Apple debuts new iPod photos with optional camera connector

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I see it more as making sure that color screen become std across the line. Face it, the old iPod is now the 'budget model'. There's something in the pipe for the color screen, I just have no idea what. Call it a hunch.
  • Reply 42 of 66
    wilwil Posts: 170member
    Are we going to see a next generation iPod sometime this year? I believe so because Apple has this irritating tendency of quietly upgrading their hardware products just to say they are improving their products to match the competition but the real hardware upgrades are usually found later in the year with a lot more fanfare and the iPod is no exception.I am just guessing,but the next generation iPod or iPod 2.0 if it exists might just hand the MP3 player crown to Apple or maybe not.But one thing is for sure,whatever that new iPod looks like,I damn hope that they include the firewire cable for Mac users.
  • Reply 43 of 66
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wil

    Are we going to see a next generation iPod sometime this year? I believe so because Apple has this irritating tendency of quietly upgrading their hardware products just to say they are improving their products to match the competition but the real hardware upgrades are usually found later in the year with a lot more fanfare and the iPod is no exception.I am just guessing,but the next generation iPod or iPod 2.0 if it exists might just hand the MP3 player crown to Apple or maybe not.But one thing is for sure,whatever that new iPod looks like,I damn hope that they include the firewire cable for Mac users.



    I reckon we'll see a 5th gen iPod in time for the Christmas sales, possibly as soon as the summer. Then all full size iPods will have colour screens, and probably a new look, and maybe bluetooth. I'm hoping for a silver finish like the silver iPod mini, then I'll upgrade to a 30Gb or 40Gb model. This new photo announcement isn't too bad though, decent prices if, like me, you wouldn't be using the cables or case anyway.
  • Reply 44 of 66
    Wouldn't it be interesting if the extra "iPod Firewire cable" Apple sold really was a firewire800 cable with a detatchable Firewire 400 transformer/connector included? That would make people start buying Firewire 800 cards...
  • Reply 45 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by joelbergqvist

    Wouldn't it be interesting if the extra "iPod Firewire cable" Apple sold really was a firewire800 cable with a detatchable Firewire 400 transformer/connector included? That would make people start buying Firewire 800 cards...



    It wont be, I would love it if it was though. (Has the dock connector got enough pins for FireWire 800) Only two Apple computers ship with FireWire 800, PowerBook G4 (15" and 17") and the PowerMacs. They wont be shipping with FireWire 800 until it's standard and it wont be standard until someone makes FireWire 800 products!! The problem is, unlike USB 2.0 they are different sizes.
  • Reply 46 of 66
    <<Man, this update really pisses me off. I've owned an iPod since the first generation, but I do not understand this move at all. Not including firewire means I have to pay extra to use the iPod with my Mac, since they don't have USB2 Ports.>>



    If I read the tech specs for the iPod Photo correctly, it still comes with firewire. What Apple is not including is a firewire CABLE.
  • Reply 47 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by OldCodger73

    <<Man, this update really pisses me off. I've owned an iPod since the first generation, but I do not understand this move at all. Not including firewire means I have to pay extra to use the iPod with my Mac, since they don't have USB2 Ports.>>



    If I read the tech specs for the iPod Photo correctly, it still comes with firewire. What Apple is not including is a firewire CABLE.




    the majority only have USB 2.0. They're cutting costs, just add $20 to your iPod cost and get a FireWire cable.
  • Reply 48 of 66
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacCrazy

    the majority only have USB 2.0. They're cutting costs, just add $20 to your iPod cost and get a FireWire cable.



    Not the majority of Mac owners, and that's why it bugs me. I have a cube, a G4 powermac and an iBook, none of which has USB2, but all of which have firewire. I'm used to going through extra cost and hassle when trying to connect PC peripherals, but I didn't expect it from Apple.



    Then again, even the box now says PC + Mac, so I guess even to Apple we Mac users come in second. It now costs me $20 more to get an iPod than it does a Dell user.
  • Reply 49 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by D.J. Adequate

    Not the majority of Mac owners, and that's why it bugs me. I have a cube, a G4 powermac and an iBook, none of which has USB2, but all of which have firewire. I'm used to going through extra cost and hassle when trying to connect PC peripherals, but I didn't expect it from Apple.



    Then again, even the box now says PC + Mac, so I guess even to Apple we Mac users come in second. It now costs me $20 more to get an iPod than it does a Dell user.




    It isn't a question of coming first or second. The iPod is designed for Mac and Windows users. USB 2.0 has been in Macs long enough for them to justify shipping just with USB 2.0. I can understand that you're annoyed but it's better for Apple if Apple users buy a cable than PC users. Remember we make up less. I would be annoyed if I bought a new iPod and it only had USB 2.0. But I'd be just as annoyed if it didn't come with an AC adaptor (which they are doing with the shuffle and mini!). I think the long term plan is probably to phase out FireWire - it's not popular enough and Apple have to spend more money on two standards when they could just use one. I hope Apple don't phase out FireWire but buying a cable is quite common these days, printers don't come with cables - maybe Apple should ship with no cables and give users the option with a $20 voucher or something?



