Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Media (Apple) Media

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Apple iPod with Photo Capabilities

Comments Filter:
  • by Hawthorne01 ( 575586 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:38PM (#10633991)
    One of those little extra touches that always puts Apple products ahead of their competitors.
  • Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fracai ( 796392 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:40PM (#10634024)
    Overkill for some, not all. I'm using almost 30 GB right now and while I don't listen to all of that every week, it's incredibly nice having all my music in one place. If the 60 had been available when I bought my 40 GB just 3 months ago, I'd have bought it.
  • by natron 2.0 ( 615149 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {97sretepdn}> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:41PM (#10634049) Homepage Journal
    The only thing that bothers me about the U2 iPod is the fact that it is a sweet jet black color, but still uses the white ear buds...
  • Photo quality (Score:2, Interesting)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:43PM (#10634072) Homepage
    I did RTA, even another click to Tech Specs, but where is the specs for the photo quality, ie megapixel? or are the photos as big as iPod's screen resolution of 220 x 176?
  • by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:43PM (#10634073) Homepage Journal
    Actually, it does make sense. I'm seeing a lot of people with camera phones who use them, for the most part, to show pictures they've collected to other people. The major limitation of them is that they can only store pictures they took with the phone. I have a friend who is in absolute love with her two nieces and any opportunity she has she'll use to show pictures, but for now it's been email (awkward to make sure it's with you when you want it) or camera phone (only shows pictures taken and not yet deleted) bound.

    I predict that people who buy iPods with this will use it - people will store their entire digital photo libraries on it and whip out the iPod to show friends and family photos they've taken.

    While this functionality will not sell iPods alone, I think it has great potential to make an iPod that's a "I'd kind of like this" into a "I really want this". Slashdotters are, as usual, not what this iPod's aimed at. Think more in terms of proud family members - mothers and aunts especially.

  • Presentations... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jdunlevy ( 187745 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:45PM (#10634089) Homepage
    No need to take your laptop to do a presentation; just load those "slides" onto the iPod Photo. []: "Use the included AV cable to connect iPod Photo to a projector or TV."

  • by presearch ( 214913 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:46PM (#10634109)
    Every version of the iPod was predicted to "fail". From the original 5Mb to the mini.
    And every prediction was incorrect, to say the least.

    The iPod Photo will be wildly successful, and evolve to be the standard by which all others are judged.
  • by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:48PM (#10634135)

    You're an idiot.

    Sure if you had to edit some XML file it would never happen but Apple doesn't make you do that. It stores meta-data without you even noticing: meta-information from cameras is transparently copied over and used, other meta-data is attached just by dragging a photo to a folder.

    The same is true of album art, drag and drop and it's there.

    Not everything (fails to) work like Windows: that's why those of us who value our time pay a little extra to buy a properly designed system rather than some cobbled together crap from Dell and Windows.

  • Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)

    by commodoresloat ( 172735 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:51PM (#10634190)
    Advertised 15 hour battery life

    That's only if you don't use the photo feature that you presumably paid an extra $100 to have. Battery life drops to 5 hours if you're watching slide shows while you listen to music. And they're warning customers now about the battery: "Rechargeable batteries have a limited number of charge cycles and may eventually need to be replaced. Battery life and the number of charge cycles vary by use and settings. See for more information."

    Does anyone else think that this a bit overkill. 60Gb is a LOT when you are just talking about music and pictures.

    So you're saying 40 gb ought to be enough for anybody? ;^) Seriously, I agree, this is overkill, but not for the same reason. I'm happy to see bigger drives on these things, but I don't really understand the need to make this into a photo device too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, and I could see how it could be useful (esp. coupled with a tool to transfer digital photos from card media directly to the ipod without the computer, so you could keep re-using the card during a long photo shoot), but the screen size on an ipod is way too small to actually make it a useful photo viewer. Hell, the LCD on my digital camera (Sony T1) is bigger than the ipod screen. I'm not sure it's worth the loss in battery life -- I think I'd prefer a 60G ipod without a color screen for $100-200 less.

    Then again, like I said, this could be really useful for photographers, especially given the ability to easily connect the ipod to a TV or monitor to show the photos. Again, crucial here would be the ability to easily talk directly to the ipod without having to go to your mac to transfer anything.

