PDA

View Full Version : 16GB Flash-based iPod Video Player?




MacRumors
Dec 6, 2006, 09:06 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Barrons reveals (http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2006/12/05/apple-phones-should-bolster-nand-flash-demand-hambrecht-says/?mod=wsjcrmain) a report by Daniel Amir, an analyst with W.R. Hambrecht, who expects NAND flash growth in the first half of 2007.

Driving the sales of the Flash memory are cited to be the rumored Apple iPod Phone in 4GB and 8GB sizes... but also a "16 GB flash-based Apple iPod Video player" which is expected to be seen in the first quarter of 2007.

Multiple reports have suggested a 4GB/8GB iPhone is ramping up for a early 2007 launch, but no information about a 16GB flash-based Video iPod has been previously reported.

The accuracy of Daniel Amir's reports are unknown.



Spock
Dec 6, 2006, 09:09 AM
Sweet! a Eyestraining video Nano!!

Unspeaked
Dec 6, 2006, 09:10 AM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 09:13 AM
Thatd be a lot of money.

sachamun
Dec 6, 2006, 09:13 AM
Sweet! a Eyestraining video Nano!!

Yeah, would/should anyone really be into that? sometimes I feel like I'm numbing my brain with all this constant video stimulation. Even though I only watch things on my powerbook, that means I tend to watch things everywhere. It's taken away from my reading!

wkhahn
Dec 6, 2006, 09:14 AM
What if this is not flash for the video iPod, but rather the HD hinted to be in iTV? 16GB would be plenty to buffer a video stream.

MrFirework
Dec 6, 2006, 09:16 AM
A player you load up with one or two movies you want to watch for, say, a train or plane trip. It could be ultra thin with a decent-sized screen. I see potential.

Then again...

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 09:19 AM
A player you load up with one or two movies you want to watch for, say, a train or plane trip. It could be ultra thin with a decent-sized screen. I see potential.

Then again...

Hmmm.... interestin. That could be a possibility. Add Wi-fi and you will certainly have a swanky ipod.

sivancotel
Dec 6, 2006, 09:19 AM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...

I think the advantage would be supreme battery life. think about it, 16gb is enough to hold a small number of movies and tv shows, and you could probably get like 15 hours of straight backlit full screen playback on one charge.

Chaszmyr
Dec 6, 2006, 09:20 AM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...

Agreed. If this were true, they must not expect it to be used for music as well... and I don't see Apple coming out with a device that is exclusively for video.

Yvan256
Dec 6, 2006, 09:21 AM
What if this is not flash for the video iPod, but rather the HD hinted to be in iTV? 16GB would be plenty to buffer a video stream.

You don't buffer streaming data with flash memory since it can only handle a limited number of rewrites (granted the limit is high, but if you use it as a buffer you'll hit that limit pretty quickly). Some type of RAM is usually used for buffering.

Not to mention that 16GB would be enough to "buffer" about 8 movies in H.264, which is a bit overkill as far as caching goes, and easily puts 16GB back into the "storage" capacity.

A portable, flash-based video player with 16GB that can hold 8 Hi-Def movies or 16 Standard-def movies, a few TV shows and a some albums of music? Seems plenty enough to me, considering the size of portable DVD players + 8 or 16 DVDs + burned MP3 CDs...

Spock
Dec 6, 2006, 09:21 AM
What if this is not flash for the video iPod, but rather the HD hinted to be in iTV? 16GB would be plenty to buffer a video stream.

It would also be able to hold a nice Mac OS X install for lets say MacBook and MacBook Pros??

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 09:21 AM
I think the advantage would be supreme battery life. think about it, 16gb is enough to hold a small number of movies and tv shows, and you could probably get like 15 hours of straight backlit full screen playback on one charge.
Screen takes up a really large portion of the battery. The nano not only has flash but a small screen.

sartinsauce
Dec 6, 2006, 09:22 AM
I think this one is bogus. I think someone who doesn't know and hasn't paid much attention is speculating based on some other rumors or something. Why a 16GB video player? What is the point? That's not enough space to store any kind of library.

It's an interesting idea that the iTV may have a 16GB buffer. But that's a HUGE buffer. I mean, a 16MB buffer would be sufficient in most cases. If it's anything that needs more than 16MB in the buffer, you should probably do something a little more than stream it wirelessly to your TV.

Perhaps the 16GB buffer could be used as a video queue? Transfer and store there for watching? Or download (dare I say Record?) and hold in the buffer until all of it has streamed over the 802.11 connection to your Mac's HDD? I could see that.

