Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media (Apple) Media

New Apple iPod with Photo Capabilities 776

Posted by michael
from the money-burning-hole-in-your-pocket dept.
artlu was the first of many to submit: "I was just watching my Dow Jones streaming news wire, and I saw that Apple is releasing a new iPod that will have photo captabilities. The news stated that the new iPod will be able to hold 25,000 photos as well as your traditional iPod functionality." Apple's got a page up about the iPod Photo and of course a press release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Apple iPod with Photo Capabilities

Comments Filter:
  • by lothar97 (768215) * <owen@smig[ ]ki.org ['els' in gap]> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:37PM (#10633968) Homepage Journal
    I imagine this is just a little trick to get new people to buy an iPod. Who's going to spend $500-600 to store photos? I don't see current iPod users "upgrading," and I imagine there are some iPod hacks out there to store photos now (albeit without a color screen)

    You can get cheaper products [dpreview.com] for $50 which will allow you to do more creative slideshows, effects, etc.

    I think Apple missed the boat here. The killer function they should add to the iPod is a camera- which goes along nicely with the photo storage features. Nothing flashy or expensive, but for another $50 they could add a lens that's better than the cell phone cams.

  • Photos, eh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:37PM (#10633969)

    Now I just need my iPod to allow me to make phone calls and I'm all set.

  • You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chris Pimlott (16212) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:37PM (#10633973)
    Photo *display* capabilities. When I think of photo capabilities, I think of something take can _take_ photos.
  • pshaw (Score:2, Insightful)

    by anthonyclark (17109) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:38PM (#10633993)
    So it can store photos. I can do that right now on my 20G ipod.

    And it can display photos on a TV, cool.

    But it can't transfer photos directly from a digital camera? You need to buy an expensive yet crappy belkin adapter for that? No thank you.

    It would've been cooler had it been able to display keynote presentations to VGA...

    I say it's another cube for apple.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:40PM (#10634010)
    .

    Photos and contacts and solitaire sounds like fun stuff, but what about any new audio related features--you know, since it's an audio portable and all.

    Something tells me they managed to overlook Gapless Playback and OGG/FLAC support again.
  • by soulctcher (581951) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:40PM (#10634013)
    that photo capability as a secondary feature is just about worthless. Pretty soon, I'll have a phone that surfs the web, plays games, takes photos, cooks dinner, plays mp3s, wavs, oggs, avis, mpegs, and can predict the weather. None of which I'll be using since my ipod will do that anyways.
  • Missing Feature (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rgmoore (133276) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:41PM (#10634035) Homepage

    Sadly, Apple has made a mistake by failing to include a card reader. The iPod Photo is stuck in the paradigm of digital music, in which your computer is the center and the iPod is just a way of making the music more portable. For photos, though, I think of my camera as being the central point, not my computer. Being able to download directly from my camera's memory cards to the iPod would massively increase the number of pictures I could take without needing to go back to my desktop or haul around a laptop. Without that, this is just a minor improvement, but with the ability to download straight from memory cards it would be a major step forward.

  • Overkill? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:41PM (#10634045)
    Does anyone else think that this a bit overkill. 60Gb is a LOT when you are just talking about music and pictures.

    Think movies.

    See the last paragraph here [slashdot.org].
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:42PM (#10634053) Homepage
    well, if it allows me to hook my camera up to it on teh go and download the pictures, it is very useful.
  • Happens again.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by marcosc (801468) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:42PM (#10634056)
    Here we go again, people saying this iPod won't be a hit. They said the same thing on the original iPod and the iPod Mini. Those were both huge hits, and this one will be too.
  • so close (Score:3, Insightful)

    by joelhouse (457100) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:42PM (#10634059) Homepage
    They just added Album Art, but I want to see the entire Album insert, lyrics, artist facts and news. How hard would that be to add for songs purchased from Itunes. Think of the Value-add. It would be nice to have a FM transmitter was well.

  • And yet. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by k_stamour (544142) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:42PM (#10634060) Homepage
    Still no ogg.
  • by Delphix (571159) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:44PM (#10634075)
    The iPod just jumped the shark. There's a point in the life of a product where you try to integrate too much functionality. The iPod does music, and it does it very well.