  • by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:53PM (#10634210) Homepage
    That SanDisk player is priced that way because it's a SanDisk's attempt of creating a loss leader to pump up sales of their other products.

    It's a poor example, although probably the best priced, of iPod Photo's competition, which, I believe, is way ahead of iPod Photo.

    There are several personal media players with video playing capabilities out there with much, much better features (audio, pictures, video) and compatible pricing (if not at $50 a pop).

    The iPod Photo will still, of course, sell well, because certain people will buy anything Apple produces no matter what it is. I think iPod Photo is way overpriced for its features, though the size of the hard drive might make it usable as a portable hard drive with a mp3/aac player.

    The only truly interesting feature, from a technical point of view, is the ability to display the pictures in a TV set directly from the device. I'm not so sure it's very useful in the long term without video capabilities, but still.
  • black earbuds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Giant Killer ( 33130 ) <> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:54PM (#10634228) Homepage
    trust me, you don't want the apple earbuds anyways, whatever color they are.

    sony makes some very nice earbuds that come in black. surprisingly good sound quality, and they don't hurt your ears one bit. i've had them on for hours at a time with no discomfort. sony has a lot of similar ones, but the mdr-ex71's [] are great.

    it helps to break them in a bit first. crank up the audio from the ipod to full for 5 or 6 minutes, and you're all set.
  • by keytoe ( 91531 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:56PM (#10634254) Homepage
    Does it strike anybody else as odd that you manage your photos on this thing using iTunes instead of iPhoto where you are presumably managing your photos? I realize that iTunes already has all the iPod management code built in and that it would be awkward to have iPhoto and iTunes working to manage the iPod at the same time - but it still feels contrived.

    Maybe we're supposed to just deal with it until Apple gets Tiger out the door and Sync services are built into the OS proper? It just doesn't feel very Mac-Like this way...
  • by Syriloth ( 525273 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @03:56PM (#10634255)
    The white earbuds aren't all that great anyway. The only reason to keep 'em is so that you can show off to the world the fact that you have an iPod. The best low-profile headphones around (in terms of bang for the buck) are the Sony Fontopia MDX-EX71SL in-ears, in my opinion. If you can get used to wearing headphones that are essentially silicone earplugs (no problem for me, I worked landscaping last summer and wore them all the time) then you'll probably be really pleased by the amount of detail they can put out, and the fact that they have pretty good noise-isolation characteristics is a nice bonus since you can listen to music over the ambient noise without having to crank the volume up to distortion levels. And they're black. Just make sure to get the SL version, there's an LP that looks the same but is lower in quality. And I guess that there's a WX series now, that's just like the SLs except in white, for the iPod Elite. Hunt around and you can probably find them online for $35 or so.
  • Re:More info (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:01PM (#10634324) Homepage Journal
    Does anyone else think that this a bit overkill. 60Gb is a LOT when you are just talking about music and pictures.
    No way. I've been holding off on buying an ipod for two reasons. 1 price and 2. insufficient storage. When I buy an iPod, I want it to be able to hold my ENTIRE music collection (40gb+) and have room to spare for expansion of my collection, installing osx on the ipod, or general purpose storage.

    I will consider getting the 60gb model, but I may just wait until 80gb models come out.
  • by bogie ( 31020 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:04PM (#10634368) Journal
    Welcome to the wonderful world of DRM. I don't mean to kick you in the nuts while your down but this just shows how dangerous it is when your not in control of things you buy. I HIGHLY suggest you use fairplay or the software from the hymn project (or whatever its called now) and convert your music to MP3 so you don't have to go through this crap in the future. If you ever move away from Apple you'll have to do this anyway so you might as well start now. Sorry your beig treated like a criminal and are not able to access your music the way you want to right now. Of course now expect 50 posts from Ipod fanboy's telling you its your own dam fault. Hopefully you'll be able to resolve this soon.
  • by Chuqmystr ( 126045 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:05PM (#10634377) Homepage
    That's very nice indeed. However, I'd like to see it have host USB abilities so that one can attach it directly to their digital camera. There seems to be a few different schemes out there for this, one I know of directly is my Olympus simply shows up as a flash drive. I think it would be a nice addition and there's still the Belkin media reader thingie, assuming that is still suported.