Shotglass
Dec 6, 2006, 09:27 AM
I could see that.
I can't, but it sure would be a cool and original idea.

Spock
Dec 6, 2006, 09:28 AM
I think this one is bogus. I think someone who doesn't know and hasn't paid much attention is speculating based on some other rumors or something. Why a 16GB video player? What is the point? That's not enough space to store any kind of library.

Perhaps only the video part is bogus, i wouldnt mind having a 16gb Nano and it would strain the eyes the video part would be just a cool novelty if nothing else, a "Look what my iPod can do" type of thing.

twoodcc
Dec 6, 2006, 09:29 AM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...

yeah it does. but i guess some people would buy it. you could fit at least 13-14 movies on it. i guess that's not too bad

freebooter
Dec 6, 2006, 09:29 AM
The iPod video with a hard disc is kind of slow, quirky, and heavy. (I have one) A flash video-pod would fix that. (I have owned nanos since they came out)
One doesn't really need to carry all one's movies with one, does one? :) 16 GB is a suitable size.

alywa
Dec 6, 2006, 09:30 AM
Gosh, who'd a thunk it? Memory prices going down, capacities going up? This has to be a first.

Seriously, a 16GB flash based player of some sort is inevitable, as will a 32, 64, etc. I'd speculate we'll see a larger screen size vPod nano (flash) and a vPod (120GB HD) coming out... a whole new line. Who knows... idle speculation is fun.:)

Clive At Five
Dec 6, 2006, 09:30 AM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...

1) He's saying 16GB for the sake of using NAND Flash-Based memory. The HDD for portable devices is going the way of the walkman.

2) DivX quality video of Season 2 of The Office is just over 3GB. That's several hours of video. Sure DivX isn't the greatest quality, but it's an exchange you make for HD-space.

My guess is that battery life will be the limiting factor anyway, just as it is with high-capacity iPods. Even on an 80GB iPod, you can't listen to 20 days worth of music on a single charge or on several charges, in fact. One can assume that in several charges, at least one of them will be at a computer (as opposed to a wall outlet) and the movie/music selection can easily be changed to suit the users' needs/wants.

NAND is the way to go for battery life anyway, ESPECIALLY if you're pairing it with a larger screen.

-Clive

Fuchal
Dec 6, 2006, 09:33 AM
I think this one is bogus. I think someone who doesn't know and hasn't paid much attention is speculating based on some other rumors or something. Why a 16GB video player? What is the point? That's not enough space to store any kind of library.

It's an interesting idea that the iTV may have a 16GB buffer. But that's a HUGE buffer. I mean, a 16MB buffer would be sufficient in most cases. If it's anything that needs more than 16MB in the buffer, you should probably do something a little more than stream it wirelessly to your TV.

Perhaps the 16GB buffer could be used as a video queue? Transfer and store there for watching? Or download (dare I say Record?) and hold in the buffer until all of it has streamed over the 802.11 connection to your Mac's HDD? I could see that.

There is no logical reason to put flash memory in the iTV for storage because you can easily put a hard drive in with far greater storage space for far less money.

Flowbee
Dec 6, 2006, 09:50 AM
It's kinda hard to figure out what this could be about. As others have said, a 16gb iPod for video doesn't seem make a lot of sense on its own. Sure, it's plenty of space for a bunch of videos, but I think it would have to be either tied to another product (like an add on for the iPhone, or the iTV device), or be an entirely new design to get people's attention.

reflex
Dec 6, 2006, 09:52 AM
I think this one is bogus. I think someone who doesn't know and hasn't paid much attention is speculating based on some other rumors or something. Why a 16GB video player? What is the point? That's not enough space to store any kind of library.

Just like the Shuffle's 1GB is rediculous for any kind of music library?

thejadedmonkey
Dec 6, 2006, 09:59 AM
Just like the Shuffle's 1GB is rediculous for any kind of music library?

That's why they would call this the iPod Video Shuffle.

Actually, I this this guy might be onto something here...
iPod is for music. It does music well, and only music. It doesn't do video so well, and the new 5th gen iPods don't even to music that well (the interface is too laggy).

I think Apple may actually split up the line. iPod for music (with video playback as an added bonus) and an iTube (or whatever name they choose) for video playback (with music playback as an added bonus).

That way, they only have to focus on doing one thing well, and everything else is an added bonus.

Meemoo
Dec 6, 2006, 10:07 AM
All it needs to do is double again and I can fit my collection on a Nano. 32GB FTW!

Clive At Five
Dec 6, 2006, 10:09 AM
...a 16gb iPod for video doesn't seem make a lot of sense on its own...