    Granted some people like these new integrated all in one cellphone, photoholder, music player, portable video players, but I'm going to have to go with "more is less" in this case.

    I think certain devices (like the GameBoy Advance and the iPod) do well because they do one thing and they do it well. As long as they don't cripple or obfuscate the basic functionality, the iPod will still do fine. But once a company loses sight of what the product was made for and start trying to make it a swiss army knife, things tend to go downhill (N-Gage?).

    I still like the iPod and I don't think it's going away. But I think Apple's starting to toe the line on the border swiss army knife land...
  • Screw photos (Score:3, Insightful)

    by digital bath (650895) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:44PM (#10634080) Homepage
    With 40gb/60gb, you could store quite a few compressed dvds on there. I want an iMovie!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:46PM (#10634104)
    One of those little extra touches that always puts Apple products ahead of their competitors.
    If by "ahead of their competitors" means several other companies have already released media players which have had this same function for months now, then yes, I suppose you're right.
  • by Slack3r78 (596506) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:47PM (#10634123) Homepage
    The first thing that popped into my head seeing this is whether or not it supports PictBridge. If so, they may be able to push it to professional photographers who are having to lug around a notebook as things stand right now. As much photostorage as a notebook but fits in your pocket while still providing a way to check what you've got stored? I could see how that would be appealing to someone with a DSLR camera.
  • by Dazza (2865) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:48PM (#10634141)
    I want it built in to the product, not *another* piece of kit to carry round. If Nokia are going to build SD card reading into phone, surely having it build into a iPod type device isn't too much to ask ?
  • Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by switcha (551514) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:54PM (#10634219)
    When I think of photo capabilities, I think of something take can _take_ photos.

    Yes, because what the world is waiting for is a device that can store tens of thousands of shitty photos. Leave the image capture to the proper equipment. The portability is what's cool for sharing the pics, not taking them.

  • by jdreed1024 (443938) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:54PM (#10634220)
    I think Apple missed the boat here. The killer function they should add to the iPod is a camera- which goes along nicely with the photo storage features. Nothing flashy or expensive, but for another $50 they could add a lens that's better than the cell phone cams

    I don't think that would have worked. There's no market for a low-quality digital camera add-on, I think. You can get a "real" no-frills digital camera (ie: the equivalent of a 35mm point-n-shoot) for just about $100 at BestBuy, and probably for a lot cheaper with rebate. Or you can sometimes get one for free with a new computer or printer. That pretty much covers the price range of the cell phone cams.

    The iPod appeals to people who already have a lot of gadgets. It's like a Sharper Image/Brookstone version of the walkman (yes, oversimplification, I know). That audience probably either has a real digital camera or a cell phone camera, and addding $50 for a decent camera lens on the iPod isn't going to help.

    What I think they're doing here is offering a neat little feature that will be a plus when comparing models. It also plays up the "more than just a music player" aspect of the iPod (I've been using mine to backup my HD for a while now, but the average person probably doesn't).

    If they're clever, they had a little chat with Belkin when coming up with the idea for this, since the photo feature evokes thoughts of the CameraLink [belkin.com]. Currently, all it does is provide a USB port to hook up a camera and function as a mass storage device. Assuming Apple and Belkin were smart, the new version of the CameraLink will copy the images to the iPod along with the relevant metadata to have them displayed by the Photo feature. Now *that* would be pretty darn cool. Except that my digital camera speaks serial, not USB :-(

  • No thanks... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jemenake (595948) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:55PM (#10634236)
    Maybe I'm a luddite, but I just don't care for photos on my iPod.

    Part of what makes my iPod so nice is that its interface is really simple. I think that this is due, in part, to the fact that it doesn't do a large variety of things. All it does is play music based on playlist, artist, or album.

    I've seen similar cluttering on my TiVo. It used to be just about 4 or 5 menu items on the main screen. Now, it's packed from the top of the screen to the bottom.

