U2 iPod, Photo iPod and Additional iTMS Localizations Released

[~Shard~]

Yeah, instead of the album art being static, it could also be dynamic! Imagine the possibilities!

Heck, with a touch-screen, you could even have band members appear in an 84 Volvo when pressed.

Dynamic album art? Wouldn't this just be video? I know, not quite, but still... ;)

[~Shard~]

Hi.

Hum... can you you buy an eMac tomorrow, please? :D

Throw in a 17" PowerBook for good measure as well... :eek:

[Koodauw]

I guarantee the size will get a little bigger if they put a color screen into the mini. Plus they would need to put a bigger slim HD in it. as in more than 4gb.


Very true. I do hope everyone's new iPod ships before the appoclypse comes.

Boston up 3-0.

What are we to do MacNut?

[abc123]

The whole pay for music downloading in general I am against. I like to buy my music when I can in CD format, mainly because I love to get the package. I like having something physical and as a designer I appretiate great package design, especially when its really innovative with some awesome printing. The package and the content/booklet inside is great incentive for me.

Since less people are buying cds and either stealing music or downloading it, either way a large number of people have stopped buying the actual cd's and it is really a shame because record companies are not willing to spend the extra on cool packaging and stuff.

This is just one view of course...

A good example: I saw a lecture from an amazing designer whom you may be familiar with (hes done lots of cd packaging for musicians, pink floyd, rolling stones, aerosmith), Stefan Sagmeister. He was designing an album cover for a band, cant remember the name, but its all multi coloured and theres an 84 volvo on the front. The concept was to print it on a special material that enabled the user to draw on the front or apply pressure to the front or something and the band members would appear doing crazy things inside the car on the cover. I think stuff like that is really cool and what ended up happening is that it never ended up being printed that way cause it would have costed an additional 2 cents per cd...

Obsiouly there are some benefits to buying online but it just seems like there is less room for creative cd packging, less work for designers in that feild (Sagmeister even said you could never survive doing that now, you need other type of design for a stable income), and less incentive to buy a disc.

Ahh well.
i know what you mean about the cool packaging and everything but online music purchasing is great for the average consumer as a legal way to buy music. if you think about it most of us have been getting ripped off for years when it comes to music so it is no surprise that illegal downloading became such a hit.

if you only like a few songs by an artist then paying AU$20-35 for an album is a rip off, especially when a lot of the songs are just put on the album to bulk up the 'value'. singles are not much better either, $5 for two or three songs which are usually just remixes or maybe an extra song that was not good enough to be put on the actual album but you end up paying more for in the end? the packaging of singles isn't very impressive either...

record companies had us roped it so that we could only buy everything at once or just the singles that they picked out for a price way more than reasonable. when napster first started out people were sharing songs more than they were entire albums, then once broadband really took off we all got a bit greedy.

i'd like to think that cds will still be around into the future and i don't doubt that they will, just look at the number of artists that still release vinyl. if i really enjoy a band then i'll be happy to shell out my AU$20-35 for an album, cover art and all but if i just want to get a catchy song out of my head by listening to it for a few days then i'd rather pay 99c or whatever.

[Nspace]

I remember similar things said when the CD replaced the LP, and the artwork became those tinsy little CD inserts instead of the glorious large vinyl covers.

(Come to think of it, most web pages have more space than a CD cover!)

But you do know that album art is supported by iTunes don't you? I don't think video is killing the radio star.

Artwork online though is not the same. Printed piece can be embosed/debossed, different papers, different coatings, foil stamping etc. Online there is no tactile qualities, I dunno thats just me but I am sure some other people would agree.

To actually have it and be able to hold it is nice for me, especially when its something really cool like the newest duran duran singles box (cd sized and designed to look like a steel record case and the lid opens in the top and the cds slide out of little sleeves and its all made to look like little vinyl records, it was pretty cool).

Edit: yeah i agree with the above, like I said i understand there are many benefits, but for me its just a shame to see it hurt the industry as a whole, and even when you do decide to buy the overpriced cds, you are not getting as much for your money when there is some standard design with a puney medicore booklet inside.

[MaCaDDiCT21]

Have the games on the photo iPod been revised with color graphics?

[dejo]

Dynamic album art? Wouldn't this just be video? I know, not quite, but still... ;)

Could be video. Perhaps. Or it could be something like interactive animation. Perhaps. I think there is plenty of potential in this area. Does anybody have Stefan Sagmeister's email?

[Mechcozmo]

Is the iPod Photo compatible with Windows?
We might see an iPhoto for Windows, or something like that soon, to fill in that gap. Or maybe Google's picture thingy...ooh

[Yvan256]

The great thing about this is that they are seperating the iPod lineup. This is not the 5G....it's the iPod Photo. They are keeping an iPod that is dedicated to music....those are the 4G's. There are 4 in the lineup now:
iPod (4G)
iPod Mini
iPod Photo (hopefully they will enable video output after Tiger and it's better video encoding abilities are released)
iPod Special Edition (hopefully these will continue with other bands/artists)
-hopefully they will add a 5th to this lineup with a flash iPod for under $150

Sorry but there's no "special edition". It's still a regular 4th generation iPod.

The outer casing has nothing to do with the internals (in this case).

[Nspace]

Could be video. Perhaps. Or it could be something like interactive animation. Perhaps. I think there is plenty of potential in this area. Does anybody have Stefan Sagmeister's email?

You can email him from the website http://www.sagmeister.com/contactus.html It is a pretty small firm, just him his partner and an intern and I am sure he gets a ton of email so I would not be suprised if he did not reply. When I talked to him he seemed really approachable and willing to help.

[~Shard~]

Could be video. Perhaps. Or it could be something like interactive animation. Perhaps. I think there is plenty of potential in this area. Does anybody have Stefan Sagmeister's email?

Yah, there would definitely be potential there for some interesting effects, things which couldn't be accomplished on normal static CD covers - I'm sure some creative people will take advantage of something like this in the near future...

[Yvan256]

But the 'hidden functionality' doesn't do anything for the 4G owners.. Apple gave this impression that in the future their 4G iPods would offer more functionality. really it doesn't, its for iPod Photo.

Didn't I read somewhere that the hidden functionality was something like 5.1 output? (don't ask me how though).

[mvc]

I have to say that the iPod Photo is a halfbaked solution. One of the key potential uses for it is to download and store actual images from digital cameras, while out an about or on holiday - it is after all a portable device.

Instead, they miss the opportunity altogether, and require you to return to home base and sync to your mac to view those images. And make you buy a fapping great ugly expensive slow third party card reader to get them on board in the first place.

Which might be acceptable if there were not so many altenative all-in-one media devices emerging which CAN do this on-the-go transfer and view trick, usually with built in card readers, sometimes acting a USB host directly connected to the camera, although admittedly usually in a less user friendly way overall.

Half baked gesture really.

[~Shard~]

Didn't I read somewhere that the hidden functionality was something like 5.1 output? (don't ask me how though).

Why are you asking? How am I supposed to know what you did and didn't read?! (Ever since my surveillance cameras cut out, that is...) :p ;)

[dejo]

(in this case).

Ha, ha. Pun intended?

[nagromme]

Have the games on the photo iPod been revised with color graphics?
Yes :D Apple.com has a picture of Solitaire (and Calendar in color). Personally, I think Breakout needed the biggest improvement ;)


Is the iPod Photo compatible with Windows?
We might see an iPhoto for Windows, or something like that soon, to fill in that gap. Or maybe Google's picture thingy...ooh
Yes, iPod Photo is for Windows too. Apple dodged the iPhoto Windows question neatly AND made things one-stop easy for iPod owners: photo synching is handled by iTunes--which now connects with Photoshop Elements, iPhoto, etc.--or simply to a folder of images on your HD if you prefer.


Artwork online though is not the same. Printed piece can be embosed/debossed, different papers, different coatings, foil stamping etc. Online there is no tactile qualities, I dunno thats just me but I am sure some other people would agree.
I agree, physical albums are nice and I'll keep buying them for some things, like my favorite artists. They won't be going away, that market is much bigger for the foreseeable future than downloads. But I'm SO glad to have the downloadable single as an option, and buy a lot of that too.


I have to say that the iPod Photo is a halfbaked solution. One of the key potential uses for it is to download and store actual images from digital cameras, while out an about or on holiday - it is after all a portable device.
iPods already do that--just get the optional card reader, which would add size and cost if it were built-in.

We're talking TWO DIFFERENT functions, though. The iPod Photo is NOT meant for managing the space on your camera. It is for displaying your photo library. If you want both you can have both, but only one is the purpose of the iPod Photo.

And it's a purpose with much broader appeal than managing your camera's flash card contents. I don't know anyone who ever fills up a camera anyway! But I know lots of people who SHOW photos. And with an iPod, you can do so with music and clickwheel ease-of-use!

[Yvan256]

Personally I'd love to see an Iron Maiden iPod!

I'd like to see a Jean Michel Jarre iPod.

Or heck, even a Weird Al Yankovic iPod! :D

[Yvan256]

the iMaiden iPod

haha, oh god i'm lame :(

You're an MP3 encoder? (http://lame.sourceforge.net/)

[Yvan256]

Yep, and not only that, but you have to do a custom import setup and operation beforehand (and you have to know exactly which tracks need to be joined, you can't just pop in a CD and walk away). It really is an ugly "solution", very un-Applelike. Aren't they supposed to be the ones concerned about the little things, the details, the fit-and-finish? I'm half-tempted to create a little gapless playback proof-of-concept app using QuickTime just to prove it can be done, even by a terrible programmer like me.

Worst thing is, even in the current state, it *should* be automated. Can't iTunes detect the zero-second gap between the tracks and join them automatically?

[Yvan256]

How bout those iPod socks? Genius!

Really? If you say it out loud, you just said "iPod sucks". ;)

[aswitcher]

Really? If you say it out loud, you just said "iPod sucks". ;)

Especially if you are a NewZealander... ;)

[abc123]

You're an MP3 encoder? (http://lame.sourceforge.net/)
i can feel better now knowing that i am not the lamest :D

[hollerpa]

Now that Apple has launched an iPod that can store and view photos from a computer, wouldn't it be great to have them take the next step and remove the computer from the process? Imagine an iPod that plugs directly in to your digital still or video camera, giving you 40-60 GB of storage. You could kiss the need for multiple compact flash cards goodbye.

[Yvan256]

That's one hot iPod!