Why not?

You could fit a handful of movies and a bunch of songs on it.
Battery life would be longer using NAND rather than using a HDD
NAND is faster than accessing data from an HD... as fast as the iPod's little processor will switch the shift register on that thing. No seek times... little or no cache required.

-Clive

BoyBach
Dec 6, 2006, 10:10 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

The accuracy of Daniel Amir's reports are unknown.


Well, no ****** Sherlock! ;)

We'll know how reliable this is next year.

sartinsauce
Dec 6, 2006, 10:20 AM
Not to mention that 16GB would be enough to "buffer" about 8 movies in H.264, which is a bit overkill as far as caching goes, and easily puts 16GB back into the "storage" capacity.

A portable, flash-based video player with 16GB that can hold 8 Hi-Def movies or 16 Standard-def movies, a few TV shows and a some albums of music? Seems plenty enough to me, considering the size of portable DVD players + 8 or 16 DVDs + burned MP3 CDs...


Is H.264 that efficient? You could compress an HD feature to 2GB? That's insane! I've not had the opportunity to work with HD content and H.264, but now that I read this, I really want to. Maybe I should borrow a camera and just mess around.

SactoGuy18
Dec 6, 2006, 10:53 AM
I think it's far more likely we'll see a 16 GB iPod nano, not a flash-based video player. People forget video files are huge in size and 16 GB won't cut it for video storage.

Schroedinger
Dec 6, 2006, 11:07 AM
I think this is an analyst trying to bolster stocks of companies that sell flash memory. I agree with most that this is counter intuitive.

This isn't like a 1 gig shuffle, where the songs are each 5 mb. The average tv show is like 500 mb. This would be more like a 150 MB shuffle. This is a far smaller selection on the go. A 100 or 120 GB player makes much more sense.

My best guess: true video ipods will be hard drive based, the audio first ipod line will be switched to flash memory and merged with the nano line, giving you a range from 16 (20? 32?) GB down to 4GB. The larger capacities may be bigger and a different form factor. Then you've got the good old shuffle, pure music.

Any which way, I'll take 3 please. :)

Clive At Five
Dec 6, 2006, 11:10 AM
I think it's far more likely we'll see a 16 GB iPod nano, not a flash-based video player. People forget video files are huge in size and 16 GB won't cut it for video storage.

Obviously you haven't read this forum otherwise you wouldn't be speaking so ignorantly.

For videos of very high quality, say DVD or better, then you are correct. 16GB won't hold much video content. However, encoded in h.264, 16GB may be enough for 8 full-length movies. Smaller still, Xvid & DviX offer greater compression with *slightly* less quality. (Unfortunately, though, I don't think iTunes supports them. Does anyone know off-hand?) Regardless, 3 hours of video can be compressed to around 1GB, implying that a 16 GB Video iPod could hold up to 48 hours of *decent* quality video.

DviX compression, by the way, would by far be sufficient for an iPod-sized screen... even if it was in iPod-length widescreen.

-Clive

macfan70
Dec 6, 2006, 11:10 AM
I recall a rumor about Apple working with airlines in order to allow for iPod connectivity. Maybe, by increasing the Nano's capacity and giving it the ability to view video is just a way to showcase the iPod abilities and size.
"Make that transatlantic filght more enjoyable with your own shows - all in your pocket." 16 Gigs is easily a flights worth of video fun. :)

Eidorian
Dec 6, 2006, 11:13 AM
I've been waiting for a flash based video player.

bigbossbmb
Dec 6, 2006, 11:15 AM
It would also be able to hold a nice Mac OS X install for lets say MacBook and MacBook Pros??

I like the sound of that....seriously this is a feature that I am eagerly waiting for.

But as this is supposed to be for a video player...I would say an iPod video that follows the direction of the shuffle. Basically it is just 'take what you need today' and not 'carry your entire library'. I could see it working...I'd probly get one instead of the 80gig (depending on price of course).

Clive At Five
Dec 6, 2006, 11:19 AM
This isn't like a 1 gig shuffle, where the songs are each 5 mb. The average tv show is like 500 mb. This would be more like a 150 MB shuffle. This is a far smaller selection on the go. A 100 or 120 GB player makes much more sense.

Songs are 5MB and last 5 minutes,
TV shows are ~500 MB (h.264 encoded) and last 60 minutes.

Thus:

1GB could hold 16.5 hours of music
1GB could hold 2 hours of video (thanks Eidorian)

Not too bad for a shuffle, eh? However, we're not talking about 1GB, we're talking about 16... offering you 32 hours of h.264 encoded content... Most people don't need that much at one time. If you do, buy a Zune.

