Big mistake there - Apple wouldn't call it "iPod AV", it would just say iPod on the back like all the other models.
Doesn't help that AV isn't in perspective either.
The plot thickens. Adding the AV would be against Apple's current MO, but not necessarily a huge enough departure to dismiss the photos entirely.
No, what I think really delegitimizes the new picture is the rather too-white text at the bottom of the iPod, with the serial number apparently scratched out, but showing the Model Number as A1185, and the EMC No. as 2465. Are we supposed to chalk the whiteness up to the flash or something?
I was sold until that last shot of the backside. There's no reason for "iPod AV," in fact, no model has carried such a title. It's always solely "iPod," not to mention the text looks skewed, as well.
Now I have to throw in the "fake" vote, although I want it to be real--I'd like one. Maybe the last shot is fake, and the others are a sign of cool things to come from Apple.
I agree with the above poster: the shot of the back seems a bit "me too" but the others still have me guessing.
....and hoping.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
[edit: what sells me on the picture(s) is the interference pattern on the display slowly getting wider in the picture of the ipod in the dock (pic 3). That would be very hard to fake convincingly... or even if faking it, would be very hard to even remember to do!]
Isnt is possible apple will keep the current 5G ipods and release a step up from that called iPod AV that would be more expensive?
Shuffle>Nano>iPod(regular)>iPod AV (extra wide screen with rotation features)
I think it is highly likely. This is somewhat similar to how the iPod photo was introduced and then its features trickled down the iPod line.
Some users would prefer a smaller form factor and a physical click wheel rather than a larger form factor with virtual click wheel and a shorter battery life. Also, the iPod AV will likely cost a bunch more at first and, like starting with the MacBook Pro, this will help Apple recoup R&D and iTunes Video development expenses.
Also, the iPod AV will likely cost a bunch more at first
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
that's an awful looking movie. glare on a screen shouldn't make the image on the screen brighter, it blocks it out with white. it's not as if there's actually a little woman in the screen who gets better lighting where there's glare on the screen.
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
--B
I think it's more likely that they boosted the mac mini's price to help clear out stock of the PPC variants. Besides, the mac mini is still just a computer to the average user, though hopefully a better and more convenient one than some windows counterpart. The iPod can merit higher prices simply because it is still a cool new gadget, not to mention one that you can carry around and show off.
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
That's certainly a possibility, but one thing I don't think most have considered is that Apple simply looked at the number of minis the sold at the $499 level (which lacked WiFi and Bluetooth) and then at the number sold at the $599 level, and determined that not enough people bought the $499 mini to justify extra production expense, not to mention the thinner margins.
The only thing that I could see that looked off is the 2nd photo where the thumb is holding the iPod. It looks like there's a slight overlap where the bezel meets the finger, and there's no shadow. Then I went and held my iPod the same way and.. lo and behold, it looks exactly the same!! Crikey these guys are good!
(I still think there should be some sort of shadow from the thumb though...)
Jimzip
Edit: I also think the picture being displayed is funky.. The image wouldn't suddenly invert like that half way through, that's not how viewing angle works.. If the lower half is viewable and it's a flat screen then the top half should be too.. Hmm.
The "virtual" scroll wheel on the touch screen is amusing to me. I edit every day on an old Quantel Henry. When I want to scroll video or jog a tape machine I take my pen, push it down on the tablet and twirl it in a circle. The video or the tape machine moves forward or back depending on my clockwise or counter clockwise pen movement. I can put the pen anywhere on the screen to get the jog.
I've had this ability on my system for about 12 years. I wonder if there could be a patent issue if Apple ever implements this?
I took this on my Digital Rebel to compare the iPod logo color to the text color.
When I loaded the RAW file into photoshop, the blue artifacts showed around most of the scratches and text (same as the other) but to a greater extent.
It might have something to do with color management though.
Also it's obvious the SN wasn't scratched out- they just used the crystalize filter to hide it, which is understandable. I did it in this to show that's what it was.
In a stunning revelation, we have learned that the new Samsung handtop computer that people have been clucking over at CES, is harboring a great secret. The new feature-weak UMPC is really the new advanced Apple iPod AV that is going to be released April 1st, on Apple's thirtieth anniversary.
it's true - the new ipod video device is actually the exact same samsung model of the new microsoft origami UMPC. it will just have an Apple logo on it, instead of the Samsung lable. Apple thought it was very smart to use an excellent palmtop device from the cutting edge Korean company, instead of another company from China.
The new UMPC-branded with the name Samsung, is actually the specified device that Apple ordered for it's new iPod AV.
Consternation is reigning in Redmond over this fiasco, as you can imagine.