    My old Symbian phone did tons of stuff. Games, calendar, to-do list, camera, web browser... you could even make phone calls with it. :P Problem was, you had to navigate through 3 pages of icons just to get to the app you needed.

    I don't want my iPod to become like my cell phone.
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:55PM (#10634241)
    ...about the original iPod, and iPod mini.

    And they're runaway successes, to put it mildly.

    On one hand, we had analysts and pundits of all types saying Apple will fail if it *didn't* include photo/video functionality in a handheld, and now we've got a luminary here predicting it will fail because it *did*.

    Well, I think I'll trust Apple's judgment on this one, considering it seems to know what it's doing, thank you.
  • by Moses Lawn (201138) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:56PM (#10634250)
    This sounds like a really cool device, although I don't particularly want or need one (if I was rich, though, hell yeah). What I'm excited about is the idea that this means that the prices for regular iPods *should* come down a little. For $250, I could rationalize a 20G unit. Or will Apple be dropping all the old models?

    On a related note, I like the black model but I really wish it didn't come with all that U2 crap on it. Yes, they had several classic, groundbreaking albums, but they haven't been very relevant since what - the late 80s? How about the Little Feat model iPod, or the Stax/Volt collection model? I'd buy one of those.
  • by Trurl's Machine (651488) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:56PM (#10634252) Journal
    The iPod needs metadata. People will not suddenly start putting information along with their photos.

    Most digital cameras create basic metadata as the Exif tags [accusoft.com] embedded in standard JPEG files. They provide basic informations such as camera type, shutter, aperture and original photo creation date (not necessarily the same as when the actual file was created). It's enough for iPhoto to sort pictures "by (virtual) roll", probably iPod software will work in similar way. On the musical side, iPod allows you to edit some of the metadata iTunes store in your musical library (you can alter your rating of a given file and also you automatically alter "last listening date" and "play count" just by playing a song file). Probably new iPod will also allow you to rate your photos and maybe change some of their arrangements.
  • by n0mad6 (668307) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:57PM (#10634271)
    I've owned a Canon Digital Rebel (EOS 300D) [dpreview.com] for a little over 3 months now and have acquired approximately 7GB of photos in that time (not counting RAW images). This is purely a hobby. I'm sure other amateur photographers will agree with me that 60GB isn't really overkill, even just for photos, let alone for both photos and music.
  • by nuxx (10153) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:02PM (#10634327) Homepage
    Why didn't you do some research before reformatting your iBook? Why didn't you do some research on how to pull music from your iPod back into iTunes? This process is very well documented all over the place.

    It sounds to me like you are either trolling, or really didn't know what you were doing when you started this process.

    Remember, data, especially purchased data, is important. Always back it up.
  • by dynayellow (106690) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:03PM (#10634344)
    Looks like it's time for this link again. [mac.com]

    No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. -You know who...
  • Re:Missing Feature (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Miphnik (239859) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:05PM (#10634387)
    Which format card reader would you put in? Compact flash? MMC/SD/Mini SD/TransFlash (last two with adapters)? Memory stick? xD? All of these are in common use in digital cameras (or camera phones, in the case of TransFlash), leaving Apple with three choices:

    Put readers for all of them in, and grow the iPod photo even further (already noted that it's thicker than the 4G iPod)

    Build multiple versions of the iPod photo, each with a different card reader to minimize size impact, but complicating manufacture, inventory, and marketing (40GB/SD, 60GB/xD, 40GB/Memory stick, etc.)

    Leave the card reader out to keep things simple (and less expensive to manufacture and support), and let third parties fill in the gap with an external device -- possibly like a revised version of the existing Belkin card reader
    I'm not surprised Apple chose #3. Now, why Apple didn't design the iPod photo to download photos directly from a digital camera via a USB 2.0 cable, that's another question entirely...

  • by Dark Paladin (116525) * <jhummel@johnhumm ... t minus caffeine> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:10PM (#10634454) Homepage
    The second reason why Mr. Jobs isn't offering "video on the iPod" is for legal liability.