    Um, what's up with iPhoto integration? I see iTunes 4.7 does the transfer but I'd think that if it were on a Mac vs. PC that iPhoto with an autosync system like iTunes would be the way to go. Perhaps that's coming later.

    Finally, it comes with a dock. It can do slideshows. How about throwing in a wireless remote? Just a thought.

  • by Matt Perry ( 793115 ) <perry.matt54@[ ] ['yah' in gap]> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:10PM (#10634455)
    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.
    Yet it'll be barely adequate for making phone calls. At least that's what I'm finding as I show around for a new mobile phone.
  • by phobos13013 ( 813040 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:12PM (#10634474)
    Actually a better bet is the recently mentioned iRiver PMP-1X0 [] series which runs a linux kernel. They have a ton more options for video playback and look a little cooler than the GMini imo. Which bringing this back OT is the only thing the iPod has going for it anymore (style). And being the first out of the gate. But now, the iPod-killer label has drifted out of use slightly since it doesnt need to be killed. Its slowly becoming a competitor working hard to keep its market share. This because enthusiats [] dont really care about the iPod out there since there are SO many options out there now.
  • by mazola_jr ( 717699 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:13PM (#10634497)
    iPods aren't very useful for people who don't have a lot of music and I imagine the iPod Photo won't be all that useful to someone without many photos.

    As someone who has 15000 photos sitting on my Powerbook, I think this would be a great way to make more use of my collection.

    The key benefit isn't that it simply stores the photos, or hooks up to a TV. The benefit is that it can store *massive* amounts of photos, organizes them in a way that you can find them when you need 'em, makes it highly portable, and gives you an easy way to output to a large display without having to burn a disc.

    Apple's not trying to get everyone to upgrade, the plain ol' 20 and 40 GB models are still available. Rather, they're bringing the benefits of the iPod to those who love photography.

  • by AllenChristopher ( 679129 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:16PM (#10634542)
    First, a nice colour screen. Second, they brought the battery life UP to 15 hours.

    It's already won. The displaying of photos is nice... I'll probably use it to carry my portfolio with me. "Oh, you're an artist? What kind of work do you do?"

    But I'd buy it as my replacement iPod anyway. The photo bit is clever marketing of something that's *free* for them with the new screen.

    There are video players, sure, that will do this, but like everything else about the iPod this is elegant.
  • BlueTooth (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rkrabath ( 742391 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:30PM (#10634729) Journal
    I'll buy a new iPod when I can transfer music from someone else's iPod wirelessly, then listen to it via my bluetooth headset. hint, hint Apple...
  • Re:More info (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:34PM (#10634796) Homepage
    If only my music collection would fit on a 30gig iPod. Or even a 60gig one :-(
  • by Frank of Earth ( 126705 ) <> on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:43PM (#10634912) Homepage Journal
    No offense calling your baby klunky. My point is that the iPod is almost like a fashion accessory these days. Even my wife, who doesn't care 2 shits about technology, could spot an iPod 100m away.

    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.

    Regarless, I would go with an Archos like device myself... of course, I'm too lazy to carry around a phone AND a mp3 player... That's why I'm waiting for the king-of-all-devices []

  • by clf8 ( 93379 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @04:44PM (#10634924)
    Ok, so you did something that you didn't fully understand and wiped out your collection. When you set it to re-home, it looked at your library that contained absolutely nothing and put that on your iPod. It did exactly what you told it to. Maybe it should pop up a second dialog box that says it will wipe the current contents of the iPod, but you'll still have people doing what you did.

    Not sure what you mean by loading MP3s from your other computer. Those would then be in your new iTunes library and would have gotten copied to your iPod (replacing what was on there since it's got a new home). You wouldn't lose anything there.