Besides, this is speculation anyway.

-Clive

princealfie
Dec 6, 2006, 11:23 AM
I want one, i want one! :cool: :rolleyes:

Eidorian
Dec 6, 2006, 11:23 AM
Songs are 5MB and last 5 minutes,
TV shows are ~500 MB (h.248 encoded) and last 60 minutes.

Thus:

1GB could hold 16.5 hours of music
1GB could hold 2 hours of music

Not too bad for a shuffle, eh? However, we're not talking about 1GB, we're talking about 16... offering you 32 hours of h.248 encoded content... Most people don't need that much at one time. If you do, buy a Zune.

Besides, this is speculation anyway.

-CliveYou might want to fix that. You have music on there twice.

Secondly, a good 60 minute show (minus commercials) usually comes in around 380 MB in XviD. That's in more or less iPod resolution.

sartinsauce
Dec 6, 2006, 11:27 AM
For videos of very high quality, say DVD or better, then you are correct. 16GB won't hold much video content. However, encoded in h.248, 16GB may be enough for 8 full-length movies. Smaller still, DviX offers greater compression with *slightly* less quality. (Unfortunately, though, I don't think iTunes supports DviX. Does anyone know off-hand?) Regardless, 3 hours of video can be compressed to around 1GB, implying that a 16 GB Video iPod could hold up to 48 hours of *decent* quality video.

DviX compression, by the way, would by far be sufficient for an iPod-sized screen... even if it was in iPod-length widescreen.

-Clive

I think DviX looks like @$$. I've looked at several clips and even compressed some of my own. Even at half of SD Rez, I can't watch it for more that about 30 seconds before I wanna blow it up.

Also, what is H.248? That's a VOIP code right? When I googled it I couldn't find any actual video applications. It appears to be a signaling protocol for VOIP. Maybe you mean H.264? That's the shizznit. Anyone ever looked at the HD clips on Quicktime Trailers? Those are the best looking streaming content I've ever seen. You have to look really hard and long to find compression artifacts.

Clive At Five
Dec 6, 2006, 11:33 AM
I think DviX looks like @$$. I've looked at several clips and even compressed some of my own. Even at half of SD Rez, I can't watch it for more that about 30 seconds before I wanna blow it up.

Also, what is H.248? That's a VOIP code right? When I googled it I couldn't find any actual video applications. It appears to be a signaling protocol for VOIP. Maybe you mean H.264? That's the shizznit. Anyone ever looked at the HD clips on Quicktime Trailers? Those are the best looking streaming content I've ever seen. You have to look really hard and long to find compression artifacts.

Yeah, I meant h.264. Whatever.

DviX and XviD would both look fine... especially on an iPod screen. Maybe not on a TV or monitor, but we're not talking about a TV or monitor. We're talking about an iPod.

-Clive

Eidorian
Dec 6, 2006, 11:34 AM
I think DviX looks like @$$. I've looked at several clips and even compressed some of my own. Even at half of SD Rez, I can't watch it for more that about 30 seconds before I wanna blow it up.

Also, what is H.248? That's a VOIP code right? When I googled it I couldn't find any actual video applications. It appears to be a signaling protocol for VOIP. Maybe you mean H.264? That's the shizznit. Anyone ever looked at the HD clips on Quicktime Trailers? Those are the best looking streaming content I've ever seen. You have to look really hard and long to find compression artifacts.XviD looks fine to me. I wouldn't use XviD and MPEG-4 for anything more then standard definition. You'll save battery life not having to decode h.264.

sartinsauce
Dec 6, 2006, 11:50 AM
XviD looks fine to me. I wouldn't use XviD and MPEG-4 for anything more then standard definition. You'll save battery life not having to decode h.264.

I don't understand. Why wouldn't you use mpeg-4 for anything more than Standard Def? My experiences with mpeg-4 have been really positive. Mpeg-2 (aka DVD and H.263) is fine, but not nearly as clean and efficient as the Mpeg-4 I've used. I mean, h.264 is mpeg-4. Have you had bad experiences using it?

Good point about the h.264 decoding using up battery power!

Eduardo1971
Dec 6, 2006, 01:16 PM
16GB for a video player seems a little weak...