    Yes, the Archos lets you watch xvid/divx movies on it, but I'm willing to bet they don't include a DVD ripper. So this is a niche product where they assume the buyers know how to get xvid movies (or rip them themselves instead of sucking them via P2P).

    So if Mr. Jobs were to offer an iPod with video capability, he'd have to have the infrastructure in place to support it. iTunes offered out of the box MP3/AIFF ripping for the iPod.

    Odds are, once he can convince the MPAA the way he convinced the RIAA that having digital movies available for download is not the equivalent to the "Boston Strangler", then we'll see an iPod Video as well as an iPod Photo. (Though, I am rather curious to see how an iPod video would handle battery life - a moot point at this stage.)
  • by saddino (183491) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:12PM (#10634471)
    iTunes instead of iPhoto

    There is no iPhoto for Windows, hence Apple had to embed photo management into iTunes to support the dual-platform iPod.

    If Apple is indeed developing iPhoto for Windows -- which would take some time -- then it wouldn't make sense for Apple to wait and push the delivery of the new iPod past this Christmas season (esp. if they could simply hack iTunes to handle basic photo management).
  • by kkrista (814366) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:12PM (#10634473) Homepage

    With all the rumors of a photo ipod that have been floating around for months, I was always curious how Apple would handle this for Windows users. It appeared that Apple had two choices:

    1. make iPhoto available on the Windows platform and thus dilute the iLife suite
    2. restrict the photo capabilities to the Mac platform only

    I think it's interesting, but clever, that Apple took the rather unorthodox approach of transfering photos via iTunes. It would seem a good compromise that doesn't leave either of their supported ipod platforms out in the cold. Sure, this crossover muddies the water in terms of each program's functionality; but it works as a simple way to offer the new hardware to a wider audience.

  • by jafac (1449) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:20PM (#10634583) Homepage
    Exactly.

    unless they come up with a way to transfer photos directly from the Camera to the iPod. . .

    Most cameras have USB, not fire-wire.

    My preference, of course, is for the cameras to start offering fire-wire, rather than put a USB plug on the iPod.

    But really, with such a small screen, the only utility a photo-capable iPod has is basically for portable mass-storage (for obsessive-compulsive shutterbugs). And with that level of expense, the main competition is thumbdrives and flash cards (like the ones most cameras already have).

  • Re:More info (Score:3, Insightful)

    by superdan2k (135614) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:20PM (#10634597) Homepage Journal
    "Not to mention $600 (and $500 for that matter) is really reaching, considering we are just talking about music and pictures"

    Based on that statement, I'd guess that you probably don't own an iPod. I bought one two years ago -- a 20-gigabyte 2nd-generation model -- and it's as much a part of my life as my wallet and keyring. It's that simple. This thing has done for music what TiVo has done for TV. If I can carry my entire porn^H^H^hoto library with me, along with my entire music collection, that's worth investing a bit more than I spent two years ago.

    Quite frankly, I think 60GB is about perfect, given that my music collection is about 40GB in size.
  • by Frank of Earth (126705) <frank @ f p e r k ins.com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:24PM (#10634654) Homepage Journal
    The reason why people buy iPods is because iPods are the newest "trend" in mp3 players. Nobody is going to be impressed by your klunky looking Archos but if you whip out an iPod, you know people would be staring.

    Of course there are better products out there.. but it's the one that is marketed the best which wins.

  • by ostiguy (63618) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:29PM (#10634716)
    Am I the only one who wants to be able to plug a camera directly into a mp3 player and transfer photos without needed a 3rd party (belkin) widget?

    I don't really see the appeal of the ipod photo otherwise - I think my blackberry pager/phone has higher resolution

    ostiguy
  • Very true: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by itistoday (602304) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:32PM (#10634774) Homepage
    Slashdotters are, as usual, not what this iPod's aimed at. Think more in terms of proud family members - mothers and aunts especially.

    How true, before all you cynics open your mouths remember when the iPod was first introduced; all the comments on /. were predicting doom and failure ("the prices! OH THE PRICES!!!"). I don't think I need to point out how things turned out...

