PDA

View Full Version : Apple bloggers hot for iMac, not for iPod


MacBytes
Oct 13, 2005, 08:21 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Mac Websites
Link: Apple bloggers hot for iMac, not for iPod (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051013092147)

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Whyren
Oct 13, 2005, 08:49 AM
Doesn't surprise me too much. Other than the last few days, the iMac was one rumor that wasn't running a great deal...and I don't think anyone was expecting Front Row (certainly not Photo Booth) or the remote (unless you count it all as the media center mac rumors). The iPod video was inevitable to most people, and really not that much has changed on the iPod other than the size and a nice little new feature. The iMac is continuing its development though, from consumer level Mac, to high-end all-in-one, to a media center computer, and it's really brought the iMac back as a highly desirable computer in my mind.

nagromme
Oct 13, 2005, 09:03 AM
C-Net has collected a page full of "blog postings" badmouthing the new iPod. Only an "Apple fan" would praise it? (bold mine):

"While many Apple fans praised the new iPod's thin design and reasonable pricing, the prevailing sentiment online was that the video quality, show pricing and lineup of available shows offered on the iPod aren't good enough to move people to adopt the device as their new medium for TV consumption."

So it's the same price as the old iPod, stores more, does more, has a better screen, and is thinner. And it's not MEANT to be people's "new medium for TV consumption," that's just silliness. Video's an extra you can take or leave. Some will enjoy it. It's still an even better music player than the last iPod, which the world seemed to appreciate...

BenRoethig
Oct 13, 2005, 11:18 AM
When it comes down to it, the iMac has a lot of cool, but useful new features. The new video capability of the iPod is nice, but its probably not something people will use on a regular basis.

Passante
Oct 13, 2005, 11:27 AM
trust C-net to only post negative mac/ipod stories. Even when they are doing a "positive" story they allways take a left hand swipe at Apple

Keynoteuser
Oct 13, 2005, 12:28 PM
People REALLY thought it would playback HD content? Um, even the Mini has trouble doing that, but an iPod? Get a clue. Apple made the music iPod that much better, but if you're looking for HD, it's not for you, end of discussion.

ddrueckhammer
Oct 13, 2005, 01:20 PM
People REALLY thought it would playback HD content? Um, even the Mini has trouble doing that, but an iPod? Get a clue. Apple made the music iPod that much better, but if you're looking for HD, it's not for you, end of discussion.

I don't think people care about playing video on their iPod at all. What people care about, is being able do download content online and somehow view it at a resonable resolution on their computer or ideally their HDTV. The quality of current video from the iTMS are really poor for what it costs. Apple targeted this move to sell more iPods but I think they would have a broader audience in the living room.

OCOTILLO
Oct 13, 2005, 01:40 PM
I don't think people care about playing video on their iPod at all. What people care about, is being able do download content online and somehow view it at a resonable resolution on their computer or ideally their HDTV. The quality of current video from the iTMS are really poor for what it costs. Apple targeted this move to sell more iPods but I think they would have a broader audience in the living room. I think the whole purpose of this introduction of video is a starting point for downloads of video content from the movie studios. iTunes 6 probably will eventually be the content provider of choice. I am guessing that some new video compression will be developed that will permit quick downloading of of high quality video with iTunes for playing on TVs using a version of Airport Express or a Mac mini type of media center. I don't really believe that the objective here is to sell iPods though it probably will..

AlmostThere
Oct 13, 2005, 03:03 PM
So it's the same price as the old iPod, stores more, does more, has a better screen, and is thinner. And it's not MEANT to be people's "new medium for TV consumption," that's just silliness. Video's an extra you can take or leave. Some will enjoy it. It's still an even better music player than the last iPod, which the world seemed to appreciate...

I agree about the target. Yes video is an extra you can take or leave, so too for that matter is the photo capacity.

But your comment reads to me like it is hinting (maybe unintentionally) at a broader issue with the iPod. The first sentence reads exactly like a quote from someone comparing their iRiver to an iPod (apart from the thin bit). It has FM, voice recording, ogg playback etc. You don't have to search far to find comments slating other devices for sticking in all these extras although, personally, I would welcome built-in radio tuning. People want an iPod that does one thing and one thing well - plays music. That's why they buy them.

But if video is a 'nice extra', this does beg the question: where are Apple going with the iPod? There are suggestions of 'testing the water' with video and such like and this, to me, is something that causes mild concern. Look back at the iPod (or even Apple as a whole). The iPod wasn't the first portable mp3 player on the market, but when it came, it was the mp3 player "done right". The shuffle, innovative and with the emphasis on pick-up and go, was "done right' (or close to, even if you want a screen, it really asked if you needed one). The nano, again - flash player but grown up. iTMS, not the first music store, but a music store done the way music stores should be. Each product has been clear about its targets and goals.

Video on the iPod right now? Is it really "done right"? I know it isn't the new medium for TV consumption, but I don't 'get' what it is (I also have a pretty clear idea of what I think portable video done right is). Apple as a wider whole is noted especially for their top drawer functional and aesthetic design. They put things in places for specific purposes which make themselves known by the overall ease and pleasure of use their products offer. They leaving testing the water to the likes of Motorola.

My impression, and maybe I am cynical here, is Apple are showing slightly aimless feature creep. A little clutter is edging into iPod-land. The iPod has thrust Apple under the global spotlight and subject to all sorts of financial scrutiny (see thread on this board about stock price /profit etc.) and I wonder if Apple is really looking hard for new directions to push the iPod and coming short. Innovation is not a linear process but the market demands steady, predictable progress.

That said, iMac - big improvement. The computer it should have been on launch. Not sure about the new software, looks a little gimmicky to me but will have a play next time I am in the Apple Store.

nagromme
Oct 13, 2005, 04:39 PM
I know what you mean--but as long as the iPod stays simple for music, then it keeps that key benefit that no iRiver can compare to.

And as long as Video can be taken off the main menu (which I'm sure it can) or ignored, then that's OK. Music is not harmed.

It's definitely not "video done right" any more than it's a calendar done right--and Steve himself has explained the downsides in the past.

But it IS a step to test the waters. If nothing more ever comes of it, then it's just another extra, and good marketing (since other players do it).

If more DOES come of it, then it can BECOME "video done right." And that would ultimately mean a SEPARATE device from the "music done right" iPod. (A separate device that would have flopped if sold now.)

Apple's getting into video gradually. I think it's smart strategy in this case to "do something halfway."

shamino
Oct 14, 2005, 03:23 PM
I stand by my pre-release sentiments. I don't think people care much about animated postage stamps. Even on a 2.5" screen, it's not going to be more than a cute gimmick to most people.

That being said, it's still a good product. They increased the drive size of the $300 model. They made it thinner. A 2.5" screen is definitely better than a 2.0" screen - for the menus alone, if nothing else.

Ditching the remote jack and FireWire capability is a minus, but previous products (the shuffle and the nano) proved that missing these won't hurt sales very much.

As for the video playback, I see it as something they threw in because the chipset supports it. No more, no less. It won't hurt the product, but I don't think it will help much either.

As for the resolution, 320x240 is about the same resolution as VCDs. In Asia, these were what everybody used for movies until DVD came to the region (only in the last 2-3 years.) So people may not have a problem showing this on a TV screen. On the other hand, people in the US and Europe have years of experience with DVD as a basis for comparison, so they may not be as accepting as Asia was when VCD was introduced.

It will be interesting to see what the typical customer thinks of this products as a video device.