Apple debuts new iPod photos with optional camera connector

AppleInsiderAppleInsider
Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
Apple debuts new iPod photo lineup with optional camera connector.



Apple today updated its iPod photo lineup by introducing a new slim 30GB model, holding up to 7,500 songs, for $349 and a new 60GB model, holding up to 15,000 songs, for $449. Both models sport a high-resolution display and hold up to 25,000 digital photos. They feature the ability to import photos from your digital camera via the new iPod Camera Connector for instant viewing and slide show playback on iPod photo.



The new iPod Camera Connector is an optional accessory that enables customers to connect their digital camera to iPod photo and import their photos into the iPod. By connecting the iPod Camera Connector and a digital camera, customers can transfer digital images to their iPod photo, providing tremendous storage space so they can take more pictures. Imported photos are immediately viewable on iPod photo's color screen, and can also be brought back to iPhoto on the Mac or various photo applications on the PC. The iPod Camera Connector is expected to be available in late March for $29.



These iPod models no longer ship with a dock and carrying case as standard and do not support the expected Bluetooth wireless connectivity.



Pricing & Availability



The 30GB and 60GB models of iPod photo for Mac or Windows are available worldwide immediately for a suggested retail price of $349 (US) and $449 (US) respectively, through the Apple Store, Apple?s retail stores and Apple Authorized Resellers. iPod photo includes earbud headphones, a USB 2.0 cable, a USB power adapter and a CD with iTunes 4.7.1 for Mac and Windows computers.



Optional accessories with the following suggested retail prices include the iPod Dock for $39 (US), in-ear headphones for $39 (US), the iPod Camera Connector for $29 (US) and FireWire cable for $19 (US). Laser engraving is available for iPod for free from the Apple Store and can include two lines of text with up to 27 characters per line.



iPod photo requires a Mac with a USB 2.0 port or FireWire, Mac OS X version 10.2.8 or 10.3.4 or later and iPhoto 4.0.3 or later; or a Windows PC with a USB 2.0 or FireWire port or USB 2.0 or FireWire card and Windows 2000 with Service Pack 4 or later, or Windows XP Home or Professional with Service Pack 2 or later, and Adobe Photoshop Album 2.0 or Elements 3.0 or later.



Update: MacNN notes that the older iPod photo models with a FireWire cable, carry case, and dock are available at the Apple Store starting at $379 for the 40GB model.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 66
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Why is firewire an add-on feature today when it was standard along with usb2 uesterday.
  • Reply 2 of 66
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Because USB 2 is more widespread, allows wrt/ to the iPod all of the same functionality, and is cheaper?
  • Reply 3 of 66
    digitaldavedigitaldave Posts: 445member
    I want to know more about the camera connector - can't see anything about it on Apple's site, only the old Belkin meadi reader and camera link .
  • Reply 4 of 66
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    well, i guess thinksecret's source was right again (and apparently has every mac rumors site on speed dial). you know, i would laugh my fool ass off if the source of all these rumors was someone like johnny ive or avie tevanian.



    steve: "et tu, avie?"
  • Reply 5 of 66
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    Why is firewire an add-on feature today when it was standard along with usb2 uesterday.



    i think you could read this as a good sign, as i bet the numbers show a huge number of windows users buyign them up, and with usb 2.0 on all new macs (it is on all the newest models, right?), they're just going with whatever means they have to keep less in stock that might not sell. personally, i see it as a good indication that windows sales are dwarfing mac sales now, which would be awesome.
  • Reply 6 of 66
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    dammit apple. all i want is an ipod photo that's as thin as the 'regular' ipod. the price drop is awesome though.
  • Reply 7 of 66
    digitaldavedigitaldave Posts: 445member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    i think you could read this as a good sign, as i bet the numbers show a huge number of windows users buyign them up, and with usb 2.0 on all new macs (it is on all the newest models, right?), they're just going with whatever means they have to keep less in stock that might not sell. personally, i see it as a good indication that windows sales are dwarfing mac sales now, which would be awesome.



    How does the speed of USB2 compare with firewire?
  • Reply 8 of 66
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    With one-way traffic, they're close, USB 2 edging out Firewire if you assume devices take advantage of the full bandwidth available (most don't). IIRC, Firewire is better for networking, where you're both uploading and downloading data at the same time.
  • Reply 9 of 66
    digitaldavedigitaldave Posts: 445member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    With one-way traffic, they're close, USB 2 edging out Firewire if you assume devices take advantage of the full bandwidth available (most don't). IIRC, Firewire is better for networking, where you're both uploading and downloading data at the same time.