    Now that Apple finally found a way to sink its teeth into the market, I think they're going to be careful about the moves they make this time, especially with competitors itching to steal the market.
  • by NRP128 (710672) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:38PM (#10634858) Homepage Journal
    I bit the bullet and purchased a 40GB 4G in July/August to upgrade/replace a 128MB RCA Lyra that started my addiction of having music with me at all times. In the 3 months of heavy use of my iPod, here's the list of what i would like to see:

    integrated SD-memory reading (my dig camera uses SD cards, they're smaller than CF, and while not as flexible as far as legacy use and capacity, almost every portable device i've looked into purchasing uses SD or xD memory over CF.

    REMOVEABLE BATTERY - for the love of christ would they get this one right. it would really ease my mind significantly if they'd make it interchangable at home, maybe on the fly, where i can keep a spare battery handy as i do for my cell phone and dig camera, (2 spares in teh case of the camera) and when one goes dead, i do a swap. the thought of having to send my 4G off in a year or two at the cost of an ADDITIONAL $100 because they found it more convienent to design an integrated battery on an otherwise superior product gives me shivers.

    iCal and Address Book for Windows, or at the very least an iTunes extention that lets you manage these two precious entities. Oh, and a smart playlist parameter for whether or not a song is checked!

    Adjustable click wheel sensitivity and a dedicated reset button. My wheel has the most annoying tendancy to NOT want to move ONE click. no matter how softly i caress it or how little i bump it i usually move 2 or 3. maybe it's because i have larger than normal fingers or something. idk. also, if the thing has the remote possibility of choking on a bad mp3 and crashing, i'd love to have a manual reset button that doesn't go through software. That process sounds like something M$ came up with. many times mine will crash and run itself dead because the reset method doesn't work. even docked.

    If they're going to integrate a color screen onto the ipod they shouldn't have went the LCD route, but used emerging tech like full color organic Electro-Luminescent displays (think Pioneer's high end car stereos) Sony just released a PDA in japan based on this screen design, which is far superior to LCD for the parameters of a portable device. It requires no battery-hungry and heat generating back light. It has better viewability (word?) in direct sunlight than LCDs. It may not have the color detail, but the resolutions are comparable. It would be suitable for a small display like the iPod Photo's. This would ahve allowed them to retain at least somehwat more of the battery life.

    Are you listening Mr Jobs? Some of these things are not that damned difficult to implement, and others would just take a bit of time and effort.
  • by Moofie (22272) <lee.ringofsaturn@com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:40PM (#10634875) Homepage
    I bought my iPod because it works better, not because somebody thinks it's cool.

    Style and good design are not the same thing. Style changes every week. Good design is timeless.
  • Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by HedonismBot (742920) <guiller@gmailDEBIAN.com minus distro> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:40PM (#10634882)
    I also want to know, where does this leave iPhoto? "Now, you too can organize your pictures.. in iTunes! But you don't. You just download them there. You organize your pictures in iPhoto but you download them with iTunes, but you can also do it in iTunes if you want. Got it?"

    It's not as if they have a lot of choices. If they keep photo management for iPhoto, winPods will be useless and if they ported iPhoto they would have one less reason for you to buy an iMac; pretty much lose-lose. Educated guess? Half-assed try with iTunes, the real deal with iPhoto.
  • by Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:48PM (#10634969) Homepage
    The gMini400 is very cool, no question. To be fair, though, the list price of the gMini400 is $399, only $100 less than the iPod (yes, you can find iPods for less than list price, too), and the iPod actually has longer battery life (15 hours compared to 10), besides having twice the disk space. The gMini400 may be right for you, but the iPod is hardly a bad deal.
  • by afish40 (774995) <mario AT dotmatr ... reosound DOT com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:04PM (#10635132) Homepage

    To me, their reliance on Adobe products for Windows sounds like they have no plans to expand iPhoto beyond the Mac.

    The same was assumed about iTunes, back when Windows iPods used Musicmatch Jukebox for music sync.