Someone said it already, but remember when Steve was bragging up h.264, how it could scale from HDTV to cell phone (read: iPod) size? Yeah, baby. Movie Store, here we come.

Think about it: why download a crappy quality DIVX rip off LimeWire when you could get a great quality video from Apple, one that will scale great from your iPod screen, to your TV, to your 30" Cinema display?

Where do I sign up?

It would also allow for a new device, kind of an iPod-for-your-TV. Have your movie collection all at once, no need to swap DVDs anymore.

[virividox]

guess the photopod predictions were true

[Phobophobia]

As usual, there is the initial backlash at everything new that Apple releases, and, the successful aftermath. Who would ever want an iPod Mini--it's not unlikely that the iPod Mini will begin to outsell the iPod. The new iPod Photo is something to be happy about. Not only does it give more storage to hardcore music listeners, but it also has a great high-quality screen for album art and photos, plus three hours of extra battery life! This thing is great. While I feel eventually all of the iPods will have a color screen, for a couple generations the iPod Photo will be the only one.

[Giantred]

It would also allow for a new device, kind of an iPod-for-your-TV. Have your movie collection all at once, no need to swap DVDs anymore.


iPod-for-your-TV aint that catchy!

Now all we need is the video out.

Corey

[MacNut]

Very true. I do hope everyone's new iPod ships before the appoclypse comes.

Boston up 3-0.

What are we to do MacNut?

Hopefully the Cardinals will take it to a game 7 and win it all in a 4 game sweep. ;) Or we all need to buy bomb shelters tomorrow. :eek:

[Peer]

Can you give some examples? (Both my parents are Dutch and I'm curious)

Search for Frank Boeyen (should also be Boeijen). Not my favorite music. But take a look at the spelling of the songtitles.

[MacNut]

I would love to see a classic rock iPod, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, ect ect

[dejo]

Search for Frank Boeyen (should also be Boeijen). Not my favorite music. But take a look at the spelling of the songtitles.

Thanks, Peer. I saw those songs earlier and thought their titles looked a little funny. Now I know for sure. And I didn't notice the Boeyen/Boeijen mistake so I'm learning more, too. I have relatives in Reeuwijk with the last name of Perdijk. I should've been more aware. Anyways, "goede nacht!"

[pkis]

People who are voting this story negative are most likely from Canada, Japan or Australia. If they're disappointed they have the record companies and / or their national governments to blame, not Apple.


Nope, in my case it's definitely Apple who's to blame - according to yesterday's press-release, they won't be offering the promised "pan European" store and instead concentrate on Eurozone countries where more money is to be made. This leaves out a third of the EU countires plus Switzerland. - which together makes around 120 Million people who will now use the MSN Music store instead. I was actually planning on selling my last windows box (which hasn't been turned on in half a year) but now it looks as though there's a weighty (for me) reason to keep it.
I have no idea why the heck they don't just offer a European store with price tags in Euro for everyone. Nobody cares if one has to pay for a song in one's national currency or in Euro. And personally, I don't even care for any local content.

[Penman]

I just returned the 40Gb iPod I bought my girlfriend for her birthday and ordered a 60 Gb photo unit for her instead. My last iPod was a 30Gb 3rd gen which I sold because it was too small for my collection.

I know my girlfriend's going to love the iPod but I think that Apple are getting a little silly with the pricing.

1) I spent $725 for the iPod (including extended warranty and tax) - why do I have to pay $40 for a remote which should come free. Is there not enough profit in $599 to support that? Of course there is - they used to be free.

2) Where's my carrying case. Even a cheap one. It was standard on my 30Gb - now I have to buy it.

3) Where's Apple buying it's screens? My sony T3 has 230,000 pixels on a 2.5 inch screen and cost over $100 less than the iPod. Even given the differences in the items, Apple isn't using the same standard of screens as the camera guys. When did they get so damn cheap (and expensive).

4) When did 'expidited shipping' (which I paid extra for) become Fed-Ex ground. What about express? WHY ARE YOU SO CHEAP APPLE!

The Apple Borg can tell me that I'm being unreasonable, but as a wealthy consumer who loves Apple product it still annoys me that I know I'm overpaying for devices in such an extreme way. If the iPod offered the best of everything that'd be fine but it doesn't. Other people offer better screens and battery life. Isn't anyone else upset that however much money you give Apple you still don't get the best?

I'm surprised they still provide 'free' headphones (I bought the GF 'isolators' but still...)

I love you Apple but I'm not stupid and 'value' isn't in your dictionary anymore.

[iProbot]

I'd like to see a Jean Michel Jarre iPod.

Or heck, even a Weird Al Yankovic iPod! :D

What about a Michael Jackson iPod, with extra removable click-wheels, just like his removable noses :D

[knuxed]

Apple today also announced it will launch the iTunes Music Store in Canada in November.

So Canadians do have their fun to

[SiliconAddict]

Stick around here ;) :D

Or just visit the folks here who hollered about what a horrible idea the original iPod was:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=500

Some people seem to think if Apple EVER releases ANY product that they personally don't want OR can't afford RIGHT NOW, the company is doomed :o


OK. That is borderline scary how that old thread is almost identical to this one. Thanks that was supremely amusing. :D

My fav?

A bad fit. This product is outside Apple's core competancy - computing devices. When many are calling for a pda, they release an MP3 player.
Without a future. This Christmas you will see mp3 players be commoditized. Meaning that the players from Korea will be way less expensive tha iPod. The real money is in DRM and distribution (ala Real Musicnet). If Apple were smart they would be focusing on high gross revenue from services rather than a playback device.

[JesterJJZ]

Good thought. Pretty cool to be able to make an audio/video tape right off the iPod!

Note that ALL Macs (even eMac) now have video out built-in and can output composite or S-video. Only the PowerBook actually comes with the cable to do so, though. (It's under $30 for the others.)

My G5 doesn't have a video-out right out of the box. :D

[Flowbee]

I'd like to see a Jean Michel Jarre iPod.

Or heck, even a Weird Al Yankovic iPod! :D

I won't be happy until there's a Finntroll (http://www.finntroll.net) iPod. :cool:

[Loge]

2) Where's my carrying case. Even a cheap one. It was standard on my 30Gb - now I have to buy it.


Carry case is standard on the iPod Photo

[CalfCanuck]

I have to say that the iPod Photo is a halfbaked solution. One of the key potential uses for it is to download and store actual images from digital cameras, while out an about or on holiday - it is after all a portable device.

Instead, they miss the opportunity altogether, and require you to return to home base and sync to your mac to view those images. And make you buy a fapping great ugly expensive slow third party card reader to get them on board in the first place...
It is a disappointment. Only thing we can hope is that Apple (or a third party) designs a "higher" speed device (high speed would be asking too much ;) ) to make it useful for photographers.

Non-photographers don't seem to get it. The color screen is far less useful than a portable 60 GB, 12 oz. storage device that fits in your camera bag. These types of products already exist, so Apple needs to solve this "upload" issue ASAP if they want a share of the photo market.

[Diatribe]

Interesting warning I got when I started up iTunes 4.7 which I never had before. It tells me that my firewall (which is the standard OS X firewall) will prevent remote control of AirTunes. It was my impression that, to this point, I havn't had remote control of Airtunes - but I want it bad! This could be the sweetest bit of the whole thing.

That looks interesting. I would like that. :D

[cantrdr]

Im looking at getting a mini, in the next few days, what do people think about the possibilities fo apple releasing more ipods prior to christmas, or do you think that this is it as far as the choice of ipods go for the rest of the year?


There is talk of a flash based iPod before X-mas, however the size of the memory may or may not be constrained given the still high cost of 1GB flash. Maybe a 512mb player????
One caveat is that yesterdays product annoucement may hit the flash player on the head!

[Penman]

Carry case is standard on the iPod Photo

Can you link to the page that states this? I don't see it and I've already paid.

Anyone know if the new marginally thicker pods will fit in a Contour designs case for 4G? Are the Photo pods (5G) going to require all the maufacturers to re-tool again? I hope not - the 20G and 40G share many cases and are different sizes. Just wondering....

[Penman]

It is a disappointment. Only thing we can hope is that Apple (or a third party) designs a "higher" speed device (high speed would be asking too much ;) ) to make it useful for photographers.

Non-photographers don't seem to get it. The color screen is far less useful than a portable 60 GB, 12 oz. storage device that fits in your camera bag. These types of products already exist, so Apple needs to solve this "upload" issue ASAP if they want a share of the photo market.

check out the Epson 2000. 3.8 inch screen (which makes the iPods look pretty silly when it comes to resolution and quality) and a 40Gb drive for $500. It's essentially an iPod already (but cheaper and better - just not Apple). It's sad to see what can be produced profitably by companies that are a little less desperate (given that the other hardware is weak - namely PB's, the old cash cow.)

[Loge]

Can you link to the page that states this? I don't see it and I've already paid.

Anyone know if the new marginally thicker pods will fit in a Contour designs case for 4G? Are the Photo pods (5G) going to require all the maufacturers to re-tool again? I hope not - the 20G and 40G share many cases and are different sizes. Just wondering....

http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/specs.html

See under included accessories. Hope this is not an error; something like that happened when the 4G was first launched.

[toxer]

Eagerly awaiting non-iPod related news/releases from Apple.

[xcalibur]

everything looks great but the thing i'm worried about is that those of us who use multiple iphoto libraries won't be able to sync all our photos right?

[Penman]

http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/specs.html

See under included accessories. Hope this is not an error; something like that happened when the 4G was first launched.

Hmmm... Thanks for the link. A $.50 nylon case is pretty exciting. I hope Apple can afford to include it. I'd rather be able to get a remote without having to buy some crappy earphones too though.

[Philsy]

I think it's time to expand the iPod brand to include a PDA. This could follow the iPod form factor but with a larger touch-screen (scroll wheel would have to go, I'm afraid). As well as playing music and viewing photos you could also manage your calender, address book and play games. It's always seemed daft to me that an iPod allows you to view your calender but not to change it.

iSync works so well with my Sony Ericcson phone that I can really see the potential of an iPod PDA. And with the success of iPod as a fashion gadget a PDA would be a surefire success and encourage more people to buy Macs.

[Diomedes]

Apple's site has the 40Gb "regular" iPod at being .69 thick, and the iPhoto iPod at .75 thick. Does any one know if that .06" will really make a huge difference in terms of using current cases? I love my Contour Showcase, and I was wondering what people here thought. (Of course, being the geek I am, I had to order a 60 Gb...lol)

[MacMyDay]

1) I spent $725 for the iPod (including extended warranty and tax) - why do I have to pay $40 for a remote which should come free. Is there not enough profit in $599 to support that? Of course there is - they used to be free.

2) Where's my carrying case. Even a cheap one. It was standard on my 30Gb - now I have to buy it.


I have to admit, I never noticed these changes taking place. I bought an iPod before anyone really even knew about them, and it cost me £400 - this was over 2 years ago. Now, the top-end iPod costs £430. It seems like a step backwards, no matter what new technology they're put into it. Also, the removal of the remote control and carrycase. Seems a little unfair to remove this items that you'd expect to come even with a £100 MiniDisc player.

[Penman]

Apple's site has the 40Gb "regular" iPod at being .69 thick, and the iPhoto iPod at .75 thick. Does any one know if that .06" will really make a huge difference in terms of using current cases? I love my Contour Showcase, and I was wondering what people here thought. (Of course, being the geek I am, I had to order a 60 Gb...lol)

how much play is there in your case? Can you close it with a folded piece of paper behind the iPod? You tell us - experiment!

[mvc]

check out the Epson 2000. 3.8 inch screen (which makes the iPods look pretty silly when it comes to resolution and quality) and a 40Gb drive for $500. It's essentially an iPod already (but cheaper and better - just not Apple). It's sad to see what can be produced profitably by companies that are a little less desperate (given that the other hardware is weak - namely PB's, the old cash cow.)

Bingo, we have a winner - this is the sort of thing that I and most other travelling photographers will be after - its the most solid device I've seen so far from any manufacturer, and EPSON is a quality outfit unlike some of these no name device makers, it supports viewing RAW files as well as JPEG, has a CompactFlash slot built in and has a fantastic quality screen plus TV out. The only downer is that the battery life is low at 3 hours.

I note that it plays ACC files and MP3s as well.

Awesome device by the look of it.

Oh well, better luck next time Apple. I guess the casual snapshot crowd will be happy with the iPod Photo, but it seems to me Apple missed pitching it at its most obvious market.

[Wardofsky]

It is a disappointment. Only thing we can hope is that Apple (or a third party) designs a "higher" speed device (high speed would be asking too much ;) ) to make it useful for photographers.

Non-photographers don't seem to get it. The color screen is far less useful than a portable 60 GB, 12 oz. storage device that fits in your camera bag. These types of products already exist, so Apple needs to solve this "upload" issue ASAP if they want a share of the photo market.

iPod is just a consumer device, putting more advanced tech for more advanced imaging isn't logical.
This is designed for people who have a little digital camera who upload them into iPhoto, upload them to the iPod and share them around with their friends and family on TV.

Sure putting in RAW image file support would be good, but it's not designed to be a fully fledged image machine, it's just a music player with another feature.

[combatcolin]

had a quite gander at the Greek and Spanish stores and everything is in english.

Weird.

[Penman]

I have to admit, I never noticed these changes taking place. I bought an iPod before anyone really even knew about them, and it cost me £400 - this was over 2 years ago. Now, the top-end iPod costs £430. It seems like a step backwards, no matter what new technology they're put into it. Also, the removal of the remote control and carrycase. Seems a little unfair to remove this items that you'd expect to come even with a £100 MiniDisc player.

Very true. Apple have seen that the iPod is profitable but risk alienating people by being greedy. When you buy a Honda the carpets are extra. When you buy a Rolls-Royce they come with the car. Charging for basic (and vital) accessories is just bad business. The iPod remote's a joke (no LCD and a useless clip) but that's another story.

[asif786]

who's going to pay that much extra to be able to view their multi-megapixel photos on a 2-inch ipod screen? even if it played videos, who cares?

it's a gimmick, and a weak one at that.

Yes, some of you macrumors people will think that everybody needs one, and its the greatest thing since running water, but the market won't support it. people just aren't going to spring for it. trust me.


All I can say to this is 'iPod mini'. Everybody thought "Jeez, what a flop" - but now they're flying off the shelves and they're still fairly sparse in the UK. No doubt the xmas buying season is going to make them even harder to get.

I, personally, would buy that iPod photo just for the frikkin interface! Man that thing is beautiful! Of course, I have to go to the apple store in London first to see how thick it is.

While you may think the photo thing is a gimmick, you're wrong. My house is always the one used for family entertaining (xmas, bdays, new years) and sometimes theres 100-200 people here, and they all want to see the latest holiday snaps or whatever, or even photos that have just been taken - I used to show them on my little PB screen - now I can just hook the iPod photo up to the TV and leave them to it. It's a godsend!

Now, I'm gonna go iTMS crazy and spend more money than I have :D :cool:

Sorry for the long post ppl :)

[Poff]

Very true. Apple have seen that the iPod is profitable but risk alienating people by being greedy. When you buy a Honda the carpets are extra. When you buy a Rolls-Royce they come with the car. Charging for basic (and vital) accessories is just bad business. The iPod remote's a joke (no LCD and a useless clip) but that's another story.

I would disagree that the remote is a vital accessory. I for one would never use it, so I'm glad they don't include it. (don't want to be paying for extra stuff I don't use.)

As for the carrying bag, they could at least have included an iPod-branded pouch or something, I can agree to that. What could it cost them? $1?

Maybe we'll all just have to get a sock! :D

[mvc]

iPod is just a consumer device, putting more advanced tech for more advanced imaging isn't logical.
This is designed for people who have a little digital camera who upload them into iPhoto, upload them to the iPod and share them around with their friends and family on TV.

Sure putting in RAW image file support would be good, but it's not designed to be a fully fledged image machine, it's just a music player with another feature.

Point is, it comes tantalisingly close to what we photographers want, and we'd really rather be carrying an iPod or apple device than something else.

And, don't forget, since we all only want to carry one device, and all these other devices do mp3 files as well, its therefore one less iPod that will be sold for music.

This IS how it's going to go, supporting these niche markets is an issue, because playing music files is too easy and generic, every portable device out there is doing mp3's now, including phones, which are the real threat to the iPods dominance, as everyone HAS to carry a phone, and no one is going to carry more than one portable device in 5 years time.

So there will be devices for every niche, strongly favouring some special function or other (Business devices, Photographers devices, Gamers devices), and all of them will also be phones, and mp3 players, and photo/video viewers, and dictaphones, and pdas, and any other digital function you can think of, and most of them will suck.

Hopefully Apple will stay at the forefront of this emerging swarm. But it's no good saying '...iPods should just be mp3 players...', because soon its not going to be enough of a reason to carry one around.

[drlunanerd]

3) Where's Apple buying it's screens? My sony T3 has 230,000 pixels on a 2.5 inch screen and cost over $100 less than the iPod. Even given the differences in the items, Apple isn't using the same standard of screens as the camera guys. When did they get so damn cheap (and expensive).


Thank you! At last someone else has realised that the screen resolution is way off the pace.

I'm not bashing these iPod Photos - I think it's great that we have the option of a 60GB capacity now, and for this alone I'm tempted. However the price difference is just too great for me over my current 4G 40GB, especially given that the screen is sub-standard next to my digital camera, which cost much less and is far better at displaying multi-megapixel digital images.

[271]

for my needs the photo features of the new ipods are useless. (almost) all i want is more capacity. larger HD. 60 GB is a good start. this will allow a pretty large chunk of CD quality audio along w/mp3's.

the feature i'd love to see added to the i-pod is a full bandwidth line/mic input. the griffin imic and the like are a joke for real recording. poor sample rate and bit depth. lousy for field recording.

every field recording geek (like me) w/a minidisc would EVENTUALLY get and ipod for field recording if it was possible to plug a decent stereo mic into it and record at 16/44.

anyway... i'm still very glad this thing is finally up to 60 GB as there are plenty of recordings i dont want to do a diservice by squishing them into mp3.

the photo features are certainly useful to some people but to me they are just 'neat'.

[Penman]

I would disagree that the remote is a vital accessory. I for one would never use it, so I'm glad they don't include it. (don't want to be paying for extra stuff I don't use.)

As for the carrying bag, they could at least have included an iPod-branded pouch or something, I can agree to that. What could it cost them? $1?

Maybe we'll all just have to get a sock! :D

I'm guessing you haven't used an iPod much then. If you're on the move going into your pocket, unlocking the keys, and skipping a track is a complete pain. Likewise if it's secure and your exercising.

Not to provide the remote on a $600 device is ludicrous. That's as expensive as any (almost) music only device ever created. It would be fair to provide it and to give you the choice to discard it. To pretend it's too expensive is simply rude. Look at the Epson part - more expensive parts (screen and compact flash slot) and a cheaper price.

Apple are very proud of their margins but in consumer electronics you have to wonder. When there's an iPod Video will the top end model come in at $800?

On that point - I believe that the only reason there's no video support is because right now adequate storage for large quantities of video isn't available. Apple must be working on making videos available through iTunes - it's too obvious. As soon as we're at 100GB plus for portables they'll give us the functionality.

[Centris 650]

Is that a U2 iPod or a Knight Rider iPod?

No, it's the Hal 2001 Space Odyssey iPod. :D

Man, that thing is ugly.

[Diatribe]

I'd even say that the 5G iPods will all be photo iPods and will therefore come down in price again. I don't think this separation will last very long.

[Wardofsky]

No, it's the Hal 2001 Space Odyssey iPod. :D

Man, that thing is ugly.

Meh, it's on my website now...

[happyadam]

iPod is just a consumer device, putting more advanced tech for more advanced imaging isn't logical.
This is designed for people who have a little digital camera who upload them into iPhoto, upload them to the iPod and share them around with their friends and family on TV.

Sure putting in RAW image file support would be good, but it's not designed to be a fully fledged image machine, it's just a music player with another feature.

I agree; I tend to do most of my digital photography with my SLR - sometimes in RAW, sometimes in JPEG. I use Photoshop CS a lot - but I still tend to use iPhoto for my organisation since I burn a lot of slideshows to DVD using iDVD.

Although I'd love the ability to directly connect the iPod to my camera, the iPod Photo still does exactly what I was waiting for. Being able to carry around all my slideshows and plug it in to a TV. I do that a lot but on my old G4 iMac it can take between 1-3 hours just to burn a couple of slideshows to DVD - something I don't always have time for. Now it will just be a matter of a quick sync to get my latest slideshow on the iPod - take it out to friends or family and show them. Maybe this is something that 30 somethings do more than 20 somethings and teenagers! (we also tend to have a little more disposable income!)