    Thanks .
  • Reply 10 of 66
    12houripod12houripod Posts: 21member
    usb2 = 480 Mb/s

    FireWire400 = 400 Mb/s



    below courtesy of http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

    thank you google



    FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture

    FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer



    Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)



    FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison



    Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and

    then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:



    Read Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0



    Write Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0
  • Reply 11 of 66
    digitaldavedigitaldave Posts: 445member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 12houripod

    usb2 = 480 Mb/s

    FireWire400 = 400 Mb/s



    below courtesy of http://www.usb-ware.com/firewire-vs-usb.htm

    thank you google



    FireWire vs. USB 2.0 - Architecture

    FireWire, uses a "Peer-to-Peer" architecture in which the peripherals are intelligent and can negotiate bus conflicts to determine which device can best control a data transfer



    Hi-Speed USB 2.0 uses a "Master-Slave" architecture in which the computer handles all arbitration functions and dictates data flow to, from and between the attached peripherals (adding additional system overhead and resulting in slower data flow control)



    FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison



    Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and

    then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:



    Read Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0



    Write Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0



    Hmm... that doesn't look too impressive though .
  • Reply 12 of 66
    ipodandimacipodandimac Posts: 3,273member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Dave Abrey

    How does the speed of USB2 compare with firewire?



    USB2 is better on paper, but firewire is better in the real world. its kinda like the whole velocity engine thing in G4's. "slower" than pentiums, but better throughput.
  • Reply 13 of 66
    spudspud Posts: 25member
    Seems like this will be a boon to professional digital photographers (photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.). One of these could, first, get rid of the piles of flashmedia they tend to carry around, and furthermore, allow them to see the photos they've taken earlier in the day without reloading them onto their camera.



    Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...
  • Reply 14 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,658member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spud

    Seems like this will be a boon to professional digital photographers (photojournalists, wedding photographers, etc.). One of these could, first, get rid of the piles of flashmedia they tend to carry around, and furthermore, allow them to see the photos they've taken earlier in the day without reloading them onto their camera.



    Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...



    What I can't understand is Apple say it's a new iPod photo 60GB. Well it isn't it's the old one £120 cheaper. They're still using iPod photo 1.0 software which implies the old iPod photos will work with the new stuff. What I can't understand is the lack of the 40GB model across the line, they're not even offering it anymore.
  • Reply 15 of 66
    brianrubrianru Posts: 28member
    Yeah, does anybody have a link for the iPod Camera Connector?
  • Reply 16 of 66
    jeremiah richjeremiah rich Posts: 853member
    Bleh, not too happy about the USB cable thing. If I choose to buy an iPod photo in the future, I will also have to purchase an additional cable. My mac only has usb 1 (rev 1 17" Powerbook). I wonder if this could just add a bit of confusion instead of help... Many PC users I know that have purchased an iPod realized that they needed a firewire connector, so they simply purchased a pci card alongside the iPod. Maybe it will help sales, but I am not convinced...
  • Reply 17 of 66
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 12houripod



    FireWire vs. USB 2.0 Hard Drive Performance Comparison



    Read and write tests to the same IDE hard drive connected using FireWire and

    then Hi-Speed USB 2.0 show:



    Read Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 33% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 70% faster than USB 2.0



    Write Test:

    5000 files (300 MB total) FireWire was 16% faster than USB 2.0

    160 files (650MB total) FireWire was 48% faster than USB 2.0



    Firewire kicks ass plain and sinple. Just when PCs started to include it as standard Apple pulls this crap.
  • Reply 18 of 66
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by brianru

    Yeah, does anybody have a link for the iPod Camera Connector?



    The only thing I could find is on http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/



    It says at the lower right of the page "coming in March."
  • Reply 19 of 66
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by spud

    Other than pro photographers, though, I don't see the point of the ipod photo...



    It's not for mobile photo storage--though that's possible--it's for SHOWING photos. So it's for anyone who wants to show photos



    It replaces carrying a big box of prints... not to mention, TV screens are a little bigger to look at.
  • Reply 20 of 66
    denmarudenmaru Posts: 208member
    I just don´t see why they don´t offer the dock alongside with the new iPods anymore. I was so happy that my 20gig 3rd Gen iPod came with a dock and a carry case, and I doubt consumers will like this.



    And I agree with the USB "Problem" - Why they did choose USB over Firewire is beyond me, and don´t tell me that makes them cheaper - Apple has it´s own line of cables.
Sign In or Register to comment.