  • by Warlock7 (531656) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:05PM (#10635144)
    This has always been the complaint about Apple and EVERY OTHER pc manufacturer out there. "Moore's Law isn't fair. Get over it, because it hasn't slowed them down yet.

    This model has been expected since March, when the news was spreading that Apple bought the 60 GB drives and didn't release a 60 GB iPod.

    Aside from that, the price point is higher and this wouldn't have entered into the spectrum for many.
  • by Kenshin (43036) <kenshin@lunarworksFREEBSD.ca minus bsd> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:18PM (#10635306) Homepage
    My problem with alot of these alternative devices is their use of buttons to access your music library.

    It's simply way too slow and clunky of a method for scrolling through long lists. That's why a wheel or something of the sort is absolutely necessary.
  • by Ohreally_factor (593551) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:26PM (#10635387) Journal
    Uh, color LCD the major power drain? Compared to the HD? If you play video, the HD is constantly spinning. If you play music (or are viewing photos) the HD fills the buffer then spins down. Rinse and repeat.

    Also judging by the tech specs (and perhaps deductive reasoning) the HD is spinning down less for slideshows (buffer is filled faster by photos and music). Battery life for slideshows is 5 continuous hours. Battery life for music playback is 15 hours.
  • by Ebisu_11 (600068) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:41PM (#10635521)
    Just had a thought that what the new iPods allow you to do is to deliver visual books/presentations for people on the go. I could imagine scanning or taking photos of pictures from a book or pictures that tell a story. You can then record an audio track that will either narate the pictures or tell the story using Garageband. Upload both the files to your ipod and you're ready to go. I imagine my 4 year old son would really like looking at pictures of his favorite book and having his father narate the story. Great for long car rides. Add RSS 2.0 enclosures and the whole Podcasting thing has a new meaning.
  • by calstraycat (320736) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:42PM (#10635526)
    As an Apple shareholder and happy owner of some Apple products, all I can say is: Thank God Slashdot members don't run Apple.

    Every time Apple introduces a new product, there is an endless series of posts about why it sucks, why it won't sell, what features were left out, why the new features are worthless, why it's too expensive, lists of poorly selling products that are "superior" and have more features and on and on and on.

    Apple's revenues are up, their profits are up, they have a slew of successful products and they have a lot of happy customers.

    Give it a rest guys. Let the market decide if the latest offering sucks. Based on history, when Slashdotters say an Apple product won't sell, it ends up being a phenomenal success.
  • by SuperKendall (25149) * on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:57PM (#10635706)
    I think the new Photo iPod will do very well. But the missing key that would really make it take off is a set of much better media readers.

    Right now the Belkin device is really slow, and also requires seperate batteries. In addition you can't transfer too much to the iPod without it dying either.

    Apple has taken care of a few of those items with a larger battery. It could probably support a standalone unpowered reader, powered from the iPod itself.

    So now all they need is new readers that are unpowered and a bit faster than the current ones to really take off in the market. While it would have been nice to be able to transfer pictures directly from cameras, good media reading capabilities will do just about as well in the market at large.
  • by badasscat (563442) <basscadet75&yahoo,com> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:58PM (#10635718)
    Also, the article you mention is from someone that does NOT want to be recogonized by their iPod.. I would guess that's the minority.

    I think the point is that fashion accessory or not, they're already passe in a lot of areas.

    I live in NYC too and I agree with the OP; iPods are a dime a dozen around here. You end up looking more like a conformist walking around with one than anything else.

    Which doesn't say anything about the quality of the device. It just says that this argument that people buy them to be "cool" doesn't really wash anymore, at least not in areas of the country where "cool" seems to even mean anything. (I'd imagine iPods are as ubiquitous in pretty much every large, cosmopolitan city these days.)

    It's the same phenomenon as the cel phone. For the first few years they were expensive and exotic; if you had one, you showed it off. But at first, it was mainly a product for the elite. Eventually the prices came down to where at least the upper middle class could finally afford them, and Motorola's Startac both gave the cool kids a phone they could show off while simultaneously making cel phones a commodity. Nowadays, are you at all impressed whenever anybody whips out their shiny new clamshell phone? I'm not, and I doubt most people are - if anything you're probably annoyed at being bothered by the ringer or by the yapping going on next to you.