    There is no limit on burning songs, there is a limit on burning playlists. Subtle difference, and entirely unimportant to this since you'll have to reconvert them to AAC to get them back. Next time, just drop the AAC files on a CD. As for downloads, I'm pretty sure the word of the day is costs. Sure, digital delivery is cheap, but it ain't free. If you're barely breaking even, as Apple claims, every penny counts.
  • Re:black earbuds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ericdano ( 113424 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:39PM (#10635500) Homepage
    If you encode files using Apple's Lossless format, then it might be worth it. I noticed a HUGE difference when I moved from the Apple earbuds to the Shure e3cs. I imagine the e5cs are even better. I tried a pair briefly, but....alas.....can't afford them :-(
  • Re:black earbuds (Score:4, Interesting)

    by catch23 ( 97972 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:46PM (#10635574)
    No you don't want the Sure e5cs unless you like bass music a lot. They're overpriced and basically crap. Just take a look at the frequency response for the e5cs [] for yourself. The low frequency is way high and there's a lot missing for the high frequencies. I've tried them out and it's not that great... not much better than the iPod earbuds at least. The iPod earbuds aren't that bad (as far as frequency response is concerned), but if you want good isolation, you should get the Etymotic ER-4P [] headphones instead. I've got a pair of ER-4S and I can't see headphones getting much better than that.
  • Re:black earbuds (Score:4, Interesting)

    by erockett ( 784008 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @05:48PM (#10635594) Homepage Journal
    Maybe breaking in your headphones is, but when I got my iPod, it took my ears a while to get used to the earbuds, so I think that your ears have to reshape or lose some nerves or something before you get comfortable with the earbuds.

    As long as I'm posting, I think that this is a bad idea - the thing that appeals to me about the iPod is its very simplicity. There's none of this PDA-ness, the calendar is fairly crippled, and you just use it for *music* - not keeping track of your pictures and a million other things. iPods are a symbol of coolness, simple music, just being able to relax. When you add that other junk, it brings in the PDA factor - images of a busy, suited person dashing around trying to get to their next appointment.

  • by ShallowThroat ( 667311 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @06:09PM (#10635848)
    Yeah, i'm aware, thanks tips.

    But doing that, carrying movies around on your ipod to plug into a tv and watch later, isn't very practical. Even if the iPod did support video, which it doesn't (and won't until Jobs gets the MPAA on their side, which will take a while, if at all), how likely is it that your are going to be carrying around the required cables, and have a tv handy when you are out and you see someone whom you want to show pictures. Not only that, but the ipod is an on the go device, nobody really wants to sit down and watch your stupid slideshow of pictures of your dog.

    Sorry, I just don't see it.
  • by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @07:35PM (#10636757) Homepage
    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.

    Agreed. You'll have all of that and it'll suck at doing all of it. My family just bought a bunch of new cameraphones and I can attest that after a month, the camera is effectively worthless (not that the first month was any good anyway). My major beef is sync. My data/media devices need to sync in standard formats/connectors. The state of sync in phones today is absolute garbage. At least the iPod doesn't suck so badly on that.

  • by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @08:39PM (#10637338) Journal
    It just says that this argument that people buy them to be "cool" doesn't really wash anymore,

    True. But even if you take out the people who are buying them to be cool, what about the people who don't know jack about technology and aren't going to research the alternatives and just buy what they see people using? Those people are (and will continue) flocking to the iPod, and they probably make up a huge portion of the population.

    A lot like Windows - people go to buy a computer, and they get one that looks like their neighbor's computer or the one they have at the office. They don't necessarily even consider taking the time to see if OS X would be better for them. They just go to Best Buy or wherever and buy A Computer.

    It's just that Apple has positioned themselves on the right side of that this time.

    I think cel phones are a bit different, b/c often what phone you get depends on what company you're getting your service from. If they hand you a free Nokia, you've got a Nokia. If they hand you a free Motorola, you've got a free Motorola. If they've got a discount on the latest Samsung, you buy that. Again, most people just go get a cel phone, and in this case they pay less attention to brand name (or getting one like their neighbor's) and take what's presented to them. Yes, there are people who research the best phone and look at all the options etc, but the majority of the general populus takes what the cellular company offers them.

