PDA

View Full Version : Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?


MacBytes
Oct 14, 2005, 09:42 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Hardware
Link: Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20051014104231)

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

Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 14, 2005, 09:47 AM
This "article" is utterly pointless. It's a brain fart that we got linked to fo some reason. What a waste of bandwidth.

mkubal
Oct 14, 2005, 09:56 AM
Agreed. To sum up for those who come and read the comments before the article....like me: :)

Oh no the iPod video won't let you play video on your TV, just slideshows. Oh wait, I was wrong. You can play videos, but the resolutions sucks.

xtbfx
Oct 14, 2005, 10:08 AM
Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?

That title should read: "Did we just write this article to get hits to our website?"

2GMario
Oct 14, 2005, 10:08 AM
i downloaded wed. episode of Lost last night and watched it on my G5 at 1280 x 1024 and it looked perfectly fine to me

what kind of crap tv do these people have ?

-Mario

Lacero
Oct 14, 2005, 10:13 AM
Does anyone wonder why Apple calls the new iPod, an iPod and not an iPod video or whatever?

Throw away the video portion, and you got yourself a kick-ass iPod with a large color screen, 10GB extra HD space, new features previously only available on the nano, 31% thinner and more photo capabilities.

Ah well, there'll always be complainers.

nagromme
Oct 14, 2005, 10:16 AM
It may be OK--and I'd watch it rather than miss an episode (if, say Battlestar Galactica were offered), but 640x480 would be noticeably better.

Is 480x480 a typo at Apple? Can the iPod deliver 640x480 to TV (from your own clips) even if that's not the format of what you buy? That would be promising.

Einherjar
Oct 14, 2005, 10:24 AM
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest. Now, most videos aren't as dark as Thriller, so it might not be quite as bad on other videos since most digital compression schemes have trouble with lots of moving black, but the fullscreen quality on these things is generally terrible, IMO. They look perfectly fine at their default resolution or on the iPod's screen.

(On Thriller: if by the next Stevenote he doesn't freak about that video selling a bajillion copies more than any other, I will be disappointed in humanity) :p

Yvan256
Oct 14, 2005, 10:28 AM
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

H.264 video:
- up to 768 Kbps
- 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec.
- Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

MPEG-4 video:
- up to 2.5 mbps
- 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec.
- Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

Seems to me you can use those DivX and Xvid files with the new iPod (unless those DivX/Xvid files aren't MPEG-4 compliant or use non-AAC audio, which is most of them).

I should've bought shares the morning and sold at the end of the day... Could've bought a 20" iMac and 60GB iPod. :(

wedge antilies
Oct 14, 2005, 10:44 AM
WORST.
ARTICLE.
EVER.

Sky Blue
Oct 14, 2005, 10:54 AM
wheres this cnn demo?

jholzner
Oct 14, 2005, 10:54 AM
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest. Now, most videos aren't as dark as Thriller, so it might not be quite as bad on other videos since most digital compression schemes have trouble with lots of moving black, but the fullscreen quality on these things is generally terrible, IMO. They look perfectly fine at their default resolution or on the iPod's screen.

(On Thriller: if by the next Stevenote he doesn't freak about that video selling a bajillion copies more than any other, I will be disappointed in humanity) :p

I also bought Thriller and there were a lot of arifacts but I've also bought a few other videos that looks fine. I think it's just all the black space in Thriller that make it look like that.

In response to this article...does no one do ANY research anymore? I mean it states right on Apples site that the new iPod "plays video or photo slideshows on TV via the optional Dock." How hard is that to fact check? And instead the reference a CNN article. It's on the product page! Imagine that.

hulugu
Oct 14, 2005, 11:55 AM
Does anyone wonder why Apple calls the new iPod, an iPod and not an iPod video or whatever?

Throw away the video portion, and you got yourself a kick-ass iPod with a large color screen, 10GB extra HD space, new features previously only available on the nano, 31% thinner and more photo capabilities.

Ah well, there'll always be complainers.

Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.

ariza910
Oct 14, 2005, 12:36 PM
What I want to know is when you plug the iPod into a TV if it will show the same lame iPod animation skin that came up on the projection screen when Jobs demoed it.

If so it would be a huge waste of space, just so that those low res TV shows look decent on TV...

mainstreetmark
Oct 14, 2005, 01:12 PM
What I want to know is when you plug the iPod into a TV if it will show the same lame iPod animation skin that came up on the projection screen when Jobs demoed it.

If so it would be a huge waste of space, just so that those low res TV shows look decent on TV...


I don't think he was using the video-out thing. It sounded like he had that particular iPod hotwired, pixel-for-pixel to the projector, so he could show people what videos looked like on the ipod, not what videos looked like when the ipod played them on a TV.

redAPPLE
Oct 14, 2005, 01:24 PM
Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.

ability to record? is there something i missed? anyone care to explain? did you mean record sounds with iTalk?

Phatpat
Oct 14, 2005, 01:32 PM
I know spec-wise 320x240 sounds useless, but I tried the latest episode of Lost on my iMac G5, and it looks just fine fullscreen.

winmacguy
Oct 14, 2005, 01:44 PM
This "article" is utterly pointless. It's a brain fart that we got linked to fo some reason. What a waste of bandwidth.
Well the title is actually a question based on the writters opinion.

fabsgwu
Oct 14, 2005, 01:52 PM
Can we all just agree that Apple Matters is the worst Apple Blog website and move on?

GoCubsGo
Oct 14, 2005, 02:26 PM
Can we all just agree that Apple Matters is the worst Apple Blog website and move on?
Done!

SiliconAddict
Oct 14, 2005, 06:13 PM
No. Because it didn't remove any features and what it added can be ignored if you want.

Mr.Hey
Oct 15, 2005, 03:41 AM
This "article" is utterly pointless. It's a brain fart that we got linked to fo some reason. What a waste of bandwidth.

Bingo! No wait......nevermind. Can I change my answer back to the pervious....no I think I'm correct, yes, yes, I know now...

You got to love them for trying tho. :X


Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?

Did this article? lol ;)

sjk
Oct 15, 2005, 03:48 AM
I know spec-wise 320x240 sounds useless, but I tried the latest episode of Lost on my iMac G5, and it looks just fine fullscreen.What playback resolution? It would be "watchable" quality on my 20" 2GHz at 1400x1200 but the glitches during playback are too distracting. It's a better using QuickTime directly instead of going through iTunes (and pause/resume are more responsive) but I can't get smooth playback at that resolution. It even happens occasionally at 640x480.

I thought the iMac G5 could do better H.264 decoding. I'll try it later on my 1.25GHz eMac for comparison.

sjk
Oct 15, 2005, 04:15 AM
In response to this article...does no one do ANY research anymore? I mean it states right on Apples site that the new iPod "plays video or photo slideshows on TV via the optional Dock." How hard is that to fact check? And instead the reference a CNN article. It's on the product page! Imagine that.Yeah, and the same goes for people who fill forums like this with redundant questions that are explicitly answered on product/spec pages. Then other people cater to them by answering instead of referring them to where they can find the answers. It's the same tired ritual with every product announcement. Oh well.

iMeowbot
Oct 15, 2005, 04:41 AM
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest.
That's no surprise. The old free iTMS videos ("large" versions) were encoded at about 1500-1600 kbps with so-so quality, and the new $2 videos are in the 600-700 range. (Yes, I've seen the H.264 hype. It's hype.) It won't matter. The RDF will prevent many from noticing how truly awful the quality is, and Apple will sell billions upon billions of downloads.

skoker
Oct 15, 2005, 09:40 AM
oh wow :/

Rocket Rion
Oct 15, 2005, 01:44 PM
(On Thriller: if by the next Stevenote he doesn't freak about that video selling a bajillion copies more than any other, I will be disappointed in humanity) :p

Excuse me if I don't care about downloading a video by a pedophile.