Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media (Apple) Businesses Media Movies Apple

Ars Technica Vivisects A Video iPod 211

Posted by Zonk from the all-in-the-name-of-science dept.
phaedo00 writes "The guys over at Ars Technica have put together another one of their infamous reviews. This time they tackle the video iPod and give it a proper review, complete with vivisection and a discussion of the guts." From the article: "It wouldn't be an Ars iPod review without a dissection (or in this case, a vivisection since the patient survived) and discussion. Talking about what changes were made on the exterior of the device is fine and well, but the real interesting stuff--to me anyways--is found within. As the old adage says, 'it's what's on the inside that counts.' With that, I'm dismantling this iPod in the name of science. All went well: I was able to put to back together and it's working fine." An interesting counter-point to previous coverage.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ars Technica Vivisects A Video iPod More

Ars Technica Vivisects A Video iPod

Comments Filter:

  • Vivisection... (Score:4, Informative)

    by br4dh4x0r ( 137273 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:53PM (#13837172)
    a vivisection since the patient survived

    Vivisection means you cut on a living animal. Not that it survived the process.

    Just sayin.
    • To me, it means that they opened it without breaking it, unlike a disection which would involve the destruction of the player.

  • Well.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by stunt_penguin ( 906223 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @12:54PM (#13837176)
    ... it may be working now, but I think they may have invalidated the warranty (^^)

  • word choice (Score:5, Informative)

    by PresidentEnder ( 849024 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (rednenrevyw)> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:00PM (#13837219) Journal
    Actually, dissect is a synonym for "analyze," which in this case is appropriate; however, when we say dissect, we usually wish to evoke images of tissue and high school biology. The definition of dissect has no reference to anything dying. Vivisect, on the other hand, means "to cut a body open while still alive," which means that it has to be alive in the first place. Given that the video iPod was "dead" for a part of the procedure (can't run it while it isn't connected to battery, for example), dissect may be more appropriate. However, given that this is a gadget and not a living being, I would have chosen "disassembles" or "takes apart." Vivisect just sounds cool, though. That said, was anything learned that wasn't in apple's literature? Have we now any enjoyable hacks [uncyclopedia.org] for the video iPod?

  • iPod nano review (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WTBF ( 893340 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:02PM (#13837239)
    I think that the stress testing in Ars technica's iPod nano review should be done on the video iPod as well. I clicked that link expecting to see an ipod getting run over and all I get is it being pulled to pieces.

    This [arstechnica.com] is what I call a proper review.
    • Funny, I thought the Ars Technica nano review was grounds to investigate them for being Apple shills.

      Because for all their "testing," they failed to discover how easily the nano is scratched. At least the new review acknowledges the nano scratching.

  • No firewire! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lidocaineus ( 661282 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:02PM (#13837242)
    I must've skimmed over that fact in all the previous video iPod announcements, so ignore this or mark redundant if you feel so inclined. Ars seems to attribute it to decreasing the amount of space needed for the FW chipset. I'm glad Apple's still working to decrease the size, and I KNOW it's not that vital... but losing firewire seems a little sad.

    Yes I know there's no rational reason for that (and they had good reasons to move on), but hey, there it is. Maybe it stems directly from my original experience with the 2G iPod (my first one) where you could just jam any old cable into the huge built in FW port on the device.
    • ... it's big-time sad. Google around for "USB vs. Firewire" and you'll see:

      The Firewire protocol was designed for video

      Pretty much every test shows Firewire 400 outperforming USB2, despite the 400 vs 480 Mbit theoretical speed difference

      The performance difference is significant (at least 10%, and often more), and it goes up with bigger files, like video

      You would think that a video iPod would be the place you would definitely want Firewire, at least as an option.

      My daughter is getting ready to buy herself a

      • Re:No firewire is not a LITTLE sad... (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @02:23PM (#13837966)
        The performance difference is significant (at least 10%, and often more), and it goes up with bigger files, like video

        You would think that a video iPod would be the place you would definitely want Firewire, at least as an option.

        It would be nice to still have but you're making too big a deal out of it in this particular case.

        The iPod's video files are native 320x240 mpeg-4 files. You can go up to something like 480x480, I guess, and if you compress them yourself you can make them relatively huge (not that you'd want to; it'd just be a waste of space), but the point is that in absolute terms, these are not large video files. You could easily stream them over USB2 with no hiccups whatsoever. You could probably stream a dozen of them at a time if the iPod supported such a thing.