The iPod Photo doesn't really add to my 'taking pictures' kit - it adds to my 'sharing pictures' kit. Sure it would be nice to have an all-in-one device and that will come in future - at the moment I still have to carry my mobile phone + iPod + mini camera around everywhere.

Apple always seem to succeed when they evolve things at a sensible (and for them more profitable) pace - rather than add a whole load of poorly implemented features in one go - do a few new features but do them well. Let the market warm up to your vision naturally - they won't do it overnight.

I've had an (5GB) iPod now for nearly 3 years. With one replacement battery (£30), it still works brilliantly (with more features than it had when I first bought it) - I still use it everyday and it has travelled half the globe with me. It's introduced me to more music in the last 3 years than I probably experienced in the 6 years before it. Like my old Performa 200, I guess it will now get handed down to one of my siblings for them to enjoy for the next few years. Kudos Apple for making long lasting products (and as a result good value)

I've been waiting a while for the iPod Photo and now I'm lucky enough to have ordered one. Sure it could have a whole load more features and be more useful for when I'm taking pictures rather than sharing pictures. But it's still a step in the right direction and I'm sure it will help me share a lot more photos for the next few years to come.

[macmatt]

Can't slip THAT into your pocket.



original link (almost at bottom of page)

http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/photofine/p2000/p20001.htm#a02

[StealthRider]

Kill me,but I still think that a software update for the 4Gs giving them color screen capability is forthcoming. We still havn't seen any real new features on the 4G, even though it s a complete redesign from the 3G. I'M WAITING APPLE!

[cadex41]

It seems the greatest advantage of storing pictures on the ipod would be from downloading from a digital camera. Carrying the ipod around while taking pictures, it could serve as an unlimited storage unit for the camera's pictures.

I was really surprised to see Apple didn't offer this option.

[Penman]

Kill me,but I still think that a software update for the 4Gs giving them color screen capability is forthcoming. We still havn't seen any real new features on the 4G, even though it s a complete redesign from the 3G. I'M WAITING APPLE!

Wow - I hate to be negative but that is never, ever going to hapen. The screen in the 4G's is not color. All that talk about 4G capability is what we've just seen - Apple clearly consider the iPod Photo to be 4G - not 5G. They've had the color capability a while and were just waiting to roll it out.

The next big redesign and the official 5G will be wireless capability - followed by video. You hear it here first.

[johnnyjibbs]

Kill me,but I still think that a software update for the 4Gs giving them color screen capability is forthcoming. We still havn't seen any real new features on the 4G, even though it s a complete redesign from the 3G. I'M WAITING APPLE!
If they had colour screens in them, they would have touted it at the time because it would be a major selling point. They wouldn't intentionally cripple it to B&W just for kicks....even Apple.

Wishful thinking though. :D

[~Shard~]

Eagerly awaiting non-iPod related news/releases from Apple.

Did you miss the new G5 iMac just over a month ago, the new PowerMac SP model, and updated iBooks a week ago? :confused:

[petej]

Macworld.co.uk reports that the iPod Photo contains an integrated antenna.
macworld (http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9998)

I guess folks will be rushing to take these apart once they start shipping to prove if this is correct or not.

[blybug]

WOOHOO!! :D

From: Do_not_reply@apple.com
Subject: Shipment notification for order # 7012xxxxxx
Date: October 27, 2004 7:20:37 AM CDT
To: keithbly@mac.com
Reply-To: Do_not_reply@apple.com


Buyers Name: Keith Bly
Web Order Number: W980xxxx
Apple Sales Order Number: 7012xxxxxx
Apple Delivery Number: 8015xxxxxx
Apple Customer Number: 90xxxx
PO Number: 409xxxxxxx


Dear Apple Customer,

The following products shipped on 10/27/2004. Transit time will
depend upon whether you have chosen standard or premium freight
options. If your order is shipping standard freight, it should arrive
within 10 days of shipment.

Product # Product Description Qty Ext Price
__________ ________________________________________ ____ ________________

_________________________________________________________________________
M9586LL/A IPOD 60G W/COLOR DISPLAY-USA 1 569.00
_________________________________________________________________________

The above products have been shipped to:

Keith Bly
xxxx Avenue xxxx
Galveston TX 77550


Carrier Name: FEDERAL EXPRESS
Carrier Tracking Number(s): 6877xxxxxxxxx


You can also check your tracking numbers at:
http://www.fedex.com/us/

For orders shipped Monday through Thursday tracking information will
be available on the carrier sites 12 to 24 hours after shipping.
For orders shipped Friday through Sunday tracking information will be
available on the carrier sites by the following Monday evening.

If your attempt to track this shipment on the carrier's web page is
unsuccessful, please contact your Apple Sales Support Specialist for
assistance.

If a partial shipment was authorized, additional items may ship
separately. This is a record of shipped items only.

Thank you for shopping at Apple.


You may check order status and get most carrier tracking information within one
business day of shipment by visiting the following web site:
<http://www.apple.com/OrderStatus>

If you have any questions concerning your order please call us at (800) 676-2775
Mon-Fri 8am-9pm, Sat-Sun 9am-6pm CT

To better serve our customers, Apple may ship products from multiple locations.
If there are other items in your order, we will send you a separate confirmation
email as soon as they ship.


Sales & Returns Policies:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/salespoliciesEdIndividual.html

=======================================================================

Would you like to keep in touch with Apple? Get the latest news and
information about iMac, the Mac OS, PowerBook, AppleWorks, iBook,
Power Mac computers, Quicktime, and lots more.

Then subscribe to Apple eNews--our free e-mail newsletter--and you'll
get news right from the source every other week. To sign up, visit:

http://www.apple.com/signmeup

Thank You.

=======================================================================

[johnnyjibbs]

Macworld.co.uk reports that the iPod Photo contains an integrated antenna.
macworld (http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9998)

I guess folks will be rushing to take these apart once they start shipping to prove if this is correct or not.
Maybe there's hidden Wi-Fi capability? The rumoured AirPort Express remote?

However, hidden features like this would have to be declared on the Tech Specs page, wouldn't they? e.g. radio transmission :confused:

[whooleytoo]

Maybe there's hidden Wi-Fi capability? The rumoured AirPort Express remote?

However, hidden features like this would have to be declared on the Tech Specs page, wouldn't they? e.g. radio transmission :confused:

I think you're right, it sounds dubious. Still intriguing though!

[Diatribe]

Maybe there's hidden Wi-Fi capability? The rumoured AirPort Express remote?

However, hidden features like this would have to be declared on the Tech Specs page, wouldn't they? e.g. radio transmission :confused:

This would be evidence for the observation made by Foxer in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=95012)

Interesting to say the least.

[petej]

However, hidden features like this would have to be declared on the Tech Specs page, wouldn't they? e.g. radio transmission :confused:
If it is capable of transmission, there would certainly be a stack of paper in the box for regulatory compliance.

[johnnyjibbs]

This would be evidence for the observation made by Foxer in this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=95012)

Interesting to say the least.
This might be something. But then you could say that "remote control" of AirTunes is what you do using iTunes with your Mac anyway. Still, there are many possibilities. Can anyone confirm if the ordinary 4G iPods have antennas in them?

[johnnyjibbs]

If it is capable of transmission, there would certainly be a stack of paper in the box for regulatory compliance.
You are probably right. Time will tell I guess.

[Diatribe]

This might be something. But then you could say that "remote control" of AirTunes is what you do using iTunes with your Mac anyway. Still, there are many possibilities. Can anyone confirm if the ordinary 4G iPods have antennas in them?

I agree it's all a bit far fetched but Apple said that there are some hidden features in those iPods...
Info about the antenna would sure be appreciated.

[grimmace]

I see no need to view my photos on a tiny screen. They NEED to put quicktime on this. Then it is worth something. I want to view movies on the plane! My phone and my camera lets me view photos just fine. I also see no need to hook it up to a TV. I dont mind showing my photos on my mac.

GET QUICKTIME ON THERE! Only positive I see is the battery life...

[Mechcozmo]

Or heck, even a Weird Al Yankovic iPod! :D

Hear, hear!

Literally. :)

[scifiman]

Tell him to take it right back. He doesn't need to give a reason for it.

He bought it direct from Apple, so can he send it back without a reason? Won't they ask why when he goes to setup an RMA?

[bellis1]

I apologize if this comes out twice.

Now all I need is a wireless remote and integration with Keynote!

[Some_Big_Spoon]

That's not the real ipod screen.. So these are the folks that need those little warnings at the bottom of commercials and in magazines that screen images are super-imposed.. fantastic.
here's their sample image scaled to a220x176 pixel image for comparison. view it on an LCD monitor to get a hint as to the iPod Photo's sharpness.

[Some_Big_Spoon]

Without crippling amounts of DRM you'll never see that. The MPAA's in the death throes, and they're lashing out in all directions.

I see no need to view my photos on a tiny screen. They NEED to put quicktime on this. Then it is worth something. I want to view movies on the plane! My phone and my camera lets me view photos just fine. I also see no need to hook it up to a TV. I dont mind showing my photos on my mac.

GET QUICKTIME ON THERE! Only positive I see is the battery life...

[SiliconAddict]

Bingo, we have a winner - this is the sort of thing that I and most other travelling photographers will be after - its the most solid device I've seen so far from any manufacturer, and EPSON is a quality outfit unlike some of these no name device makers, it supports viewing RAW files as well as JPEG, has a CompactFlash slot built in and has a fantastic quality screen plus TV out. The only downer is that the battery life is low at 3 hours.



*sighs and rubs his temple in frustration*
Why don't people, not singling you out Mvc but people in general, get that this device is a consumer product. It was and in all likelihood, never will be designed for the pro. The photo feature is designed to upload pictures to your iPod from your PC. Let me ask. Does the iPod allow you to upload music on the go? Does it natively support capturing audio? No. These are features outside the scope of the iPod. The iPod's primary goal it to playback your media on the go. Not capture it.

Then you have the whole "Lets put a storage card slot in it" crowd. The device in question is already .75 in size. Do you know what adding a CF and SD (And only both would be fair since CF cards are the more common of the card types on the market.) slot would do to its size? Just look at any Pocket PC that has a dual storage solution vs. a single SD slot and you have your answer. In all likelihood prob .8" or .9". Getting precariously close to one inch thick.