Yeah. I laughed when I read the 16 gigabyte part.:)

archurban
Dec 6, 2006, 01:22 PM
you guys are just missed part. you can always make it double like 8GB ipod nano. so it will be 32GB most likely rather than 16GB.

princealfie
Dec 6, 2006, 01:39 PM
I still want one.

gkarris
Dec 6, 2006, 01:44 PM
You don't buffer streaming data with flash memory since it can only handle a limited number of rewrites (granted the limit is high, but if you use it as a buffer you'll hit that limit pretty quickly). Some type of RAM is usually used for buffering.

Not to mention that 16GB would be enough to "buffer" about 8 movies in H.264, which is a bit overkill as far as caching goes, and easily puts 16GB back into the "storage" capacity.

A portable, flash-based video player with 16GB that can hold 8 Hi-Def movies or 16 Standard-def movies, a few TV shows and a some albums of music? Seems plenty enough to me, considering the size of portable DVD players + 8 or 16 DVDs + burned MP3 CDs...


Why would anyone watch HD on a 3" screen?

HD movies on HD-DVD and Bluray are running about 30Gigs.

The 8Gig Nano is $249, how much is a 16Gig going to be?

On my iPod, I have 15Gigs of video right now and it's growing...

bshort
Dec 6, 2006, 02:17 PM
I would buy one of these.

16GB isn't a tremendous amount of space, but it would certainly be enough for an iPod that is mostly being used for music, with occasional video watching, and a full-frontal screen.

CommodityFetish
Dec 6, 2006, 02:18 PM
Music and movies are different mediums - you don't need your whole movie library on the go, you just need the next few films 'in your queue'. It sounds like 16gig will give you somewhere like 8 films at a time. That's more than enough choice for most people I would think. I bet this gets automated in iTunes synching...

I've been waiting for flash-drives/nanos to best my 3rd gen 10gig ipod (which keeps on ticking, and as long as it does I'm set, but sooner or later...). I'd like a smaller player, but I'm barely getting by on 10gig. 16 would be nice indeed...

Eidorian
Dec 6, 2006, 02:21 PM
Why would anyone watch HD on a 3" screen?

HD movies on HD-DVD and Bluray are running about 30Gigs.Compress it using h.264.

jmbear
Dec 6, 2006, 02:25 PM
Even though using flash memory over a hard drive could increase battery life. I donīt think 16GB is enough. Yeah, you wonīt be watching more than 8-16 movies per trip. But the whole point of the iPod is availability of what you want. You may load up some movies or shows you think you are going to watch, but if you suddenly feel like watching something else, you are screwed! Go back to your computer and load desired movie. Movies and music do not work on the same way though, so 16GB could still have potential.

I donīt really know. Maybe a hard-drive and flash flash memory iPod? Load things from HD to flash memory, then watch. Would that consume more battery life than watching directly from the HD? I donīt know enough about the technology and power consumption, any experts want to comment?

princealfie
Dec 6, 2006, 02:53 PM
Even though using flash memory over a hard drive could increase battery life. I donīt think 16GB is enough. Yeah, you wonīt be watching more than 8-16 movies per trip. But the whole point of the iPod is availability of what you want. You may load up some movies or shows you think you are going to watch, but if you suddenly feel like watching something else, you are screwed! Go back to your computer and load desired movie. Movies and music do not work on the same way though, so 16GB could still have potential.

I donīt really know. Maybe a hard-drive and flash flash memory iPod? Load things from HD to flash memory, then watch. Would that consume more battery life than watching directly from the HD? I donīt know enough about the technology and power consumption, any experts want to comment?

battery life is important to me.

BlueRevolution
Dec 6, 2006, 02:54 PM
I don't understand. Why wouldn't you use mpeg-4 for anything more than Standard Def? My experiences with mpeg-4 have been really positive. Mpeg-2 (aka DVD and H.263) is fine, but not nearly as clean and efficient as the Mpeg-4 I've used. I mean, h.264 is mpeg-4. Have you had bad experiences using it?

Good point about the h.264 decoding using up battery power!

H.264 > DivX > MPEG-4

H.264 != MPEG-4

Yeah, a 16 GB video player would be laughably small for me (not to mention screen size issues). I wouldn't mind the space to load up most of my library though.

Even though using flash memory over a hard drive could increase battery life. I don´t think 16GB is enough. Yeah, you won´t be watching more than 8-16 movies per trip. But the whole point of the iPod is availability of what you want.

Exactly!

I don´t really know. Maybe a hard-drive and flash flash memory iPod? Load things from HD to flash memory, then watch. Would that consume more battery life than watching directly from the HD? I don´t know enough about the technology and power consumption, any experts want to comment?

I don't think there would be a significant enough performance improvement to justify that. If I'm not mistaken, the iPods already have a Flash-based cache to save battery power, so the hard drive doesn't have to be spinning all the time.