Technologic Pundits have already slammed the UMPC as a warmed-over Microsoft Tablet PC from five years ago. It still has poor battery-life, a weak feature set, and an agonizing human interface. However, these same people, when they found out that the Samsung device will actually be the new iPod AV, they applauded its elegant design, powerful battery life, and the excellent, world-class interface. Just knowing Apple has designed the new interface for the new device, they knew it will be an instant hit. "It is a lousy Tablet, but an excellent iPod!" - Said Harvey Cormer of Wiseacre Electronics.
The new iPod AV, obviously, will not have the Windows For Tablet software on board, and thusly, will have an eight hour battery life (the UMPC has 2), due to specifying better batteries, and using more intelligent power management software.
Prices are very different for the two branded device, with the Redmond device going for 8 big ones and the iPod for 5.
People who just found out about this 'interesting' problem are already asking if the new iPod AV could also run Windows.
Samsung scored a real coup here, selling the same device to both Microsoft and Apple without either of them knowing about it.
I posted this the April Special Event thread, but it bears repeating here:
The much bigger news of course will be the release of the 4" wide/touchscreen Video iPod and the iTunes Movie Store to feed it. As usual, the geeks are hung up on the hardware specs and Internet mockups when the real story is is the content deals.
Apple wants to rule legally downloaded movies the way they already rule legally downloaded music. They want to be first out of the gate with a complete end to end solution (content/store/software/TV playback/portable device) and they want to preserve the "download to own" model.
Big Content, in their never ending stupidity, is opposed to this as they seek to monetize every viewing of every piece of copyrighted material. Steve personally dragged the record labels kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and now he has the same (even harder) task with the brain dead movie studios.
As TS reported, talks are at a stand still with an apparently united movie industry, but the way I see it, Steve only needs to peel off one rogue studio to launch the Video iPod on his (and our) terms.
If he can get, let's say Paramount and their entire back catalog to go along with all the Disney and Pixar content, then that will be more than enough to prove the download to own model. In six months when the rest of the studios realize their error, they'll have to go back to Steve and beg to get in on the action.
Of course my personal choice would be to sign up 20th Century Fox to get the Star Wars franchise. Hell, Steve could launch a movie store with nothing but LucasFilm and Pixar and it would be enough of an initial success to force the other studios to play ball.
Comments
also, why can't these people ever give us a shot of the back side?
posted this one to MacShrine earlier:
http://www.macshrine.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=81&c=6
Originally posted by santamac
posted this one to MacShrine earlier:
http://www.macshrine.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=81&c=6
Big mistake there - Apple wouldn't call it "iPod AV", it would just say iPod on the back like all the other models.
Doesn't help that AV isn't in perspective either.
Originally posted by the cool gut
Big mistake there - Apple wouldn't call it "iPod AV", it would just say iPod on the back like all the other models.
Doesn't help that AV isn't in perspective either.
The plot thickens. Adding the AV would be against Apple's current MO, but not necessarily a huge enough departure to dismiss the photos entirely.
No, what I think really delegitimizes the new picture is the rather too-white text at the bottom of the iPod, with the serial number apparently scratched out, but showing the Model Number as A1185, and the EMC No. as 2465. Are we supposed to chalk the whiteness up to the flash or something?
Now I have to throw in the "fake" vote, although I want it to be real--I'd like one. Maybe the last shot is fake, and the others are a sign of cool things to come from Apple.
....and hoping.
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
[edit: what sells me on the picture(s) is the interference pattern on the display slowly getting wider in the picture of the ipod in the dock (pic 3). That would be very hard to fake convincingly... or even if faking it, would be very hard to even remember to do!]
Shuffle<Nano<iPod(regular)<iPod AV (extra wide screen with rotation features)
--B
Originally posted by bergz
Another Fake movie.
--B
^ That is an incredibly fake looking movie.
Originally posted by zenatek
Isnt is possible apple will keep the current 5G ipods and release a step up from that called iPod AV that would be more expensive?
Shuffle>Nano>iPod(regular)>iPod AV (extra wide screen with rotation features)
I think it is highly likely. This is somewhat similar to how the iPod photo was introduced and then its features trickled down the iPod line.
Some users would prefer a smaller form factor and a physical click wheel rather than a larger form factor with virtual click wheel and a shorter battery life. Also, the iPod AV will likely cost a bunch more at first and, like starting with the MacBook Pro, this will help Apple recoup R&D and iTunes Video development expenses.
Originally posted by Xool
Also, the iPod AV will likely cost a bunch more at first
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
--B
Originally posted by zenatek
^ That is an incredibly fake looking movie.
that's an awful looking movie. glare on a screen shouldn't make the image on the screen brighter, it blocks it out with white. it's not as if there's actually a little woman in the screen who gets better lighting where there's glare on the screen.
Originally posted by bergz
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
--B
I think it's more likely that they boosted the mac mini's price to help clear out stock of the PPC variants. Besides, the mac mini is still just a computer to the average user, though hopefully a better and more convenient one than some windows counterpart. The iPod can merit higher prices simply because it is still a cool new gadget, not to mention one that you can carry around and show off.