Then you have line in. Built in microphones. Built in WIFI. Etc.
Could apple add all these capabilities? Sure. It then becomes a 1 pound, 1" thick brick that no one likes and consequently they lose to the competition because they end up doing exactly what their competition is doing: Jack of all trades master of none.

Apple is treating the iPod as a national treasure. They aren't going to make any major changes overnight. While the Photo iPod looks like a massive departure from the traditional iPod in reality it's nothing more then a baby step in progress. The form is nearly identical. No features were lost from the B&W iPod. This is an incremental advance people. Apple isn't going to possibly alienate the people that purchase their products. And making a "me too" product that has everything and the kitchen sink would quite possibly do just that. The photo iPod is simply another line of iPod with additional features that are built in that the user can ignore without impacting the performance of the device. You add all the above features and you get some heavy brick that would impact the device in size and weight.

The bigger question I have is what is the NEXT big thing after Photos. I really do think Jobs was talking out of his *** yesterday. Yes. Right now video in its current form it isn't optimal. Eps on a 2" screen. But I can easily imagine within the next two years Apple releasing the iPod video alongside the iPod photo. With the iPod B&W going bye bye by then. The iPod video would have a larger form factor but much smaller then current Windows Media Center devices that are the epitome of the word brick.

So maybe something like this:

-iPod video (Larger Form Factor with 4.5" OLED screen, photo, and audio capabilities.)
-iPod photo (Current form Factor or maybe even a tad smaller. Who knows. We might have fuel cells in 2 years.)
-iPod Mini Photo (With just a color screen and on device viewing capabilities. No video out.)

:confused: Or maybe not. Who knows. Its fun to speculate though.

[classic009]

Im not sure if anybody noticed but if you are on any apple EU country website, it states that Ireland is available for the iTMS.

2nd. It also looks like the iPod Photo dock has S-Video out, but its not on any of the specs.

[InsiderTravels]

It seems the greatest advantage of storing pictures on the ipod would be from downloading from a digital camera. Carrying the ipod around while taking pictures, it could serve as an unlimited storage unit for the camera's pictures.

I was really surprised to see Apple didn't offer this option.


It is completely possible to download pictures from a digital camera to the iPod. In addition to the Media Reader, Belkin also makes a device called a Digital Camera Link that lets you transfer your photos to the iPod without removing the memory card from your camera. It does a speedier transfer than the Media Reader plus it's much less expensive. Even camera models that aren't listed on the compatibility page work. I use the Canon EOS 20D, and it works just fine even though it's not officially supported by Belkin.

[SiliconAddict]

You are probably right. Time will tell I guess.

No ifs ands or buts about it. If the iPod had a radio built in it, it would HAVE to be certified by the FCC prior to shipping. This is why a number of "scoops" have occurred on a few PDA sites about devices that haven't shipped yet. The FCC ends up posting info on their site and the specs trickle down to the PDA news sites. Sorry guys but looking on FCC's site I'm seeing one grant by them from June of this year and its for the Apple Airport Express Base Station

[SiliconAddict]

:D :D :D :D :D :D
My 60GB iPod Photo shipped this morning! WOOT!

EDIT: DOH! Its not going to be here til the 3rd. I mush have forgotten to do priority shipping. :( The question is will I be listening to upbeat music that day or REM's Its the end of the world as we know it?

OK. Apple has fulfilled one of the products I wanted. Where is the other? (See signature below.) :cool:

[awesomebase]

I don't know if this has been covered in this discussion or not, but in addition to the iPod Photo versions, the U2 iPod seems to include a dock as well, so, maybe the real price difference is $11, and not $50 (assuming that you would get the dock separately with the regular iPods).

[spinko]

I don't see any use for a picture iPod. It's too small and way too expensive for what it does. I cannot understand why apple doesn't put a phone with an agenda and contacts into a device like the ipod. More and more people around me are dl music to their Bluetooth enabled phones. And I don't want to go out and have to get a damn M$ driven phone which is the only one that has all the functions I really need without beeing too big.

[jsw]

:D :D :D :D :D :D
My 60GB iPod Photo shipped this morning! WOOT![
Congratulations! You will, of course, post with a review, right?

And, BTW: bastard! ;)

[technocoy]

of course, i'm not going to read all 22 pages to find this out, but were the iPod socks a joke? cause personally i would buy them in a heartbeat. did no one else see this? i think they rock and you get like 6 for 30.00! i WANT!!!!

oh well,
technocoy

[Zaty]

According to a MacPrime.ch user who claims to have a reliable source, Apple stopped plans to bring iTMS to countries that don't use the Euro currency some time ago. The reason he says is that
the already slim margin on songs bought on iTMS would practically disappear completely due to exchange rates. Also, Apple doesn't plan to open any iTMS store outside the Euro zone anymore, at least not in the near future.

http://www.macprime.ch/article.php?story=20041027082113797#comments (link in German)

Let's hope it's not true but I fear it is true.

[dejo]

Okay, I need to chime in on this whole "I need to see how much thicker it is" attitude. The iPod Photo is 0.75 inches thick, .06 inches thicker than the 4G 40GB iPod. .06 inches. That's about a 1/16 of an inch. Or about 1.5mm for you metric types. I gotta think that's nothing to get all worried about.

[whooleytoo]

Im not sure if anybody noticed but if you are on any apple EU country website, it states that Ireland is available for the iTMS.


You're right, that's odd. The German site says iTMS is supported in Ireland, but it isn't.


2nd. It also looks like the iPod Photo dock has S-Video out, but its not on any of the specs.

Yup, you can see it on the Apple site. I think it was mentioned in Joswiak's interview afterwards too. Supposedly just higher quality output to TV.

[ASP272]

The U2 iPod comes with $50 off the complete U2, but where is it? I haven't seen it posted on iTMS yet. Is it going to cost $500 too?

[Wigletbill]

I know Steve said they (ipod photo 60GB) were shipping immediately but when I ordered mine immediately after the announcement it said 1-2 weeks. Well I got my order that it shipped today from China. I won't see it for a week (est Nov. 3rd) but way to go Apple for beating a hip time for once! Too bad I paid for 2 day shipping though....


Joel
(sorry if this is a duplicate post)

[dejo]

I also got an email from Apple this morning telling me my iPod Photo has been shipped! I ordered it around 12:30 AM MDT yesterday. And with 2-3 business day express shipping tacked on there (I had to splurge), it hopefully will be in my hands either Friday or Monday (although the Fedex tracking states the estimated delivery date to be (Wed.) Nov. 3rd by 12pm. Woo-hoo!

P.S. Mine shipped from Shanghai, China.

[Philsy]

I think it's time to expand the iPod brand to include a PDA. This could follow the iPod form factor but with a larger touch-screen (scroll wheel would have to go, I'm afraid). As well as playing music and viewing photos you could also manage your calender, address book and play games. It's always seemed daft to me that an iPod allows you to view your calender but not to change it.

iSync works so well with my Sony Ericcson phone that I can really see the potential of an iPod PDA. And with the success of iPod as a fashion gadget a PDA would be a surefire success and encourage more people to buy Macs.

Umm, so am I the only person who wants an iPod PDA then? :(

[dejo]

The U2 iPod comes with $50 off the complete U2, but where is it? I haven't seen it posted on iTMS yet. Is it going to cost $500 too?

As stated during The Event yesterday, The Complete U2 will be released November 23rd, same day as their new album.

[DocB]

Does anyone know how the iPod Photo will work with Windows? I'm just curious. Do you think this will lead Apple to releasing iLife for Windows? Just a thought.

[Penman]

I agree it's all a bit far fetched but Apple said that there are some hidden features in those iPods...
Info about the antenna would sure be appreciated.

TO be 'Mr. Downer' again I have to point out that 'remote' does not have to mean 'wireless' or 'radio'. Toy manufacturers often label toys 'remote control' that have wires coming out of them. We already have remote control and besides, the iPod wouldn't be hiding a secret that big. It's nonsensical ("Look a click wheel! We've given you wi-fi but it's a secret...")

When the iPod goes wireless Jobs will be screaming about it I assure you.

[whooleytoo]

Does anyone know how the iPod Photo will work with Windows? I'm just curious. Do you think this will lead Apple to releasing iLife for Windows? Just a thought.

You can use Photoshop Album or Elements, or just select a folder containing pics and sync it. Whether this is a stopgap until iPhoto is ported (a la Musicmatch) or an indication iPhoto isn't going to be ported - who knows?

[dejo]

Does anyone know how the iPod Photo will work with Windows? I'm just curious. Do you think this will lead Apple to releasing iLife for Windows? Just a thought.

To review (in case you missed it somewhere in the hundreds of previous posts):

iPod Photo will work fine with Windows, since the photo syncing capability is built into the new iTunes 4.7. Therefore, it does not appear that Apple will need to release iLife for Windows.

[jsw]

Does anyone know how the iPod Photo will work with Windows? I'm just curious.It will work via iTunes and Windows-specific editing software such as Photoshop Elements 3.0 (see Apple's website). Presumably it'll work just as smoothly with Windows as the current 'pods do. Do you think this will lead Apple to releasing iLife for Windows? Just a thought.No. iLife is an incentive for people to buy Macs. iTunes was necessary so that Windows users would buy iPods and have a decent way to populate them.

[dejo]

So, with iTMS released to all the new countries (welcome aboard, by the way; Canada, hang in there, eh?), any predictions as to when we'll hit 200 million downloads?

[whooleytoo]

*ducks to avoid Canadians*

What do ducks have against Canadians? </terrible>

Never mind the Canadians, what about the Irish? Why have Apple supported every Euro country except us? Lucky we're not the paranoid type (in spite of what you all think! :D )

[CubaTBird]

ipod socks? oooooooooo.....mi......god

[dejo]

Never mind the Canadians, what about the Irish? Why have Apple supported every Euro country except us? Lucky we're not the paranoid type (in spite of what you all think! :D )

So, that's really true? Every other Euro currency country but Ireland?

C'mon, U2! You must have some pull with Apple by now! (Unless it's beyond Apple's control).

iTMS Ireland same day as U2 iPod would've been the penultimate!