    I do agree with you about the U2 iPod. Ok, so a small throng of die-hard U2 fans will get them, along with a few people who want to look cool by having a (OMG!) BLACK iPod! But then, I get the feeling they're not designed to be on the market for very long, and will probably be the first in a series of such "special editions."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:19PM (#10638378)
    I tried using an Archos for a few months, because I thought it'd be cool to be able to play movies.

    First I discover that they don't include any kind of ripping or encoding software. This is a huge oversight. This is supposedly a big feature and yet they don't even give you the tools to use it?!?

    On top of this, they claim to support MPEG-4, but somehow this support fails to include standard MP4 files like those I can output with QuickTime (or better yet, XVID/OpenShiiva, as I later discovered). What they mean is that they support MPEG-4 content in AVI files, which is absolutely useless to me. Maybe if they'd includes some encoding software...

    So, eventually I found out what I'd need to encode DVDs, and it turns out to be an incredibly slow, complicated, and ultimately painful process. There's got to be a market for a single app that does all of this. I couldn't for the life of me understand why it doesn't seem to exist.

    Then, as I relayed this story to a friend, he pointed out that it would be much easier to just download movies from P2P networks. I tried this, but only found two movies that I owned. I could have gotten plenty of movies that I didn't own, but that would be a) piracy, and b) ignoring the reason I bought the thing in the first place, which was to play the movies I already owned!

    So, in the end, I sold it on eBay, and to this day have not seen a product that actually fulfills the promise of letting me take my movies with me. Maybe if I had more 'mainstream' tastes and was into piracy I'd be useful to me...
  • by dborod ( 26190 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:30PM (#10638454) Homepage
    I'd like to point out that when the iPod mini was released it was totally panned on slashdot as too expensive for not enough storage, and besides, who wouldn't spend the extra $100 to get the 15GB model?

    It should be noted that Apple literally sold hundreds of thousands of them despite the slashdot crowd proving that they wouldn't sell.
  • by tentimestwenty ( 693290 ) on Tuesday October 26, 2004 @11:39PM (#10638516)
    I'm not familiar with the iPod headphones but it is true that most all speakers and headphones sound different after 100 hours of hard use compared to when they're new. Like any mechanical part, especially one that has a flexible part, it tends to wear in to it's natural state. This is especially true of metal and composite designs. Usually the characteristics will change from "tinny" or "shrill" to "warm" and "smooth". There are certainly exceptions but after listening to over 25 speakers and quite a few headphones this has been my experience.
  • by brettrann ( 825679 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @12:48AM (#10638904)
    Maaate... when iTunes askes if you want to link with that version of itunes it *warns* you that it will remove everything on the iPod.

    You are a retard, and that's why you lost all your data. First you formatted your computer without thinking about back-ups, secondly you chose an options you weren't sure about without doing research first, and most importantly you failed to connect the warning of lost data with the fact that you will in fact loose your data.


    Apple don't need to correct anything, because retards are in the minority. As to why they restrict it, it's the music industry that forces that not apple. If apple didn't agree then the music would not be available for even retards to download.

    * i apologise to actual retards for insinuating this guy is in any way near your level of ability.
  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Wednesday October 27, 2004 @07:12AM (#10640245) Journal
    Exactly. My criteria for choosing a portable music player were:
    1. Size
    2. Integration with jukebox software
    The iPod wins hands down on both fronts. A comparable iRiver player (for example) includes an FM tuner, from my perspective a completely useless feature, and is 20% larger. 20GB is probably enough for me for the next few years, so I'm not interested in replacing it with a larger device. I use it for one purpose - playing music (both while I'm mobile and through my HiFi when I'm at home). I don't use half of the `features' my current (3G) player has, so I'm not interested in replacing it with a device suffering from feature creep. Battery life is acceptable most of the time (the only time I've ever wished for more was while I was flying to Japan, and that's not something I do regularly). There are two things that would persuade me to replace it:
    • Smaller size. The iPod mini seems to be a nice form factor, and I would be very tempted by a 20GB version (although I'll probably have to wait a little while for hard disk technology to catch up before I can get one of these).
    • Access to the UI code. The iPod has a significantly nicer UI than any other player I've seen, but it's not perfect. I've filed a few UI bug reports with Apple about it, but they have not fixed them. I would be very interested in a player that allowed me to implement these fixes myself

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford