OR, I'd burn them onto a DVD to play with iDVD slideshow with motion and music. OR I'd burn them onto a CD and let them play them in X's slideshow on their iMac. OR I'd use iPhoto to print out some 4x5's or contact sheets on the photo paper bought from the money I saved from not buying the iFrame.
Sorry, if it's just a frame, just a simple small picture viewer then ah, it ain't getting my money. I don't think Apple would put out something so limited in value and with so many current alternatives already installed on your mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iPod received similar critiques when launched : "If i want to listen to music, I'll insert a CD in my player". The added value if iPod and iFrame would be similar : portability of a HUGE collection (I want to see you carry around 500 photo prints) with advanced organisation features (try to get 500 pics sorted on hardcopy) and search features.
Add to extreme portability to that, and you finally have a reason why digital cameras are finally integrated in your digital hub concept. Right now, the printout part makes digital cameras a drag. And as I said : sitting behind you mac upstairs in dad's office with the whole family just isn't the same as sitting on the couch.
But the most compelling part is that the iFrame could also appeal business folks : have you ever tried passing around an iBook or tiBook during a business presentation ? It's ridiculous and looks completely unprofessional. Passing around an iFrame OTOH would be ubergeeky and supahkewl !
The iPod received similar critiques when launched : "If i want to listen to music, I'll insert a CD in my player". The added value if iPod and iFrame would be similar : portability of a HUGE collection (I want to see you carry around 500 photo prints) with advanced organisation features (try to get 500 pics sorted on hardcopy) and search features.
Add to extreme portability to that, and you finally have a reason why digital cameras are finally integrated in your digital hub concept. Right now, the printout part makes digital cameras a drag. And as I said : sitting behind you mac upstairs in dad's office with the whole family just isn't the same as sitting on the couch.
But the most compelling part is that the iFrame could also appeal business folks : have you ever tried passing around an iBook or tiBook during a business presentation ? It's ridiculous and looks completely unprofessional. Passing around an iFrame OTOH would be ubergeeky and supahkewl !
The iPod is different. It's music and it's fist person. People jog with walkmans, workout with walkmans, hike with walkmans, hang out with walkmans, skate, ride a bike, skateboard, snowboard, hook up to your car stereo, hook up to your home stereo, etc. Music is a universal necessity with a lot of people.
Photos? Yea there cool. I don't feel the need to do any of the above with an iFrame. I'd only share them with some friends and then put it down.
There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame.
The iPod is different. It's music and it's fist person. People jog with walkmans, workout with walkmans, hike with walkmans, hang out with walkmans, skate, ride a bike, skateboard, snowboard, hook up to your car stereo, hook up to your home stereo, etc. Music is a universal necessity with a lot of people.
Photos? Yea there cool. I don't feel the need to do any of the above with an iFrame. I'd only share them with some friends and then put it down.
There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are arguments that I can counter easily :
- music is far more expensive than digital photos (unless you copy your music, but then you're a thief, and everyone knows this mp3heaven isn't gonna last forever)
- I rarely listen to CDs anymore : i have 500CDs, most of which I haven't played in years. I turn on the radio all the time (internet radio that is) which gives me a fine mix of music.
- I rarely workout, hike, hang out with walkmans, skate, skateboard, snowboard... So this portable music issue doesn't count for me, and I bet 90% of the iPod users use their pod 90% of the time in places where they have radio access too.
- music ? Yeah, it's cool, but it's something background for me, not essential, and not something I want to share with my friends/family. Music is an essential necessity for people who don't appreciate silence (okay, that's a stab under the belt :-)
- the iPod has zero business applications. iFrame OTOH has plenty to add up where the home-side stays short.
"There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame" u say. Well, I was not COMPARING them. I was just saying that the iPod was called a dead horse by many and turned out a hit. The iFrame could very well be the same.
Note : I'm not starting a flamewar here. I really appreciate u bringing solid arguments instead of yelling "it won't work, it won't work ! Noone will buy it"
IMO the iFrame is a pretty solid idea....but it would need a few things. It should have iPhoto installed so that you can easily access and share any photos or albums which are uploaded to the iFrame. It would also have to have a touch sensitive screen. And of coarse FireWire 800, Bluetooth to print if you needed, and whatever other hook-up Apple uses to conect printers (USB?). It is a great idea, but I personally don't think Apple would spend time on a small consumer accesory like that. I have seen cases where a 3rd party developes a product which is completely for the Mac as this would be, and they have even been advertised and sold in the Apple stores.
Maybe you should send this idea to the company which developed the FM adapter for the iPod, and the optical volume knob thing. Maybe they'll produce it.
some kind of tablet, like the inexus, i can also understand (and that macwhisper enclosure rumour has almost the same size) but...
the main user of the iframe might not be grandpa and -ma or the professional bussinessman, but people who download tons of hot chicks from internet and take that nice cool little picture device and having a good time with their right hand.
- music is far more expensive than digital photos (unless you copy your music, but then you're a thief, and everyone knows this mp3heaven isn't gonna last forever)
- I rarely listen to CDs anymore : i have 500CDs, most of which I haven't played in years. I turn on the radio all the time (internet radio that is) which gives me a fine mix of music.
- I rarely workout, hike, hang out with walkmans, skate, skateboard, snowboard... So this portable music issue doesn't count for me, and I bet 90% of the iPod users use their pod 90% of the time in places where they have radio access too.
- music ? Yeah, it's cool, but it's something background for me, not essential, and not something I want to share with my friends/family. Music is an essential necessity for people who don't appreciate silence (okay, that's a stab under the belt :-)
- the iPod has zero business applications. iFrame OTOH has plenty to add up where the home-side stays short.
"There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame" u say. Well, I was not COMPARING them. I was just saying that the iPod was called a dead horse by many and turned out a hit. The iFrame could very well be the same.
Note : I'm not starting a flamewar here. I really appreciate u bringing solid arguments instead of yelling "it won't work, it won't work ! Noone will buy it"
The iPod was called a dead horse because they didn't see how Apple could do it better then current mp3 players out there. Well, they made it smaller and capable of holding what, 10 times the amount of songs. There will always be a market for portable music players regardless whetehr you listen to one or not. I don't but that doesn't mean it's not in a successful market.
iFrame or a portable image viewer has no market. There is currently no demand, no interest, no competing products to improve upon because there's no idication that it will sell or has a niche to fill. There are protable DVD players and they don't really sell well. I'd rather watch a DVD then see a few pics of the trip to Sea World.
The 'comparission' was in response to your 'comparission' of the iPod's success. Just because the iPod fit into it's current niche and was successful doesn't mena Apple can create a niche for portable image players and make money.
If they were going to build an "iFrame" why not go all the way and make a Tablet. On an average day, iPhoto is the most processor intensive app I use, the most bandwidth intensive app I use, the most memory intensive app I use and uses the most hard disk space, and requires the most "pixels". The only thing that isn't really required by iPhoto is the touch screen. For the cost of adding a touch screen (I am guessing $100--$200 tops) they could turn this one trick pony into a full fledged computer. If MacBidouille is correct that they are having plastics made that might fit an iFrame-type product, I can't see them not going all the way and making a Tablet.
<strong>the main user of the iframe might not be grandpa and -ma or the professional bussinessman, but people who download tons of hot chicks from internet and take that nice cool little picture device and having a good time with their right hand. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I hate to print out my photos but my lap top is overkill to just show people. If it was Bluetooth enabled and I could set it on my desk at work or take it with me on trip an download my pics each day I would pay $500-600 for that functionality, and if it synced with my music and address book and calendar all the better.
One more thing... if it had a full complemt of ports you could use it to share photos on TV's, or even give presentations. Additinally as an Art director I use my camera as a "sketch book" and having my photos close at hand (say in a creative meeting) would be very useful.
Kidred : you're arguments are solid. But still, i have the impression that many folks here are enthousiast. And to quoite yourself : you don't consider the iFrame a potential, but that doesn't mean there's not a successful market somewhere.
I seriously think you're underestimating the demand for a low cost portable slideshow/presentation device. Offcourse if they'd charge 700$ for it, they'll go the way of the cube. But if they somehow manage to sell it in the $299-$349 range, I think it'll be a hit.
I'm gonna try to set up an online poll somewhere, and post the URL here. I'm really really really curious about how many people would vote yes.
Comments
<strong>
OR, I'd burn them onto a DVD to play with iDVD slideshow with motion and music. OR I'd burn them onto a CD and let them play them in X's slideshow on their iMac. OR I'd use iPhoto to print out some 4x5's or contact sheets on the photo paper bought from the money I saved from not buying the iFrame.
Sorry, if it's just a frame, just a simple small picture viewer then ah, it ain't getting my money. I don't think Apple would put out something so limited in value and with so many current alternatives already installed on your mac.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iPod received similar critiques when launched : "If i want to listen to music, I'll insert a CD in my player". The added value if iPod and iFrame would be similar : portability of a HUGE collection (I want to see you carry around 500 photo prints) with advanced organisation features (try to get 500 pics sorted on hardcopy) and search features.
Add to extreme portability to that, and you finally have a reason why digital cameras are finally integrated in your digital hub concept. Right now, the printout part makes digital cameras a drag. And as I said : sitting behind you mac upstairs in dad's office with the whole family just isn't the same as sitting on the couch.
But the most compelling part is that the iFrame could also appeal business folks : have you ever tried passing around an iBook or tiBook during a business presentation ? It's ridiculous and looks completely unprofessional. Passing around an iFrame OTOH would be ubergeeky and supahkewl !
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: little_dude ]</p>
<strong>
The iPod received similar critiques when launched : "If i want to listen to music, I'll insert a CD in my player". The added value if iPod and iFrame would be similar : portability of a HUGE collection (I want to see you carry around 500 photo prints) with advanced organisation features (try to get 500 pics sorted on hardcopy) and search features.
Add to extreme portability to that, and you finally have a reason why digital cameras are finally integrated in your digital hub concept. Right now, the printout part makes digital cameras a drag. And as I said : sitting behind you mac upstairs in dad's office with the whole family just isn't the same as sitting on the couch.
But the most compelling part is that the iFrame could also appeal business folks : have you ever tried passing around an iBook or tiBook during a business presentation ? It's ridiculous and looks completely unprofessional. Passing around an iFrame OTOH would be ubergeeky and supahkewl !
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: little_dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iPod is different. It's music and it's fist person. People jog with walkmans, workout with walkmans, hike with walkmans, hang out with walkmans, skate, ride a bike, skateboard, snowboard, hook up to your car stereo, hook up to your home stereo, etc. Music is a universal necessity with a lot of people.
Photos? Yea there cool. I don't feel the need to do any of the above with an iFrame. I'd only share them with some friends and then put it down.
There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame.
<strong>
The iPod is different. It's music and it's fist person. People jog with walkmans, workout with walkmans, hike with walkmans, hang out with walkmans, skate, ride a bike, skateboard, snowboard, hook up to your car stereo, hook up to your home stereo, etc. Music is a universal necessity with a lot of people.
Photos? Yea there cool. I don't feel the need to do any of the above with an iFrame. I'd only share them with some friends and then put it down.
There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are arguments that I can counter easily :
- music is far more expensive than digital photos (unless you copy your music, but then you're a thief, and everyone knows this mp3heaven isn't gonna last forever)
- I rarely listen to CDs anymore : i have 500CDs, most of which I haven't played in years. I turn on the radio all the time (internet radio that is) which gives me a fine mix of music.
- I rarely workout, hike, hang out with walkmans, skate, skateboard, snowboard... So this portable music issue doesn't count for me, and I bet 90% of the iPod users use their pod 90% of the time in places where they have radio access too.
- music ? Yeah, it's cool, but it's something background for me, not essential, and not something I want to share with my friends/family. Music is an essential necessity for people who don't appreciate silence (okay, that's a stab under the belt :-)
- the iPod has zero business applications. iFrame OTOH has plenty to add up where the home-side stays short.
"There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame" u say. Well, I was not COMPARING them. I was just saying that the iPod was called a dead horse by many and turned out a hit. The iFrame could very well be the same.
Note : I'm not starting a flamewar here. I really appreciate u bringing solid arguments instead of yelling "it won't work, it won't work ! Noone will buy it"
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: little_dude ]</p>
Maybe you should send this idea to the company which developed the FM adapter for the iPod, and the optical volume knob thing. Maybe they'll produce it.
an ipod i can understand.
some kind of tablet, like the inexus, i can also understand (and that macwhisper enclosure rumour has almost the same size) but...
the main user of the iframe might not be grandpa and -ma or the professional bussinessman, but people who download tons of hot chicks from internet and take that nice cool little picture device and having a good time with their right hand.
<strong>
These are arguments that I can counter easily :
- music is far more expensive than digital photos (unless you copy your music, but then you're a thief, and everyone knows this mp3heaven isn't gonna last forever)
- I rarely listen to CDs anymore : i have 500CDs, most of which I haven't played in years. I turn on the radio all the time (internet radio that is) which gives me a fine mix of music.
- I rarely workout, hike, hang out with walkmans, skate, skateboard, snowboard... So this portable music issue doesn't count for me, and I bet 90% of the iPod users use their pod 90% of the time in places where they have radio access too.
- music ? Yeah, it's cool, but it's something background for me, not essential, and not something I want to share with my friends/family. Music is an essential necessity for people who don't appreciate silence (okay, that's a stab under the belt :-)
- the iPod has zero business applications. iFrame OTOH has plenty to add up where the home-side stays short.
"There's no comparssion or relevance between mp3 player iPod and photo player iFrame" u say. Well, I was not COMPARING them. I was just saying that the iPod was called a dead horse by many and turned out a hit. The iFrame could very well be the same.
Note : I'm not starting a flamewar here. I really appreciate u bringing solid arguments instead of yelling "it won't work, it won't work ! Noone will buy it"
[ 03-10-2003: Message edited by: little_dude ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The iPod was called a dead horse because they didn't see how Apple could do it better then current mp3 players out there. Well, they made it smaller and capable of holding what, 10 times the amount of songs. There will always be a market for portable music players regardless whetehr you listen to one or not. I don't but that doesn't mean it's not in a successful market.
iFrame or a portable image viewer has no market. There is currently no demand, no interest, no competing products to improve upon because there's no idication that it will sell or has a niche to fill. There are protable DVD players and they don't really sell well. I'd rather watch a DVD then see a few pics of the trip to Sea World.
The 'comparission' was in response to your 'comparission' of the iPod's success. Just because the iPod fit into it's current niche and was successful doesn't mena Apple can create a niche for portable image players and make money.
<strong>the main user of the iframe might not be grandpa and -ma or the professional bussinessman, but people who download tons of hot chicks from internet and take that nice cool little picture device and having a good time with their right hand.
Hey, I'm insulted!
Some of us are left-handed
<strong>am i the only one that thinks dozens a day is alot?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have averaged 26.3 photos a DAY for the last 3 years.
(yes that is nearly 30,000, and no I don't use iPhoto and none of them are porn)
some at <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ray27"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/ray27</a>;
ray27
I hate to print out my photos but my lap top is overkill to just show people. If it was Bluetooth enabled and I could set it on my desk at work or take it with me on trip an download my pics each day I would pay $500-600 for that functionality, and if it synced with my music and address book and calendar all the better.
Basically an iPod with a color screen
27ray
You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay
You'll get pie in the sky when you die.
--- from a 1930 song
27ray
<a href="http://www.panasonic.com/computer/notebook/default.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.panasonic.com/computer/notebook/default.asp</a>;
Check out the first 4 models
<strong>
I have averaged 26.3 photos a DAY for the last 3 years.
(yes that is nearly 30,000, and no I don't use iPhoto and none of them are porn)
some at <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/ray27"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/ray27</a>;
ray27</strong><hr></blockquote>
you have alzenheimer and is this the only way to remember what you did during the day, right?... something like memento, no?
<strong>This technology is already being used, unfortunately.
<a href="http://www.panasonic.com/computer/notebook/default.asp"; target="_blank">http://www.panasonic.com/computer/notebook/default.asp</a>;
Check out the first 4 models</strong><hr></blockquote>
dunno : these are true portables. That would classify as an iTablet, not an iFrame...
I seriously think you're underestimating the demand for a low cost portable slideshow/presentation device. Offcourse if they'd charge 700$ for it, they'll go the way of the cube. But if they somehow manage to sell it in the $299-$349 range, I think it'll be a hit.
I'm gonna try to set up an online poll somewhere, and post the URL here. I'm really really really curious about how many people would vote yes.
To this end I'll refer you to <a href="http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/03/20030302015701.shtml"; target="_blank">this evidence</a> of Apple's continuing interest in voice recognition.
Perhaps we should say that little_dude's device is the iFrame, and mine is the Framistan?
<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/29741.html"; target="_blank">Microsnot & Creative Labs</a>
Tremble, non-believers....