[rteichman]

Okay, I need to chime in on this whole "I need to see how much thicker it is" attitude. The iPod Photo is 0.75 inches thick, .06 inches thicker than the 4G 40GB iPod. .06 inches. That's about a 1/16 of an inch. Or about 1.5mm for you metric types. I gotta think that's nothing to get all worried about.

Well at lunch I stoped by my local Apple store and took a long hard look at the 20GB and 40GB units. The 40GB "feels" much thicker and heavier than the 20GB, and the iPhoto units are even bigger and heavier. As much as I want a new iPod photo and would be willing to pay for the 60GB unit (so I could use it as backup storage as well) I do not want anything larger than the current 20 GB unit. I guess I will have to wait for the next release, which is a pain since I am running out of space on my 3G 15GB iPod. :(

[Giantred]

Umm, so am I the only person who wants an iPod PDA then? :(


Philsy what You were describing seems to be an iPod with a touch screen interface. All those things you want (music, calander, contacts, and games in one place,) your iPod can do right now! So what you are saying is that you want the Ipod to become like that Epson 2000 with a big screen, thats touch....... Hmm


Corey

[CalfCanuck]

After mulling this overnight, and wondering why Apple would spend all the resources to put on a color screen for photogrpahy but not have it be very useful, I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Apple's plans must already include some sort of direct camera to iPod transfer.

Think about it - all decent cameras have USB or FW support, and so does the iPod. Why even bother with the Compact Flash card reader? The iPod's OS is already built around a fairly complex file system, so the only serious coding to be done is:

1. Recognize when a camera is attached (already open standards for this?)

2. Perform a check of existing files on the iPod compared to files on the camera - file name, creation date, etc.

3. Offer the user a chance to copy the missing files to the iPod.

It might be that the iPod team was swamped with designing, coding, and testing and had to push this feature to a later date, but now that the iPod is out in time for the Christmas season they might shift their energies towards implementing this in SOFTWARE.

The issue of now supporting all file types (RAW, etc) is a red herring. Even Photoshop CS doesn't support new cameras for about 6 months, but does that mean photographers don't use their new cameras? I don't want tosee my image on a 2" screen, I just want to store it until I get back home. Did people stop taking pictures on vaction with their old cameras because they couldn't see the pictures until they were developed?

The unique use of a device like the iPod is as a TEMPORARY place to hold pictures when you're away from a computer, until you can upload them to your Mac and print them out (or do some serious digital darkroom work, if you're a pro).

No one does photo editing on a tiny storage device like the iPod, so if I can't open the file, who cares?

This is in line with the Syncing feature - why assume it's to sync FROM your computer to your iPod - why isn't it to UPLOAD from your iPod TO your Mac?

[Inkmonkey]

macrumors.com is mentioned in this article from the Canadian media regarding the upcoming iTunes localization:

Apple to open iTunes music store in Canada next month

The Vancouver Sun
Wed 27 Oct 2004
Page: D4
Section: BusinessBC
Byline: Andrew Mayeda
Source: Ottawa Citizen

Ending months of speculation, Apple Computer Inc. said Tuesday it will launch its popular iTunes online music store in Canada next month.

But fans of the company's products -- who have been clamoring for iTunes information on websites such as Macrumors.com -- will have to wait for more details.

Apple did not provide specifics such as price and the number of songs available.

The move is the latest sign that the market for paid music downloads is maturing here as the music industry struggles to adapt to an online business model.

ITunes will go head to head with Napster.ca, launched this summer by digital-media company Roxio Inc., and Moontaxi Media Inc.'s Puretracks.com, the first paid online-music service in Canada, which has a marketing arrangement with Vancouver-based TELUS.

Quebecor Media Inc. recently introduced its own service, Archambault.ca, and retailers such as Future Shop, a unit of Best Buy Co., have licensed Puretracks' technology to launch online music stores.

Launched in spring 2003, the online iTunes store has become the dominant provider of paid online music, racking up more than 150 million downloads.

Apple has a market share of over 70 per cent in Britain and the United States, where users can download individual songs for 99 cents US.

The service has become an effective online platform for the company's iPod digital-music player, which accounted for over 12 per cent of sales in the last quarter.

ITunes should do well here, since its brand is already well recognized among music fans young and old, said analyst Kaan Yigit, president of Solutions Research.

But the service will be more effective as a tool for selling iPods than as a stand-alone business, he said, because demand for paid download services has yet to take off.

[iGary]

The iPod Photo's are available in some of the Apple Stores.

Perhaps that is what Steve meant.

I'd like one, but the screen is too small for me to show work to clients and my 12" iBook is just as easy to carry around.

Only reason I'd upgrade would be for the color screen and the ability to store "fun" pictures to share with friends.

There is already a product on the market called "Image Tank" that is HD-based and accepts CF cards. It also has a color screen.

[Inkmonkey]

How does the LCD on the iPod Photo compare to most LCDs on digital cameras?

[Jovian9]

Here's my 2 cents on the complaints by those who want better features for their photos:
This is an iPod. You have never been able to directly put your music into the iPod without a computer. They make you take your music media (cd's) and put them into your computer and then into the iPod.
Same thing with pics. Apple wants you to take your pics, put them into your computer and then into the iPod.
The iPod is for listening to music. The iPod Photo is for listening to music and viewing photos. Most music on your iPod is lower quality than on your cd's......and most photos will be lower quality on a lower quality screen than from your camera.
This is a device that is supposed to be fun for you to use. Maybe one day they'll have a Pro iPod lineup that allows you to do the things you want to do with photos, or videos, or DJ'ing, or PDA'ing.......but for now they do not.
I for one see no problem with the new iPods. Sure the price is higher, but you get a color screen, the ability to look at photos and album art while listening to music, and you get longer battery life than any other iPod thus far.

[Jovian9]

I'm guessing you haven't used an iPod much then. If you're on the move going into your pocket, unlocking the keys, and skipping a track is a complete pain. Likewise if it's secure and your exercising.

While I agree that not including the remote in a $500-$600 iPod is ridiculous......I do not agree with HAVING/NEEDING to use it for any situation. My wife and I have had every gen of iPod and we tried using the remotes as much as possible......but they'd always end up sitting on the shelf. The remote is not very good. The best use for it was extending the earphone length.

[Jovian9]

No, it's the Hal 2001 Space Odyssey iPod. :D

Man, that thing is ugly.

If it indeed looked like the HAL 9000 I'd definitely have to buy it. That would be awesome!

[weldon]

I think the best and most important new feature of the iPod photo is support for cover art. Not sure I'd pay $100 more for that, but I'd like to have cover art on my B&W 4G iPod.

[nagromme]

If you want a remote--or wireless--maybe this is what you want:

http://www.engineeredaudio.com/products/remote2.html

http://www.engineeredaudio.com/images/remote2.gif

http://www.engineeredaudio.com/images/whitekeyfob_sm.gif

I've read reviews and I'm getting one. It has a headphone pass-through (audio only) on the right side of the receiver pod (not the remote). And it's RF, not line-of-sight. (Want to use it with iPod Photo's TV-out? Just use the TV-out on the Dock.)

I'd mainly use it at home with my stereo--it's all the wireless I need!

But I'd also use it when walking etc., when I want a remote. Having that wireless remote seems simpler than Apple's spaghetti.

[Penman]

While I agree that not including the remote in a $500-$600 iPod is ridiculous......I do not agree with HAVING/NEEDING to use it for any situation. My wife and I have had every gen of iPod and we tried using the remotes as much as possible......but they'd always end up sitting on the shelf. The remote is not very good. The best use for it was extending the earphone length.

I agree with you. I want it but I also resent how bad it is. Any $100 Sony or Panasonic remote looks the iPod one seem lame and poorly engineered. It's one of those things that remind you that Apple still have things to learn from the consumer electronics companies. A small LCD with an Apple interface could be a real selling point. Anyway...

[OziMac]

I don't know if this has been mentioned on this thread before, but the iPod Photo DOES come with the carry case (at least in the US and Australia - can't seem to find tech specs in the UK yet) though not the remote.

This is definitely a step in the right direction given that it is the top end model. As for the remote, meh, as others have said, it's not that great.

However, I'd probably rather use the iPod Socks instead. :)

[Penman]

How does the LCD on the iPod Photo compare to most LCDs on digital cameras?

It's cutting edge for 2002. Many cameras now have larger screens but, more importantly, resolutions have jumped. 200,000 pixels is where it's at on cameras from $400-$8,000. The best screens on the market are on the Canon DS1-Mk2 ($8K), the Sony DSC-T3 ($500) and HP's line (they have some killer OELD technology). Lots of cameras have screens as poor as the iPods but it's not appreciated (Canon's sub $1,000 pieces have crummy screens int he main).

Apple definatly saved some bucks but, until we see the real things brightness (does it compensate for ambient light - almost all cameras do), viewing angle (how's it look off axis) and brightness (can't be overstressed - can it be seen in direct sun - the best can) it's hard to judge. Apple might have traded whiz-bang specs for overall quality.

[izzle22]

Just picked up my new iPod Photo 60g at local Apple Store. It looks cool feels cool, not too big. I haven't really been able to play with it yet cuz I'm at work.

[aswitcher]

Just picked up my new iPod Photo 60g at local Apple Store. It looks cool feels cool, not too big. I haven't really been able to play with it yet cuz I'm at work.

What are you going to do for a case given its a bigger build? The Sock? :p

[izzle22]

What are you going to do for a case given its a bigger build? The Sock? :p

It came with a case. But I will get the Speck Products Clear Flip Case(when it becomes available), my wife has it on her mini and it works great.

[nagromme]

It's cutting edge for 2002. Many cameras now have larger screens but, more importantly, resolutions have jumped.

I'm not sure what cameras at what prices you're talking about--or how bulky they must be... this iPod screen is FAR better than the camera screens I'm familiar with.

* It's bigger than many--in a unit that's SMALLER than most cameras.

* It's got a 140 DPI screen AND GUI. Cameras I see have an ultra-low-res GUI, whatever the screen's specs may state.

* It uses one pixel on-screen for one pixel of UI--like a computer or a PDA does. The cameras I've seen--including my own--have a fuzzy UI that must be sending an analog signal to the screen. It's not 1-to-1 sharpness.

* It's transflective, and thus usable without the backlight if you wish. It doesn't just go black.

You mention $8000 cameras, and how cameras under $1000 have poor screens. That makes me think you're not realistically making comparisons relevant to the iPod.

[jettredmont]

what cameras have a 2" 400x300pixel screen?