    Apple's doing the same thing with the iPod. We've progressed past the point where iPods are considered "cool"; we're now to the point where they're almost boring, and are well on our way to the point where just seeing that white earbud cord looks pretentious and stupid.

    I don't know if the whole mp3 player thing will play out exactly the way the cel phone thing did, but it's a pretty common pattern in technology - a product is invented, one company comes in and popularizes it with the kids, inadvertantly commoditizes it at the same time, and eventually loses market share as the whole category becomes passe and competitors take advantage.

    This is obviously what Sony's counting on, and honestly, now that Sony's supporting mp3 natively (or said they're going to, at least), I'd probably rather have one of their somewhat more anonymous-looking Network Walkmans than an iPod. I don't think this stranglehold Apple has on the market is going to continue forever; somebody's just got to design a better product first. I don't think the iPod "brand" is as strong as Apple thinks it is, especially now that it's no longer as hip as it once was - their success right now is based on the fact that they've still got the product with the best combination of size, shape, and ease of use (though others may excel in one particular area, such as battery life, Apple's at least "pretty good" in all of them).

    This U2 iPod's going to be a big dud. Pre-load it with all of their music for $350, then you've got something. But $50 off a $150 purchase, and it's $50 more expensive? Am I understanding that right? So in the end, you're basically just paying for a 20GB iPod, and the "box set" is another $100. How is this a good deal?

    Photo iPod, also a dud. If you want to transport your photos around, you can do it just on your regular iPod (for like half the price). Who really wants to pay extra so they can look at photos on that tiny little screen? I may as well just carry my digital camera around and leave them all on that.

    The regular iPods will continue being the bread and butter for the iPod line.
  • Sync with Keynote (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:17PM (#10635955)
    Now if Apple will just update Keynote to where it can export slides into the iPod Photo, I could use the iPod to connect to a LCD projector for a slideshow presentation rather than lugging a laptop.
  • by danigiri (310827) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:27PM (#10636081)
    Hear this? Its just one more proverbial turd hitting the fan in Redmond. One little annoying piece of software that is kinda like being used all the time, called iTunes, just got one more compelling reason to be used instead of Windows Media Whatever(TM). Bummer.

    On the other hand, even though iPod Photo is considered too limited by the slashdot crowd, we have been proven wrong before (I also disliked the iPod and now own one).

    AND... for each iPod Photo sold there is one less Windows Portable Media Brick sold. Hear that again? ^_^ It's not a proverbial turd this time, but the sound of the Halo Effect(TM).
  • by DaveCBio (659840) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:31PM (#10636134)
    True, but all that it will take to unseat Apple is for someone to make something more "hip and cool". Apple makes decent products, but they aren't the be and end all that Mac zealots say they are. Also, just like a lot of companies that succeed they refine other people's ideas. The MP3 player has been around for a long time, Apple just pacakaged it well and charged a premium then engaged in a clever marketing campaign.
  • Re:dumb (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tf23 (27474) <(tf23) (at) (lottadot.com)> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:33PM (#10636153) Homepage Journal
    What's the screen size of this new iPod versus photos that people carry in their wallets? Or in their purses?

    Yes, the iPod would be smaller. But it'd be more convenient, and easier to show *many* photos to someone.

    Personally, I like it. I think it's a good idea. Even with the color screen it's battery will last longer then my 3G.

    If only the price weren't so damned steep for the color 60GB.... :(
  • Re:dumb (Score:2, Insightful)

    by SilentEchoes (737817) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:36PM (#10636184)
    The ability to keep 60GB of photos around with their music as well. While working in the field. They can store their work on the iPod, View it, Compare it. And avoid draining the already pathetic battery time in a digital camera.

    I am no photographer so I can't really give any good examples but a friend of mine is and he is extremely pleased with this release so I can only go on what I hear.
  • by kiddailey (165202) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:41PM (#10636229) Homepage

    I gotta admit, as a long-time Mac user, fan and shareholder, I'm a little disappointed.