FreeState
Dec 6, 2006, 03:08 PM
A player you load up with one or two movies you want to watch...

I was talking ot the CEO of the company that makes the lock out software for DVRs on Sunday (don't ask - I don't know him, we were both at the same party) anyway this is what he said about iTV.

He speculated for the time being Apple is going to make a NetFlix type system where you pay $15 a month and download 4 movies at a time. The movies would download after you erase one - that way they download while you are doing something else. This would work great for slow connections.

That fits the model MrFirework is implying with a flash player:)

We will see how that pans out (I do not know how much this guy knows either - I did not realize who I was talking to until the end of the conversation).

sartinsauce
Dec 6, 2006, 03:18 PM
H.264 > DivX > MPEG-4

H.264 != MPEG-4



As I understand it. H.264 is Mpeg-4 Part 10. DivX is Mpeg-4 Part 2.

They are separately licensed codecs with the mpeg-4 compression patent.

Am I missing something?

iMeowbot
Dec 6, 2006, 06:43 PM
The accuracy of Daniel Amir's reports are unknown.
Amir said that "Synaptics appear to be a lock" (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1697) for the second generation nano controller, but that didn't happen (http://www.thechillired.com/articles/marketsnaps/015_ipodBoM.aspx).

Archmagination
Dec 6, 2006, 06:46 PM
Maybe I am missing something here.. but wouldn't this naturally coincide with an announcement for the Full-Screen Ipod?

macfan881
Dec 6, 2006, 06:50 PM
now would this mean if its flash base would the batery life be better than the orignal 5.0 gen ipods

ezekielrage_99
Dec 6, 2006, 08:25 PM
Crap..... and I just bought a 4GB Nano :rolleyes:

justflie
Dec 6, 2006, 09:21 PM
crap, i just bought a 4gb iphone. oh wait...:rolleyes:

charkshark
Dec 6, 2006, 09:44 PM
Why would anyone watch HD on a 3" screen?

HD movies on HD-DVD and Bluray are running about 30Gigs.

The 8Gig Nano is $249, how much is a 16Gig going to be?

On my iPod, I have 15Gigs of video right now and it's growing...

Essentially what I was thinking, but they could maybe do a bit of a redesign for this model. Most possibly doubling the capacity to 32 gigs, as done in the 8 gig nano.

I still don't see much use in a flash memory based VIDEO iPod. Yeah, you're gonna be working out while watching your iPod.

Philberttheduck
Dec 6, 2006, 10:18 PM
iPod nanos are used primarily for working out or "extreme" sports (skateboardin, snowboardin). Having video content would be "one more thing" but I think they can invest a 16GB NAND in something more useful (MBseries).

I see this happening (bumpin 2GB to nano sometime mid-2007 if not later), but NAND better make this thing thin as hell. 16GB would be poor for a "primary" iPod with it probably providing the least bang-for-buck value.

miketcool
Dec 6, 2006, 10:22 PM
I was thinking just now, isnt there a dispute over the iPods current interface?

A video nano may just be a nano with the new "front row" interface. The nVidia chip may have been to help power features like front row, which I am convinced was developed for the iPod originallly, but hasnt made its debut, so Apple let us this work. I mean come on, its a spinning circle, like your wheel. It makes way more sense to turn the wheel on the iPod as the wheel turns on the screen.

16gb video nano, eh, not so much. 16gb nano with new video chip, yes.

http://daapspace4.daap.uc.edu/~wiglemd/16gbnano

Ha ze
Dec 6, 2006, 10:51 PM
i would like to see "front row" come to the iPod interface, would be an interesting improvement

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 10:55 PM
That's why they would call this the iPod Video Shuffle.

Actually, I this this guy might be onto something here...
iPod is for music. It does music well, and only music. It doesn't do video so well, and the new 5th gen iPods don't even to music that well (the interface is too laggy).

I think Apple may actually split up the line. iPod for music (with video playback as an added bonus) and an iTube (or whatever name they choose) for video playback (with music playback as an added bonus).

That way, they only have to focus on doing one thing well, and everything else is an added bonus.
Completely agree. Focus on one aspect. I hate a ****** music player that can also be crappy video player. Its just two craptastular devices molded into one.

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 10:58 PM
I think this is an analyst trying to bolster stocks of companies that sell flash memory. I agree with most that this is counter intuitive.

This isn't like a 1 gig shuffle, where the songs are each 5 mb. The average tv show is like 500 mb. This would be more like a 150 MB shuffle. This is a far smaller selection on the go. A 100 or 120 GB player makes much more sense.