Originally posted by bergz
Does anyone think the Mac Mini's price was boosted in part so that the price difference between a Mac desktop computer and a little hand-held ipod wouldn't be in the 100-150 range?
That's certainly a possibility, but one thing I don't think most have considered is that Apple simply looked at the number of minis the sold at the $499 level (which lacked WiFi and Bluetooth) and then at the number sold at the $599 level, and determined that not enough people bought the $499 mini to justify extra production expense, not to mention the thinner margins.
photoshop is a great tool!
The only thing that I could see that looked off is the 2nd photo where the thumb is holding the iPod. It looks like there's a slight overlap where the bezel meets the finger, and there's no shadow. Then I went and held my iPod the same way and.. lo and behold, it looks exactly the same!! Crikey these guys are good!
(I still think there should be some sort of shadow from the thumb though...)
Jimzip
Edit: I also think the picture being displayed is funky.. The image wouldn't suddenly invert like that half way through, that's not how viewing angle works.. If the lower half is viewable and it's a flat screen then the top half should be too.. Hmm.
I've had this ability on my system for about 12 years. I wonder if there could be a patent issue if Apple ever implements this?
When I loaded the RAW file into photoshop, the blue artifacts showed around most of the scratches and text (same as the other) but to a greater extent.
It might have something to do with color management though.
Also it's obvious the SN wasn't scratched out- they just used the crystalize filter to hide it, which is understandable. I did it in this to show that's what it was.
It is more fun to believe.........
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
http://www.mymac.com/showarticle.php...ething&id=1412
The Origami - iPod AV Fiasco
Roger Born
Columnist, The Macintosh Continuum
Friday, 03/10/06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a stunning revelation, we have learned that the new Samsung handtop computer that people have been clucking over at CES, is harboring a great secret. The new feature-weak UMPC is really the new advanced Apple iPod AV that is going to be released April 1st, on Apple's thirtieth anniversary.
it's true - the new ipod video device is actually the exact same samsung model of the new microsoft origami UMPC. it will just have an Apple logo on it, instead of the Samsung lable. Apple thought it was very smart to use an excellent palmtop device from the cutting edge Korean company, instead of another company from China.
The new UMPC-branded with the name Samsung, is actually the specified device that Apple ordered for it's new iPod AV.
Consternation is reigning in Redmond over this fiasco, as you can imagine.
Technologic Pundits have already slammed the UMPC as a warmed-over Microsoft Tablet PC from five years ago. It still has poor battery-life, a weak feature set, and an agonizing human interface. However, these same people, when they found out that the Samsung device will actually be the new iPod AV, they applauded its elegant design, powerful battery life, and the excellent, world-class interface. Just knowing Apple has designed the new interface for the new device, they knew it will be an instant hit. "It is a lousy Tablet, but an excellent iPod!" - Said Harvey Cormer of Wiseacre Electronics.
The new iPod AV, obviously, will not have the Windows For Tablet software on board, and thusly, will have an eight hour battery life (the UMPC has 2), due to specifying better batteries, and using more intelligent power management software.
Prices are very different for the two branded device, with the Redmond device going for 8 big ones and the iPod for 5.
People who just found out about this 'interesting' problem are already asking if the new iPod AV could also run Windows.
Samsung scored a real coup here, selling the same device to both Microsoft and Apple without either of them knowing about it.
You heard it here first.
April first will really be April first this year.
Regards,
Roger Born
"Sorry. No refunds."
The much bigger news of course will be the release of the 4" wide/touchscreen Video iPod and the iTunes Movie Store to feed it. As usual, the geeks are hung up on the hardware specs and Internet mockups when the real story is is the content deals.
Apple wants to rule legally downloaded movies the way they already rule legally downloaded music. They want to be first out of the gate with a complete end to end solution (content/store/software/TV playback/portable device) and they want to preserve the "download to own" model.
Big Content, in their never ending stupidity, is opposed to this as they seek to monetize every viewing of every piece of copyrighted material. Steve personally dragged the record labels kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and now he has the same (even harder) task with the brain dead movie studios.
As TS reported, talks are at a stand still with an apparently united movie industry, but the way I see it, Steve only needs to peel off one rogue studio to launch the Video iPod on his (and our) terms.
If he can get, let's say Paramount and their entire back catalog to go along with all the Disney and Pixar content, then that will be more than enough to prove the download to own model. In six months when the rest of the studios realize their error, they'll have to go back to Steve and beg to get in on the action.
Of course my personal choice would be to sign up 20th Century Fox to get the Star Wars franchise. Hell, Steve could launch a movie store with nothing but LucasFilm and Pixar and it would be enough of an initial success to force the other studios to play ball.