        But that's not the way the iPod works anyway. Now, I'm not 100% sure that the 5G iPod works the same as the 4G and previous models (I would assume it does), but you don't generally "stream" anything from the iPod to your PC. You *can*, depending on how you set up your sync preferences, but by default all of your iPod's contents will be greyed out because they're by definition just duplicated on the PC anyway. Probably 95% of iPod users have their systems set up this way, but the remaining 5% will have no trouble streaming video from the iPod over USB2.

        Generally, though, the PC connection is just used for syncing. And you don't need to do that more than about once a week, unless you really collect huge amounts of music and movies on a daily basis. So you're not going to notice any speed difference between USB and Firewire there.

        Now, if you just want to use the iPod as a mass-storage device for video (which you can also do), and store really high-res, high-def stuff on it (like a full-res .ts file from a high-def 1080i capture), then I don't know, but I'd still think USB2 could handle that. You're still only talking a 19.8mb/sec streaming rate. My wireless internet connection can handle that without a hiccup, so a wired USB2 connection shouldn't have any problem with it. (USB2's theoretical transfer rate is 480mb/sec, although with overhead included, in reality it's much lower.)

        What Firewire is primarily used for in terms of video is uncompressed, full-res professional stuff. We use it where I work, for example, to store media on portable drives for transport. That's where the advantages of Firewire really make themselves apparent; USB2 never really gets near its theoretical speed limit and it'll hiccup more and more as you get closer to it, but Firewire stays nice and smooth right up to around 400mbps (assuming you're using Firewire 400, which is what older iPods supported).

        But I can't see that anyone who uses the iPod as designed is going to have any problems with video. And nobody who really needs Firewire for video is going to be using an iPod in that capacity anyway; that video would be too important (and probably too big) to transport with anything but an industrial-strength full-size portable hard drive.

        I'm glad I have a Firewire-capable 4G iPod only because I can use the included firewire cable and charger that came with my iPod without having to rely on my PC if I don't need to sync. But I could live without it if I didn't have it, and the video on the new iPod's really got no relevance to the issue.
        • Thanks for the info - I'd mod it informative if I could.

          And nobody who really needs Firewire for video is going to be using an iPod in that capacity anyway; that video would be too important (and probably too big) to transport with anything but an industrial-strength full-size portable hard drive.

          But wouldn't it be cool if I could take a consumer-grade video camera and record straight to my iPod? One reason I don't do more home video is the annoying import-from-camera-tape-at-real-time step. I hope Steve

        • It would be nice to still have but you're making too big a deal out of it in this particular case.

          As someone with a flat-panel G4 iMac ( USB 1.1 and Firewire, no USB 2.0 or expandability ), I have to say that for *me*, this is a *very* big deal. It makes getting a non-Firewire IPod a non-starter; I just can't do it without replacing an otherwise perfectly good computer.

          Apple has it's own reasons for not making these Firewire-compatable, but by doing so, they've lost a sale.

          Of course, they know I already

    • Re:No firewire! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Yaztromo ( 655250 )

      Yes I know there's no rational reason for that

      I can think of one very rational reason -- Macs can booth from a Firewire-based iPod, but can't from a USB-based iPod.

      This has me a bit cheesed off, as I've used some space on my 3G iPod to install a minimal Tiger installation. I'm a road warrior, and if something were to go wrong with my PowerBook's hard drive while on the road, being able to boot off the iPod to do diagnostics and run utilities is a huge boon. It saved my bacon once when my PowerBooks ha

      • Maybe not, but a PC can.

        And believe it or not, the majority of iPod owners are PC users.

        Maybe, instead of griping about apple dropping a seldom-used port on their iPod in order to make it smaller (a logical idea), you should be asking why a Mac can't boot off of a USB device, even though it has the ports (which is not logical at all) ?

        • And believe it or not, the majority of iPod owners are PC users.

          I certainly know it to be true -- why imply I might not?

          The old system worked perfectly well for this, as previous generations of iPod could handle either connection type. So everybody was happy.

          Maybe, instead of griping about apple dropping a seldom-used port on their iPod in order to make it smaller

          There is no seperate physical port for USB vs Firewire on any of the iPods with dock connector. It's not an issue of having two plugs --

          • Re:No firewire! (Score:3, Informative)

            by DeeKayWon ( 155842 )
            There is no seperate physical port for USB vs Firewire on any of the iPods with dock connector. It's not an issue of having two plugs -- previous generations of iPod had the necessary circuitry within a single port to handle either connection type. So we're not talking about Apple dropping a physical port on the unit to make it smaller -- the port is the same size now that it has been for the last several iPod generations.