My best guess: true video ipods will be hard drive based, the audio first ipod line will be switched to flash memory and merged with the nano line, giving you a range from 16 (20? 32?) GB down to 4GB. The larger capacities may be bigger and a different form factor. Then you've got the good old shuffle, pure music.

Any which way, I'll take 3 please. :)
But videos are not only longer. Usually ten times as long. So, if you break it down into size ratio. A video is probably ten times the bit rate of a song. So, more than ten times the storage of a shuffle, actually allows you just as much flexibility. Plus usually put less videos than songs since they plan to watch videos instead of like the selection of different albums. Plus, after one video is seen. Its is likely to be changed out. So, honestly a video shuffle at close to 20GB would be very nice. Its of course all about implementation, but if its pulled of. It would be nice.

Chef Medeski
Dec 6, 2006, 11:05 PM
I donīt really know. Maybe a hard-drive and flash flash memory iPod? Load things from HD to flash memory, then watch. Would that consume more battery life than watching directly from the HD? I donīt know enough about the technology and power consumption, any experts want to comment?
Thats something Intel is bringing to the market in Laptopts. Its called Robson Technology. If you look it up you can find it. It saves a lot of extra battery life due the must lesser extent of hard drive access. However, it involves placing both a large quantity of RAM to make it any useful, which is expensive, and a better processor to handle all the complications. You'd probably be looking at a device double the price of a regular iPod. So, something like $500 for a 40 or 60GB with 8GB Flash. So, you would have like 17 hours of battery life. But, still does the price really justify the extra battery life? Plus its a very complicated system to implement since it hasn't even happened on PCs yet, you can see that it wouldn't be much simpler on an iPod.

iMeowbot
Dec 6, 2006, 11:06 PM
I was thinking just now, isnt there a dispute over the iPods current interface?
No serious ones remain, Apple settled with the two main rights holders (Creative and Contois).

Still, the interface could see an overhaul at some point. Apple have tacitly acknowledged that the current system has some weaknesses by adding the letter index feature, but even the Front Row interface ultimately falls back on a list that looks very much like the current iPod arrangement after you get past the main screen.

miketcool
Dec 6, 2006, 11:46 PM
...but even the Front Row interface ultimately falls back on a list that looks very much like the current iPod arrangement after you get past the main screen.

I was thinking about that as well. We all know that Apple has been grappling with an massive interface difference with their phone and music iPod fusion (supposedly) coming. Phones use sticks, or directional keys to navigate icons laid out in a matrix. At somepoint the heirarchy becomes a list. The iPod uses these lists, but more effeciently with a continuous spinning motion instead of a single clicking button found on phones for scrolling. You just have more control with the wheel.

For me, I am mostly interested in how Apple will apply the wheel in a new application. Its been list scrolling on an A/V device. Now were getting into a mobile interface, and I doubt Apple will use the matrix setup. Some sort of spinning or graphic scrolling interface is about to come to fruition. More amazing then that, will be how Apple incorporates the wheel into the smart phone. Do we start to see trackpad capabilities. This Jan, expect to see an old dog pull a new trick.

Yvan256
Dec 6, 2006, 11:59 PM
Is H.264 that efficient? You could compress an HD feature to 2GB? That's insane! I've not had the opportunity to work with HD content and H.264, but now that I read this, I really want to. Maybe I should borrow a camera and just mess around.

All I know is that H.264 is supposed to be the best available right now, Apple is betting on it (all their hardware/software that support video supports H.264), I've heard that television stations/networks use H.264 too.

My figure of "2GB for Hi-Def H.264 content and 1GB for standard-def H.264 content" was mostly based on personnal tests, and I'm talking about the low-end of the Hi-Def, 480p (which is what a video iPod will have for display, IMHO).

MV101
Dec 7, 2006, 12:01 AM
i would like to see "front row" come to the iPod interface, would be an interesting improvement

How about Front Row as the main window, with CoverFlow for the music/video browsing... ? CoverFlow easily makes sense with a wheel/circle motion.

Ja Di ksw
Dec 7, 2006, 01:02 AM
My guess is the iPhone or whatever you want to call it will replace the smaller iPods with screens, then there will be larger iPods will screens but still flash, then the largest iPods with a HD

Shuffle - no screen
"iPhone" - 4-8 GB
Nano - 16 GB (and more?)
iPod - 80 - 100 GB?

Something along those lines.

sartinsauce
Dec 7, 2006, 02:12 AM
All I know is that H.264 is supposed to be the best available right now, Apple is betting on it (all their hardware/software that support video supports H.264), I've heard that television stations/networks use H.264 too.