My Canon EOS Digital Rebel ($800-900 or less on sale) has 110,000 pixels according to Canon. Not quite 120,000, but still a far sight more than the iPod photo's ~38k.

Popped over to Kodak's website, clicked on their charmingly named "DX7590", ($500) and find it has a 153,000 pixel LCD and a 311,000 pixel viewfinder (!).

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/131/2797/2798&pq-locale=en_US

Their lower-end ($350) model has a 134,000-pixel LCD:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/31/1772/1773&pq-locale=en_US

Good enough?

[Jovian9]

My Canon EOS Digital Rebel ($800-900 or less on sale) has 110,000 pixels according to Canon. Not quite 120,000, but still a far sight more than the iPod photo's ~38k.

Popped over to Kodak's website, clicked on their charmingly named "DX7590", ($500) and find it has a 153,000 pixel LCD and a 311,000 pixel viewfinder (!).

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/131/2797/2798&pq-locale=en_US

Their lower-end ($350) model has a 134,000-pixel LCD:

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=9/19/31/1772/1773&pq-locale=en_US

Good enough?

What all formats of music do these play?
They are dedicated cameras that do one thing.

Do all of you really expect a $500-$600 iPod that plays music, stores contacts notes calendars & games, can be used as an external 40 or 60GB hard drive, and can play slideshows of pictures on it or to a TV.......to have an equal quality screen as such cameras mentioned above?
The iPod is a music player that now allows you to have fun and view photos on it as well.

[jettredmont]

Belkin produces two devices for you to use:

1) Belkin Media Reader (plug flash cards into it): 300-320 Kbps

2) Belkin Digital Camera Link (plug camera and iPod into it): 650 Kbps (Mac formatted iPods) and 750 Kbps (PC formatted)

Admittedly, no where near the maximum transfer speeds of USB 1.1 (12 Mbps) or USB 2.0 (480 Mbps), but that may not necessarily be Belkin's fault but could be due to limitations in the camera, as well.

[edit: correct "kbps" to "kBps" for the anal; Belkin's figures are also in kBps, not kbps]

Also, note that the faster device is $20 cheaper.

In general, single-purpose USB 1.1 CF-card readers get a transfer rate of about 750kBps. Why so far below the USB theoretical bandwidth? Ask someone in the USB design group; beats me. But that number comes up in just about every single throughput test on card readers, and is certainly true for my old Dazzle 6-in-1 card reader. So Belkin's USB pass-through device isn't far off there, at least.

On the other hand, FireWire and USB 2.0 CF-card readers tend to get a transfer rate of around 3000-3200kBps (clearly bounded by the CF card's interface rather than the USB2/FW interface). Given that the link from the Belkin device to the iPod should be able to go over full-speed firewire, it is an amazing failure of design that it ended up with such a slow transfer rate. The USB pass-through is probably as good as you're likely to get for a USB pass-through, as most cameras don't do USB 2 or Firewire transfers, but the direct card reader ... a disgustingly wasted opportunity!

But, back to the point: if you're comparing the iPod photo to other devices which join direct to your camera's USB port, then the Belkin USB transfer device fills in that niche nicely, and there isn't a throughput issue to worry about. I suspect the card-reading competition might read their cards faster than either of the Belkin solutions, however.

[CalfCanuck]

Here's my 2 cents on the complaints by those who want better features for their photos:
This is an iPod. You have never been able to directly put your music into the iPod without a computer. They make you take your music media (cd's) and put them into your computer and then into the iPod.
Same thing with pics. Apple wants you to take your pics, put them into your computer and then into the iPod.
The iPod is for listening to music. The iPod Photo is for listening to music and viewing photos. Most music on your iPod is lower quality than on your cd's......and most photos will be lower quality on a lower quality screen than from your camera.
This is a device that is supposed to be fun for you to use. Maybe one day they'll have a Pro iPod lineup that allows you to do the things you want to do with photos, or videos, or DJ'ing, or PDA'ing.......but for now they do not.
I for one see no problem with the new iPods. Sure the price is higher, but you get a color screen, the ability to look at photos and album art while listening to music, and you get longer battery life than any other iPod thus far.

Sorry, but this sloppy logic is exactly why Apple must think differently than their music focus if they want to be successful.

The main difference is that almost all music gets downloaded from the peoples computer because its BOUGHT - they didn't create it. Of course Garageband or self-mixed music is an exception, but that's not for the average iPod user.

So the computer, as the gateway through which most individuals personally acquire the music, has to be involved.

In photography, on the other hand, almost all images are CREATED by the user with personal cameras. Expecting them to be downloaded to their computers, then uploaded back to an iPod, is ass-backwards.

The camera, as the gateway through which individuals acquire images, must also be involved.

As it stands, the Photo iPod has a completely illogical "work-flow", and one Apple has to solve if they want even "casual users" to buy into their system, let alone pro users.

[jettredmont]

And what's the difference? The second glacier moves at twice the speed of the first one?

Whenever I see Kbps, it signals that the transfer speeds are so slow that the manufacturer doesn't want to casual users to know the truth.

So divide by 8 to get to KB, then calculate sppeds per minute. With error checking, I calculate the Belkin Media reader comes out to about 1.5 MB / minute, while the Camera Link (on PC) might end up at 5 MB / minute.

So even simple 1 GB compact flash card, ont he fastest option, will take about 3 hours. Do you expect a pro photographer with 2-4 GB of daily downloads to spend an entire night with this garbage? Even an amateur with a 512 MB card upload will almost 2 hours ...

Belkin's numbers are kiloBytes per second. See reference:
http://search.belkin.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=103&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFindEN%2Ecfg&host_id=42&page_id=11208192&query=F8E477%2A&hiword=F8E477%2A+

Divide those times by 8.

Yes, still glacial relative to a good Firewire or USB2 reader, but not as bad as you apparently believe.

[CalfCanuck]

The iPod is a music player that now allows you to have fun and view photos on it as well.

Then why did they call it the Photo iPod if it's really only a music player?

Whether you accept it or not, Apple wants to carve out a new, larger, market with this new iPod. (I imagine the photo market dwarfs music).

So the discussions about the PHOTO iPod are about whether they likely to succeed inthis new strategy, given the image transfer limitations.

[Mac Dummy]

The new iPhoto Pod could be Apple's way of showing us, what the future is going to look at least as far as the Ipod is concerned. May they'll add ful motion video capability to it as well in the future. :) I'm thinking like the Archos(spelling?) AV400 portable media device, something like that.

[jettredmont]

But the 'hidden functionality' doesn't do anything for the 4G owners.. Apple gave this impression that in the future their 4G iPods would offer more functionality. really it doesn't, its for iPod Photo.


Apple did? Umm, no, the Apple rumor sites gave you that impression.

As I said when the rumor first surfaced, Apple doesn't have a track record of unleashing earth-shattering features for "free" in its iPod line. You get what you buy, and when new features come out, you have to buy again to get them. Kinda like the other 99% of consumer electronics ...

[CalfCanuck]

Belkin's numbers are kiloBytes per second. See reference:
http://search.belkin.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=103&EXTRA_ARG=&CFGNAME=MssFindEN%2Ecfg&host_id=42&page_id=11208192&query=F8E477%2A&hiword=F8E477%2A+

Divide those times by 8.

Yes, still glacial relative to a good Firewire or USB2 reader, but not as bad as you apparently believe.

Seems the Belkin link above does move the glacier a bit faster - though this "Fast" connection, with error checking, is still 30 minutes for a 512 MB card.

FYI, my source for the 300 Kbps data (the standard industry lingo) was Apple:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=T7418LL/A

[dejo]

Seems the Belkin link above does move the glacier a bit faster - though this "Fast" connection, with error checking, is still 30 minutes for a 512 MB card.

FYI, my source for the 300 Kbps data (the standard industry lingo) was Apple:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore?productLearnMore=T7418LL/A

Oh man, Apple and Belkin (and others probably) need to come to some agreement about whether they are stating bytes (B) or bits (b). Otherwise, how are us interested consumers supposed to make an informed decision. They might want to spell out their claimed transfer rates. As in: 300 kilobytes per second.

[blybug]

As it stands, the Photo iPod has a completely illogical "work-flow", and one Apple has to solve if they want even "casual users" to buy into their system, let alone pro users.

Completely disagree. People are already used to downloading, organizing, and keeping their images in their computers. Problem is Joe Sixpack isn't sure what to do with them next, besides organizing and looking at them on their computer. My parents (in their 50s) finally figured out how to burn discs (actually lets WalMart burn them from their memory stick) that actually play in their DVD player, but now are complaining about all these CDs they have with only a couple dozen pictures each. They love my EyeHome and TiVo Home Media but as "casual users" they are certainly not ready to have a home network to free their media from their computers in this way.

The no-brainer plug-and-sync beauty of the iPod Photo takes the pictures as organized on the computer and puts them ALL in the palm of your hand. Now you can view them on the (tiny) screen wherever you go, or walk the iPod into the living room and plug in to the big screen TV. If the thing wasn't so expensive I'd buy one for my folks (probably I'll give them mine in a couple years when iPod Video comes out :) )

Who in their right mind would download their pictures directly into their iPod and never at some point also download them into their computer? The "workflow" Apple has developed for this protects people from themselves and makes things less confusing. It implicitly necessitates that you have a backup of your photos on your computer (where you need to organize, rotate, delete, touchup anyhow).

Those tech-savvy enough to have the Belkin Photo adapter (which, for all we know WILL make photos immediately available for viewing like an on-the-go music playlist...we'll just have to wait and see) can probably make sure they still get their pics transferred from their cameras (or iPod...maybe the syncing is 2-way!) to their computers...but the average consumer? Is this new paradigm so much more complicated than what people have been doing for generations?

Olden days:
Camera-->Film-->Photo Processing-->Organize-->Place in Photo Albums or Slide Trays-->View-->Stash away until next time

Modern Times:
Camera-->Computer-->Organize-->iPod-->View-->View Again!!

The iPod is just what its name implies...a small and portable microcosm of what your main computer does (at the risk of being completely geeky think of the shuttlepods relative to the Starship Enterprise). Once you have all your music and photos organized how you like on your computer, which is very well suited to the job, one click puts a duplicate in the palm of your hand "to go." How would you suggest the "casual user" can more easily free all his digital photos from his hard drive for viewing any time, any place?