            He's referring to the space saved by not having firewire hardware on the circuit boa

    • Re:No firewire! (Score:3, Informative)

      by argent ( 18001 )
      I know there's no rational reason for that (and they had good reasons to move on)

      Like, Windows supports USB better than Firewire?

      Mac OS sure doesn't. I have way more problems with USB drives on my Macs at home and at work than with firewire ones.
    • While the loss of firewire is no doubt tragic to some people, to the overwhelming majority it's really no big deal -- comparable transfer rate with USB 2.0, and virtually any computer built recently has loads of USB 2.0 ports.

      IMHO, the greatest misfeature of iPods is their continued lack of a user-replaceable battery. This has been a problem since the first-generation model, and still hasn't been addressed on the fifth. The "send us your iPod and we'll replace the battery for you" solution is mighty inconve
      • You can buy iPod batteries and install them yourself. They even give you the tools required. Okay, it's not as straightforward as it is on devices such as PSP, cell phones, and such - but it's not too hard. The easiest to do it with are the big iPods, with the mini being somewhat more difficult.

    • Re:No firewire! (Score:3, Informative)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      In addition to all the other issues with no firewire...Apple support for USB is not that great, USB cannot boot, USB is slower than firewire 800, there is one other big issue.

      USB will not charge over the port unless the computer and device is on. That means if the device battery is dead, or you want your let the computer sleep, the device must be charged by an external charger. One of the greatest things about the iPod was I was able to just leave it hooked up the Firewire hub and have it charged, then

      • USB will not charge over the port unless the computer and device is on.

        I have had several motherboards in my homebuilt PCs provides power to the USB ports when the computer is supposedly "off". So it depends on what kind of computer you're running. If anything, a powered USB hub should be able to charge the iPod too.

  • iPod Video review at Designtechnica (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:02PM (#13837245)
    http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review3298.html [designtechnica.com]

    These guys actually posted their last night, worth a read too.
    • The video out is 640x480, but only photos can use the full res.

      Videos can be up to 480x480 if they are MPEG-4 (although some other combinations work too, like 640x336), and are output at the resolution they are encoded at, not just at 320x240.

      Also, it's not wider. It just plain isn't. It's easy to verify, it's ridiculous that someone would do a review and get that wrong.

  • Good job, submitter. (Score:4, Funny)

    by generic-man ( 33649 ) * on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:04PM (#13837252) Homepage Journal
    Instead of fostering discussion about the Video iPod, in which I get to hear bitching that it doesn't play Xvid/Divx/Grand Ogg Tarkin, I get to hear semantics arguments about why the word "vivisection" is not appropriate. Boo.

  • Wait! You'll offend Dvorak! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Overly Critical Guy ( 663429 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:04PM (#13837257)
    You're making Dvorak cry!

    Can't you write about, I don't know, tabs in IE7 or something? Who wants to hear about the multi-billion selling iPod? Isn't there another Windows vulnerability you can write about? Maybe another non-functioning "PlayForSure" device or removed Vista feature that already exists in OS X?

    I knew it! You're clearly biased!

  • Perhaps of more interest to /. readers..... (Score:5, Informative)

    by 8127972 ( 73495 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:05PM (#13837266)
    ..... is the this Vivisection of an iPod complete with a cost breakdown of the components and an estimation of what Apple makes off of each iPod.

    https://jefferies.bluematrix.com/docs/pdf/31086.pd f [bluematrix.com]

  • 640x480 video? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The article mentions that the iPod's video codec chip is capable of decoding 640x480 MPEG-4-SP, not just the 480x480 that Apple has claimed.

    Has anyone actually tried getting a 640x480 video to play on one of these?

    • Re:640x480 video? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 8127972 ( 73495 )
      I suspect that 640x480 video may be for EXTERNAL video as it supports video out to TV's.
    • I would imagine the higher resolution the video, the more work the video processor does, and the shorter the battery life. Given that it is already 2 hours (30GB) or 3 hours (60 GB), I dont think many people would want to go shorter. Plus, just because the hardware supports it doesn't mean apple enables it. For instance, every iPod ever made (except shuffle) has a chip in it capible of recording 44.1kHz stereo mp3 audio. However, until now, Apple has only unlocked very low quality monoral 22.1 kHz WAV r
    • 608x352

      and

      640x336

      at MPEG-4 simple profile (QT compatible).

