about your camera battery. having a card slot on the iPod is impractical and opens up too many problems with design and size.
Originally posted by PBG4 Dude
I would want a CF card slot/dongle, not connectivity with my camera. I don't want my camera's batteries to run down while xferring pics to an iPod.
Well, you still have power issues while iPod is transferring from the CF card. This isn't free (power-wise).
As for popularity, there are standalone battery operated HDs that act as 'photo wallets'. Adding this functionality could make the iPod attractive to an even wider audience than it currently commands.
It might. It might not.
Second...isn't iPod photo a "photo wallet" already?
And...finally, as applenut said...size...cost...complexity.
iPod is about simplicity.
I don't think we'll ever see an iPod with this feature. I think that is a different product...maybe from Apple, maybe not.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, you still have power issues while iPod is transferring from the CF card. This isn't free (power-wise).
Correct, but I'd rather run down an accessory's battery than my camera battery.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It might. It might not.
Second...isn't iPod photo a "photo wallet" already?
And...finally, as applenut said...size...cost...complexity.
iPod is about simplicity.
I don't think we'll ever see an iPod with this feature. I think that is a different product...maybe from Apple, maybe not.
The iPod photo is a photo wallet in that it holds videos, but it isn't a photo wallet as other 'photo wallets' on the market. These wallet devices are meant to pull the pics from memory cards so the cards can be emptied and re-used.
Belkin provides a dongle to read from camera cards (albeit rather slowly). I'm sure using a USB 2.0 reader connected to the iPod's USB 2.0 slot would be faster and less expensive compared to Belkin's solution. This way you don't have to worry about CF, SD, XD, etc., card size limiting miniaturization of the iPod. Just connect the dongle to the port on the bottom of the iPod and plug the memory into that.
Originally posted by applenut
that is the wrong way to go about it. stop worrying about your camera battery. having a card slot on the iPod is impractical and opens up too many problems with design and size.
Why shouldn't I worry about the camera battery? My camera can take about 450 pics on a single battery charge. Why would I want to cut into the max. amount of pics I can take before I get back to a power source?
It might be impractical depending on how your imagination pictures it in your mind. I'm sure the engineering dept. at Apple could design a solution that no one here would ever think of and at the same time seem so amazingly obvious everyone will be like "Why didn't I think of that?"
Just because you can't think of an elegant solution doesn't mean no one can.
I do believe there is a standard protocol most cameras have for transferring files and that's how Apple supports them all in OS X. I'm sure there are exceptions of course. But, I think the only elegant solution would be to be able to plug your camera in and just have them download.
Sorry to dissapoint folks, but music doesn't sound any better whatsoever just becuase u can look a pretty colour screen at the same time.
Eyes and Ears where born seperated. Lets keep them that way shall we?
As for iPOD sales, well - duh - in a word. However, I'm surprised that more people aren't going for the sex appeal of the mini of the masss, and frequesntly unused, storage space of the larger and less sexy iPods.
My $00.02AUD
Originally posted by pyriX
Tehehehe - Apple really cant sell this one
Well...so...okay...this doesn't appear to be true. Sorry.
Originally posted by applenut
Ideally, it wouldnt be plugging the card reader in. It would be plugging the camera in.
I do believe there is a standard protocol most cameras have for transferring files and that's how Apple supports them all in OS X. I'm sure there are exceptions of course. But, I think the only elegant solution would be to be able to plug your camera in and just have them download.
Not really "elegant" once you consider the powerdraw from a USB camera, the processing required to negotiate that connection (which the ipod might not yet be capable of), and the fact that having a USB port on the iPod (or a dongle) would get people demanding Apple put in support for keyboards, mice, and everything else under the sun.
I think a better solution would be to make a multi-medium card reader that attaches to the iPod, or a cradle that you put the iPod into with the card reader built in.
This way you have room for a couple AA batteries and the dongle/cradle would be doing most of the work so the iPod would not have to be upgraded.
Not only that but cameras are usually much slower than dedicated card readers.
edit: the best would be, if they did this dongle they might get mobile ipod 2 ipod syncing
I think a better solution would be to make a multi-medium card reader that attaches to the iPod, or a cradle that you put the iPod into with the card reader built in.
This way you have room for a couple AA batteries and the dongle/cradle would be doing most of the work so the iPod would not have to be upgraded.
There already is such a "dongle". It's made by Belkin and is called the Media Reader for iPod.