    (In addition most PC laptops only have 4-pin FireWire, originally Apple shipped with an adaptor for 6 to 4 pins but they don't anymore, if they just shipped with FireWire it would cost PC users $20 plus an adaptor)
  • Reply 50 of 66
    For people who use their iPod Photo JUST for listening to music and storing photos, the USB2 vs FireWire issue is just an irritant.



    Now if you realize that the iPod is also a FireWire hard drive, its potential uses increase rapidly. For instance, you can put OS X on your iPod along with some utilities and it becomes a handy tool for maintaining, diagnosing and fixing your and your friends' Macs. You CAN boot using FireWire, but on USB2 you are SOL. (For whatever reason, iPod minis have a drive that is not bootable regardless of the connection). There's always been the notion out there that "Home on iPod" is going to come out someday. Take your iPod to any Mac in the world, plug it in and you are working with all your own documents, preferences and, if you loaded them in your /Users/<yourname>/Applications folder, your favorite programs.



    To me the hurdle Apple is placing in front of those who prefer FireWire indicates that they may not be interested in advancing the applications of the iPod beyond the nominal music-playing and photo-storing uses that currently rule.
  • Reply 51 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by macFanDave

    For people who use their iPod Photo JUST for listening to music and storing photos, the USB2 vs FireWire issue is just an irritant.



    Now if you realize that the iPod is also a FireWire hard drive, its potential uses increase rapidly. For instance, you can put OS X on your iPod along with some utilities and it becomes a handy tool for maintaining, diagnosing and fixing your and your friends' Macs. You CAN boot using FireWire, but on USB2 you are SOL. (For whatever reason, iPod minis have a drive that is not bootable regardless of the connection). There's always been the notion out there that "Home on iPod" is going to come out someday. Take your iPod to any Mac in the world, plug it in and you are working with all your own documents, preferences and, if you loaded them in your /Users/<yourname>/Applications folder, your favorite programs.



    To me the hurdle Apple is placing in front of those who prefer FireWire indicates that they may not be interested in advancing the applications of the iPod beyond the nominal music-playing and photo-storing uses that currently rule.




    Home on iPod would be quite slow, I've tried starting up my computer using my iPod and it was SLOW! However for future iPods with faster drives it would work better. I massively prefer FireWire and it would be better if it came with all iPods. Apple users shouldn't have to pay extra.
  • Reply 52 of 66
    Not sure if this has been posted yet.



    Photo of the connector:





  • Reply 53 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by boba fett

    Not sure if this has been posted yet.



    Photo of the connector:




    that's a good size.
  • Reply 54 of 66
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by boba fett

    [B]Not sure if this has been posted yet.



    Photo of the connector:



    Ye, for some reason, AppleInsider stuck the photo of this in the current hardware forum. Tut tut, breaking their own rules on iPod in digital hub only! Any idea if it will support USB 2.0 speeds if a USB 2.0 equipped camera is connected used (does such a thing exist yet?). I would assume the cable would be USB 2.0 speeds, which would be pretty neat when USB 2.0 cameras start filtering out.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    othelloothello Posts: 1,053member
    i'm keen to see what version the camera usb connector is. my sony digital camera has a rectangle shaped mini-usb conenctor, while a friends kodak has a square type.



    i'm hoping there are either different leads in the box (i can but dream), or an adaptor for the end. or if apple don't oblige, then i'm sure griffin or someone will.



    come on apple, its mid-march!
  • Reply 56 of 66
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    You can pick up USB-A <-> USB-B adapters just about anywhere.
  • Reply 57 of 66
    othelloothello Posts: 1,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    You can pick up USB-A <-> USB-B adapters just about anywhere.



    you are the fastest typing mod in the business



    thanks -- didn't know that.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by othello

    i'm keen to see what version the camera usb connector is. my sony digital camera has a rectangle shaped mini-usb conenctor, while a friends kodak has a square type.



    i'm hoping there are either different leads in the box (i can but dream), or an adaptor for the end. or if apple don't oblige, then i'm sure griffin or someone will.



    come on apple, its mid-march!




    I suspect, the adaptor won't come with any wires. It will have a USB port at one end and will require your existing USB cable that came with your camera. There are far too many USB ports on cameras to support them all, or even the majority - it would be a waste of money for Apple and the consumer.
  • Reply 59 of 66
    I'm a windoze user and I read this stuff about how slow USB 2.0 is before I got my mini,but I was confident that USB 2.0 would still be fast.Luckily,USB 2.0 is VERY fast on a PC.I don't think that they have drivers as good on the mac yet,considering that USB is still pretty new to you.I still wish I had a mac,though.
  • Reply 60 of 66
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Yeah, USB is 'new'... only been standard on Macs for what, six years?







    PCs played catchup in this arena too, sorry. PCs had it first, but it didn't see any widespread adoption until the iMac made it standard.



    As for USB being 'slow', it is when compared to FireWire. USB2 is much closer to FW400, but it still can't keep up in real-world tests for intense data transfers. USB requires the CPU to jump in and act as the traffic cop, while FireWire devices negotiate amongst themselves, and don't put any load on the CPU. (Intel invented USB, and since they have a vested interest in selling CPUs, well... gotta come up with reasons to chew up cycles. )
Sign In or Register to comment.