      Both work great both on the LCD and on the video out, and are not downsampled to 320x240 for the video out.

  • There is no "video ipod" (Score:5, Informative)

    by csoto ( 220540 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:22PM (#13837417)
    There are the iPod, iPod nano and iPod shuffle. It just so happens that the biggest ones also play video.
    • There are the iPod, iPod nano and iPod shuffle. It just so happens that the biggest ones also play video.

      Pedant.

      There needs to be SOME way to distinguish between the new iPods, which have video capability, and older revisions of the same hardware, which don't. I see no problem with using the ad hoc term "video iPod" for this purpose. It's even different from the official Apple product names (like iPod photo and iPod mini) in that the modifier is at the front, not the end.

  • This is just a hunch (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dgrgich ( 179442 ) <drew@grTIGERgich.org minus cat> on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:28PM (#13837472)
    The reviewer on Ars tested video output on a standard definition CRT.

    My suspicion is that output from an iPod on a modern hi-definition TV will be somewhat worse due to the upsampling that almost all modern TVs use to play back their programming at the TV's lowest native resolution. This lowest native resolution is still higher than standard definition TV.

    My two cents worth - probably an inflated value.

    • Re:This is just a hunch (Score:3, Informative)

      by zsazsa ( 141679 )
      The reviewer must have fairly low standards if he thinks it looks good plugged into an SDTV. The iPod hooks up via a composite cable and the videos you buy on iTMS are 320x240. That'll look like crap on any SDTV made in the last 10 years. The 480x480 maximum resolution might cut it, but then the limiting factor is probably that composite cable! Argh.

      • Re:This is just a hunch (Score:5, Informative)

        by Abcd1234 ( 188840 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @03:48PM (#13838695) Homepage
        Except that most people are still getting 320x240 from their cable/satellite receiver over *coax* and don't seem to complain. As the reviewer mentioned, videophiles (like, evidentally, yourself) probably won't be satisfied, but for your average joe (like me), who likely doesn't even know what a composite cable is, it's probably sufficient.
    • You need to get a better HDTV.

      There is no good reason that video should look worse on an HDTV than on an SDTV.

      SDTV looks quite good (well, as good as SD gets) on my 1368x768 HDTV.

      Early HDTVs did a terrible job rendering SD signals, but that was just becuase they sucked, not because it can't be done well.
  • Trying again to find an answer to this one.

    If anyone has an iPod with video please give this a try and let me know if it works.

    In QT Pro copy and paste a selection from a movie into a new movie. Save it as the smaller option at the bottom (Reference movie in QT7, it had a different name before). Then on the iPod test that both movies play fine. The reference is sort of like a bookmark into the other movie. I have a few thousand of these and the new iPod would be very useful if it supports this.

    Thanks.
    • Trying again to find an answer to this one.

      If anyone has an iPod with video please give this a try and let me know if it works.

      In QT Pro copy and paste a selection from a movie into a new movie. Save it as the smaller option at the bottom (Reference movie in QT7, it had a different name before). Then on the iPod test that both movies play fine. The reference is sort of like a bookmark into the other movie. I have a few thousand of these and the new iPod would be very useful if it supports this.

      Thanks

  • kiss my (Score:2, Funny)

    by se7en11 ( 833841 )
    Anyone who doesn't think the iPod video is cool can kiss my ars [arstechnica.com].

  • Something more useful... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ChrisF79 ( 829953 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @01:58PM (#13837731) Homepage
    They should take apart a PC. I've always wondered what's inside.
  • The biggest tradeoff with this first-gen video ipod, imo, is the lack of firewire I/O. While it does allow the unit to be thinner and have a longer battery life, not to mention a lower production cost, it also reduces its appeal for Mac geeks by removing the ability to boot your Mac from it. The real-world file transfer rate of USB 2.0 is also about 10-15% slower than FW400. Mac-specific utility has apparently taken a back seat in iPod design priorities. Not what I would call a disaster for Mac users, but i
    • Not what I would call a disaster for Mac users

      Actually, it is a disaster for some Mac users. Apple was slow at adopting USB 2.0, and because of that, there are plenty of newer Macs out there with just USB 1.1 and Firewire. Most of these computers lack expandibility, so these people just can't slap in a $20 USB 2.0 PCI card like a PC user can. They are just stuck.

