New Apple iPod with Photo Capabilities 776
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.
Too expensive/not useful (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Now I just need my iPod to allow me to make phone calls and I'm all set.
You mean... (Score:3, Insightful)
pshaw (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
New Audio-Related Features? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I've always found... (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing Feature (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
Think movies.
See the last paragraph here [slashdot.org].
Re:Too expensive/not useful (Score:2, Insightful)
Happens again.. (Score:5, Insightful)
so close (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet. (Score:1, Insightful)
To borrow a phrase from television (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:I like the Album Art option (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Too expensive/not useful (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missed oppportunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Too expensive/not useful (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
I don't want my iPod to become like my cell phone.
Same thing was said... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Good news for the base models? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Here's why it will fail... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Overkill? I think not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:iTunes Music Store still has some problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I know more than Steve Jobs! (Score:5, Insightful)
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. -You know who...
Re:Missing Feature (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
Re:Managed by... iTunes?! (Score:5, Insightful)
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).
Photo Transfers Via iTunes (Score:2, Insightful)
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:
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.
Re:Too expensive/not useful (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course there are better products out there.. but it's the one that is marketed the best which wins.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
How true, before all you cynics open your mouths remember when the iPod was first introduced; all the comments on
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.
Here's what i want... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
Style and good design are not the same thing. Style changes every week. Good design is timeless.
Re:Huh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Managed by... iTunes?! (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Apple will shoot themselves in the foot (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
New iPod = New Media Distribution and Podcasting (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank God Slashdot members don't run Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Missing ingredient - better media readers (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Managed by... iTunes?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:Thank God Slashdot members don't run Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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.
Use iTunes to sync your photos? What the hell? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: Photo iPod a Dud (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A LOT more new stuff... (Score:1, Insightful)
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!
Useful as a tour guide for an art gallery (Score:3, Insightful)
iTMS tidbit (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)