    Let me get this straight. I use iTunes to sync my photos with my iPod and if I used iPhoto to organize my library, iTunes has to import them before I can sync?

    This makes absolutely NO sense, Steve! What are you thinking. iPhoto should be the software that I use to sync photos to my iPod, not iTunes. Sure, it's two different apps and iPhoto isn't available for Windows (yet), but whos to say that everyone is going to do both music and photos anyway?

    I'm almost worried this is a sign of the end of good, clean, simple design and good usability. Hopefully I'm wrong and once I try out the software it will make more sense.
  • by Thorkytel Ant-Head (593092) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @07:25PM (#10636655)
    I would have to disagree with your assessment of the iPod Photo. First of all, the regular iPod is only $100 cheaper than the iPod Photo, not "half the price." Secondly, you can look at photos on any television, not just on the iPod screen. Thirdly, if your digital camera holds 25,000 photos, I'm sure the memory card alone cost a lot more than $100. And I'm sure your digital camera doesn't automatically sync with your latest pictures, doesn't allow you to make custom albums, doesn't allow you to output slideshows with music, and so on. Say what you want about wanting to save money, but for people who want to carry lots of pictures around with them, paying $100 more is very, very reasonable. And that doesn't even count the full-color album artwork, a clearer screen, and the various other perks of a color iPod.
  • by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:23PM (#10637209) Homepage
    DivX, legally acquired, non-DRMd. I own the DVDs. I put the DVDs in my computer, rip them and encode them in DivX. They never leave my computer/gMini, and they certainly don't go on P2P networks. I believe that's perfectly in line with my fair use rights.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:26PM (#10638430)
    Pre-load it with all of their music

    Idiot! If you pre-load it, you can't get the music off of it. Also, they can't use FairPlay DRM on it.

    Photo iPod, also a dud.

    "No wireless. Less space than a Nomad. Lame."

    I may as well just carry my digital camera around and leave them all on that.

    So, will your camera hold 10,000 photos? Mine sure won't. It also won't output to a TV.

    The regular iPods will continue being the bread and butter for the iPod line.

    Jesus Christ, you're so fucking smart! I would never have thought that!
  • by michaeldot (751590) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:37PM (#10638504)
    Museums and galleries have already been using regular iPods as tour guides, example [thestandard.com], so with a color screen to display the artwork at the same time, this seems a natural fit.
  • iTMS tidbit (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Mildew Man (718763) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @01:26PM (#10644070)
    Seems people here have missed out on the tidbit that Apple projects to sell over 17.7 million songs on the iTMS for October. That's up from 10.8 million songs in May. At this rate they will reach 20 million songs per month by December (or sooner). That's 240 million songs per year and growing. I don't have numbers for the rest on the online music industry (a little help here from anyone with the time to get current numbers) but it seems that they are increasing their lead. Can you say "juggernaut"?
  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @04:15PM (#10657140) Homepage Journal
    (1) is subjective. Many people have no great desire to carry around a large number of gadgets. You don't find the feature useful, don't buy it then, don't assume others will.

    (2) Put up or shut up. If you actually believe the majority of digital cameras have large, decent, screens, then by all means show this. It shouldn't be hard.

    (3) Again, put up or shut up. I can't fit my Kodak in my pocket, not comfortably anyway. Neither can my girlfriend. I think I know only one person in the entire office with a small, reasonably functional, digital camera. I've walked past the rows of cameras at various electronic stores and online [amazon.com] and, by and large, the small, comfortably pocketable, cameras are in the minority - and most of them have small screens. Take a look at the search results from Amazon I just linked to and count the number you'd comfortably carry around with you everywhere compared to those you wouldn't.

    (4) I stand corrected. I don't think it changes my point much, 20G carries a lot of photos, 1G doesn't.

    Oh, and ad-hominems aren't really a way to get your point across. You might have scored more than one out of four if you were less interested in insulting iPod owners (or "ipod fans") and more interested in publishing facts and figures.

We have a equal opportunity Calculus class -- it's fully integrated.

Working...