  • Its not "video iPod" or "iPod video" (Score:3, Informative)

    by zwilliams07 ( 840650 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @02:04PM (#13837776)
    It's just a fifth generation iPod with video. Video is not its primary function, if it was, then it'd be an iPod video. God damnit, people need to stop spreading misinformation on things.
    • It's just a fifth generation iPod with video. Video is not its primary function, if it was, then it'd be an iPod video. God damnit, people need to stop spreading misinformation on things.

      No no no, see, the new iPods are so pretty, they don't even do anything anymore! You just look at them: Video iPod! ;- )
  • Thanks for rendering my AirClick useless.

    Even better, thanks for making USING the iPod on the go inconvenient. Now just to pause or switch tracks I'd have to pull my iPod out of my pocket, instead of just hitting a button.

    Thanks for slowly stripping away every nice addon for it, and charging $40+ for small ones.

    My iPod upgrade is perpetually on hold, until they add a remote control option (preferrably wireless) back.
    • The AirClick now comes in a dock connector version [griffintechnology.com].
    • Apple now has a certification program. All accessories that have a "Made for iPod" logo on them will work with all iPods Apple ever makes. Apple gets royalties. Creative has a similar certification program which is free. But in any case, this problem should not occur in the future as long as you buy certified accessories.

  • TiVo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by mike_the_engineer ( 924349 )
    As soon as I figure out how to sync it with my TiVo, I'll be set.
  • We're now just over halfway through the Apple Product Cycle! [misterbg.org]

    "Nerd porn threads appear in the Mac forums. Some lunatic with too much time and money on his hands disassembles the new device down to the bare, soldered components and posts pictures."

    Possible Slashdot poll: what will be the "minor, rarely occurring flaw" that affects the video-playing iPod?
    o Bad battery life
    o E-Z-Scratch screen
    o Doesn't play video
    o Causes every molecule in your body to explode at the speed of light [imdb.com]
    o CowboyNeal
  • Why doesn't Slashdot ever do stuff like this?

    • Why doesn't Slashdot ever do stuff like this?

      Too much work. Requires actual writing, as well as skilled disassembly of a device, photography, not to mention spending money to get the device.

      Anyway, the iPod is "lame", why bother?

  • I have a question for anyone who has tested this on an HDTV (40" or larger). Is the video even remotely good? I presently have one of these [buffalotech.com] attached to my TV, since it support 1080i it looks rather good most the time, even with videos with lower resolutions and compression it often destroys watching my shows that only air on SDTV.

    I have been wanting to upgrade to a new iPod (own a 30GB 3G) because of the click-wheel and for some more size. However, I was interested in the quality of video on HDTV becau

  • Clarification to article about widescreen (Score:4, Informative)

    by mr_zorg ( 259994 ) on Thursday October 20, 2005 @05:20PM (#13839574)
    From the article (page 4):

    The inclusion of a "Widescreen" option is puzzling, since the iPod cannot display video beyond 320x240 in h.264 and MPEG4 in 480x480. I'm not sure what benefit you'd get from changing this option. Perhaps this setting has something to do specifically with how widescreen televisions expect their video input, but since I live in SDTV land, I wouldn't know. I tried setting the widescreen option to "Yes" on my normal TV and it didn't seem to have any effect.

    Discounting HDTV, the "Widescreen" DVD's are still technically formatted at a 4:3 aspect ratio on the disc. The only difference is that video is "squished" down from the 16:9 widescreen ratio. Video material that is flagged as widescreen and sent to a widescreen TV will be "unsquished" by the TV and stretched back out to fill the screen without black bars. On a standard aspect tv, the playback device must do this unsquishing itself and add the black bars to bring it back to a 4:3 ratio. The purpose of this setting in the iPod is probably the same as it is in a DVD player -- to tell it whether it should pass the video and flag is is (Widescreen = yes), or unsquish, add the black bars, and strip the flag (Widescreen = no). On programming that already is the standard 4:3 ratio this will make no difference.

  • Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Apple-hater -- far from it. I use a Mac at work (designer) all day long, and you'd have to to pry my PowerBook® from my cold dead hands and all, but anyone that thinks it's earth-shattering is more than slightly behind the times. I've been watching video [corecodec.org] (divx, xvid, you name it), listening to mp3's *and* oggs [pocket-tunes.com] for almost 2 years now on my Treo 600 [palm.com]. It's also my cell phone, calendar, addressbook, yada-yada... I can even use it to ssh, vnc, ftp, or connect to Samba shares on

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close