My figure of "2GB for Hi-Def H.264 content and 1GB for standard-def H.264 content" was mostly based on personnal tests, and I'm talking about the low-end of the Hi-Def, 480p (which is what a video iPod will have for display, IMHO).


I see what you mean. I thought you were saying that you could use H.264 to compress 1080 into roughly 2GB per hour.

480p is much more reasonable. That I could believe. That's only like 15:1 or something similar. I bet that would look nice, and be adequate resolution for a video iPod.

koobcamuk
Dec 7, 2006, 03:41 AM
Can't read whole thread - but I doubt the current nano would stay as it is. How about a full screen Nano? Why not have that for video? Why does it have to be the full iPod that goes video? Why not both?

koobcamuk
Dec 7, 2006, 03:46 AM
How about Front Row as the main window, with CoverFlow for the music/video browsing... ? CoverFlow easily makes sense with a wheel/circle motion.

As an option, yes. Not as the only way to view the iPod menus. Would do my head in. Plus iTunes still hasn't found all my covers.

thejadedmonkey
Dec 7, 2006, 07:59 AM
Thats something Intel is bringing to the market in Laptopts. Its called Robson Technology. If you look it up you can find it. It saves a lot of extra battery life due the must lesser extent of hard drive access. However, it involves placing both a large quantity of RAM to make it any useful, which is expensive, and a better processor to handle all the complications. You'd probably be looking at a device double the price of a regular iPod. So, something like $500 for a 40 or 60GB with 8GB Flash. So, you would have like 17 hours of battery life. But, still does the price really justify the extra battery life? Plus its a very complicated system to implement since it hasn't even happened on PCs yet, you can see that it wouldn't be much simpler on an iPod.

$500 for 10 additional hours away from an outlet... bring it on! Right now batteries cost about $100 per 3 hours. $300 for 9 hours, that's an extra $200 convenience fee/not having to carry around 4 batteries at once. I'd do that in a heartbeat.

ModernGeek
Dec 7, 2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah, I meant h.264. Whatever.

DviX and XviD would both look fine... especially on an iPod screen. Maybe not on a TV or monitor, but we're not talking about a TV or monitor. We're talking about an iPod.

-Clive

Yeah, but a lot of people like to hook their iPods up to their TV to watch their video content. :rolleyes:

EagerDragon
Dec 7, 2006, 11:46 AM
I feel like I'm numbing my brain with all this constant video stimulation.

LOL, I wonder what you been watching.

sterno74
Dec 7, 2006, 03:12 PM
I think this one is bogus. I think someone who doesn't know and hasn't paid much attention is speculating based on some other rumors or something. Why a 16GB video player? What is the point? That's not enough space to store any kind of library.

Actually it makes perfect sense. No you can't put a library on it, but then how often do you really need an entire library of video? I mean granted, it'd be nice to have, but I think that you gain a lot for dumping the hard drive. At 16GB you could put a number of full length movies, and since it's all flash based, you'd be able to have a pretty long life device.

By replacing the hard drive with flash memory you can dump both the weight and battery sucking of the hard drive, but also, thanks to the space saving, you can actually have a bigger battery in it. Today the ipod with video will last maybe 3 hours or so, which is barely enough for a plane flight (the most obvious place to use such a device). The ideal is a video ipod that has a bit bigger screen and can play video for 12-16 hours.

While yeah having a bigger library would be good, I think you run into simple physical limitations related to battery life and storage space. This bypasses that nicely.

samh004
Dec 8, 2006, 02:24 PM
A player you load up with one or two movies you want to watch for, say, a train or plane trip. It could be ultra thin with a decent-sized screen. I see potential.

Then again...

I see the potential too, but will others see it considering that it will be in the same price point as what the 80GB model goes for now. The average guy would think only that he was losing 64GB, they'd need some very good marketing to pull that off.

I wouldn't mind something a little bigger than the nano or even mini for that kind of capability, otherwise it's just going to be too small. I think I'm going to break my nano enough, I don't want the burden of thinking I'll break a vidPod too.

Ish
Jan 15, 2007, 12:10 PM
Lots of comments referring to video nano. I see it says flash-based video i-pod but didn't see any reference to nano. Maybe it's i-pod sized but with flash memory?

Shagrat
Jan 15, 2007, 12:35 PM
Lots of comments referring to video nano. I see it says flash-based video i-pod but didn't see any reference to nano. Maybe it's i-pod sized but with flash memory?

Maybe it's iPhone sized!