I envision a day when my 3 kids graduate high school that I hand each of them an iPod Video which holds all the pictures, home movies, and music that they grew up with. Sure wish I had something like that from my childhood!!

[dejo]

In the interest of argument, I did my own unscientific test. But first let's review Belkin's numbers.

Belkin Media Reader (as stated in their FAQ for this device):

300-320 kilobytes per second. 5-6 minutes for a 128MB card.

That translates to approx. 20-24 minutes for 512MB or 80-96 minutes for 2GB.

Belkin Digital Camera Link (as stated in their FAQ for this device):

650 kilobytes per second (Mac-formatted iPod). 750 kilobytes per second (PC-formatted iPod { :mad: why is this faster?})
3-5 minutes for a 128MB card.

That translates to approx. 12-20 minutes for 512 MB or 48-80 minutes for 2GB.

Now for my "science"...

iPhoto Import (with my Olympus C-5050Z connected directly to my PowerMac G5 via it's USB 1.1 connection):

It took 16 minutes 20 seconds to import 497MB of pictures off a 512MB card (246 photos, in case you're curious).

That translates to approx. 520 kilobytes per second transfer speed.

Faster than the Media Reader claimed speeds but slower than the Digital Camera Link speeds. Also, much slower than the maximum USB 1.1 transfer speed of 11 megabytes per second.

In Conclusion

It looks like it may be a limitation of the part of my camera that slows down the transfer, and not necessarily the implementation of the "link" whatever form that may take.

[blybug]

Imagine a future iPod Photo with WiFi built in or added on (ala iTrip?? Hello? Griffin?) that could do all the music things with Airport Express people have been imagining for months now. But also could...


Print the selected photo to a networked or AE connected printer
Email the selected photo to anyone in your address book
Order and mail prints to anyone in your address book

Whoa.

[CalfCanuck]

Completely disagree... Who in their right mind would download their pictures directly into their iPod and never at some point also download them into their computer? The "workflow" Apple has developed for this protects people from themselves and makes things less confusing. It implicitly necessitates that you have a backup of your photos on your computer (where you need to organize, rotate, delete, touchup anyhow)...

Olden days:
Camera-->Film-->Photo Processing-->Organize-->Place in Photo Albums or Slide Trays-->View-->Stash away until next time

Modern Times:
Camera-->Computer-->Organize-->iPod-->View-->View Again!!

The iPod is just what its name implies...a small and portable microcosm of what your main computer does (at the risk of being completely geeky think of the shuttlepods relative to the Starship Enterprise). Once you have all your music and photos organized how you like on your computer, which is very well suited to the job, one click puts a duplicate in the palm of your hand "to go." How would you suggest the "casual user" can more easily free all his digital photos from his hard drive for viewing any time, any place?


I don't disagree with you on the nice storage aspect of the Photo iPod, and of course the computer is the center of one's digital photos for editing. But I feel you fundamentally miss the MAJOR reason people would need this device - between the time they take the pictures, and when they first upload them to their computer.

In your example you neglect several key steps:

Olden days:
Camera-->Film--> (Goes into one's suitcase or purse for 2 weeks until one gets back from Maui, the drive to the Grand Canyon, or Aunt's Sue's house 500 miles away) THEN Photo Processing-->Organize-->Place in Photo Albums or Slide Trays-->View-->Stash away until next time

Modern Times:
Camera-->( What the heck do I do with a full compact Flash card and no extra capacity for new shots until I get finish my European vacation 10 days from now and finally have a chance to upload theses photos to my computer 5000 miles away) THEN Computer-->Organize-->iPod-->View-->View Again!!

[rendezvouscp]

I'm sorry that I'm ignorant and haven't read all of the replys, but does anyone know if we'll be able to view photos that we just downloaded from our Belkin device or be able to rate photos on the go?
-Chase

[CalfCanuck]

In the interest of argument, I did my own unscientific test. But first let's review Belkin's numbers.

Belkin Media Reader (as stated in their FAQ for this device):

300-320 kilobytes per second. 5-6 minutes for a 128MB card.

That translates to approx. 20-24 minutes for 512MB or 80-96 minutes for 2GB.

Belkin Digital Camera Link (as stated in their FAQ for this device):

650 kilobytes per second (Mac-formatted iPod). 750 kilobytes per second (PC-formatted iPod { :mad: why is this faster?})
3-5 minutes for a 128MB card.

That translates to approx. 12-20 minutes for 512 MB or 48-80 minutes for 2GB.

Now for my "science"...

iPhoto Import (with my Olympus C-5050Z connected directly to my PowerMac G5 via it's USB 1.1 connection):

It took 16 minutes 20 seconds to import 497MB of pictures off a 512MB card (246 photos, in case you're curious).

That translates to approx. 520 kilobytes per second transfer speed.

Faster than the Media Reader claimed speeds but slower than the Digital Camera Link speeds. Also, much slower than the maximum USB 1.1 transfer speed of 11 megabytes per second.

In Conclusion

It looks like it may be a limitation of the part of my camera that slows down the transfer, and not necessarily the implementation of the "link" whatever form that may take.

Thanks for the testing. But don't be too hard on your USB 1.1 connection - it will still beat all the Belkin devices. If you read the fine print, Belkin adds an extra 30 % more time for error checking (who DOESN'T want to error check their original photos before deleting them), which is standard on your transfer. And I'd be dubious to use the "Best case scenario" times from the manufacturer, so the fastest Belkin device would be pushing 30 minutes for a 512 MB card.

[MacVault]

Anyone read this from the makers of the ipod guts:

PortalPlayer has taken its integrated technology found in the majority of hard-drive-based music jukeboxes to the next level. The new Personal Media Player: Photo Edition development platform includes a System-on-Chip (SOC), Firmware Development Kit (FDK) and Software Development Kit (SDK) for consumer electronics and computer manufacturers to quickly bring to market a new category of products called "Personal Media Players." These battery-powered, hard-drive-based devices will allow consumers to record or capture, store, play and display their entire music, audio book, album art, photo and video (MJPEG) collections on a single device that fits in their pocket.

With these new players, consumers will be able to:

Copy or move photos from a digital camera via USB On-The-Go
Touch up photos, record voice notes, add audio soundtrack, catalog images and create slide shows
Send images directly to a color printer supporting the PictBridge™ standard .
Share and enjoy photos and multimedia slide shows on a TV
Archive music, burn CDs, email pictures,and sync MP3s and photos on a PC

http://www.portalplayer.com/products/platforms_mediaplayer.html

I'm sure everyone's read that already. I just can't beleive that Steve really believes himself when he says there's not the video content. He's doing this just to make more $$$ in the long run. If everyone buys three or four ipods rather than one that does everything then that's a lot more $$$ in Apple's pocket. THIS IS ABSURD!

1) The technology is there to do this.
2) Apple's spent the last 10+ years promoting home video creation and editing (no copyright required - just like photos)
3) Whoever does not want these features doesn't have to use them.
4) At $599 the gadget ought to bathe me and tuck me in every night ;)
etc.

Come on Steve Jobs! Your excuses for no video are soooooo lame! I was not born yesterday!

[cheese1113]

So on the photo ipod, do you think that you will be able to transfer pics from your camera using the belkin cable and view the pics on your ipod?









—Bob

[CalfCanuck]

Anyone read this from the makers of the ipod guts:

http://www.portalplayer.com/products/platforms_mediaplayer.html



Great link - as I posted earlier, I almost wonder if Apple won't introduce the camera autosync with a software update in a few months, now that they have the hardware finished and some time to iron out the protocol issues.
How many versions of the OS did it take to get the network connections to the Windows world working fairly well ...

[blybug]

I don't disagree with you on the nice storage aspect of the Photo iPod, and of course the computer is the center of one's digital photos for editing. But I feel you fundamentally miss the MAJOR reason people would need this device - between the time they take the pictures, and when they first upload them to their computer.

In your example you neglect several key steps:

Olden days:
Camera-->Film--> (Goes into one's suitcase or purse for 2 weeks until one gets back from Maui, the drive to the Grand Canyon, or Aunt's Sue's house 500 miles away) THEN Photo Processing-->Organize-->Place in Photo Albums or Slide Trays-->View-->Stash away until next time

Modern Times:
Camera-->( What the heck do I do with a full compact Flash card and no extra capacity for new shots until I get finish my European vacation 10 days from now and finally have a chance to upload theses photos to my computer 5000 miles away) THEN Computer-->Organize-->iPod-->View-->View Again!!

LOL

I don't think anyone besides Apple's marketing & research folks knows the "MAJOR reason" most people would want this for. It's not the major reason I bought mine for (and it shipped today!! WOOHOO!!).

In my life we take way more pictures around the house, neighborhood, and school (hundreds each month) on a daily basis than the couple times a year we go on vacation. And the last few years we've brought along an iBook for the express purpose of downloading pictures on the road. It is a rare occasion that we are more than a memory stick away from a computer (does that make sense??):rolleyes:

So for those without a laptop, I can see where the option of downloading directly to the iPod would be a dream on a long vacation...stuff the iPod in your camera bag and offload whenever the memory card is full. But this option is already available for those who want it via Belkin. I think the casual user is more likely to take a few extra memory cards (film!) with them and tote them back in their suitcase if they're going on a really long trip, or stop into the ubiquitous WalMart and have CDs burned from their memory cards.

Fully agree and expect that someday having the option of downloading directly into the iPod with no Belkin dongle would be ideal, with automatic 2-way syncing when the iPod connects, just like the on-the-go playlists for music. Ultimately convenient and dummy-proof (could even disallow/warn when deleting from the iPod if the pic hasn't yet been synced to computer!). I'm anxious to hear reports on how the Belkin unit interfaces with the iPod Photo...it may well do just what we are thinking of. My wife is a professional photographer and would probably like this setup rather than lugging her camera bag and computer bag to each scene shoot.

I haven't ever seen what the USB2 cable for the iPod looks like, I assume it has the usual dock connector on one end and a regular usb plug on the other...or is there some sort of adapter dongle thingy? Either way, seems like there should be an easy enough way to create a similar cable (and software since PortalPlayer supports this) that goes from the USB of the camera to the dock connector of the iPod to directly transfer photos. Wonder why it takes that big Belkin box to do the job?? :confused:

[douglasio]

I saw on the google news page this article:
New York Times Article (http://tech2.nytimes.com/2004/10/28/technology/circuits/28stat.html)

It lends a little more insight into the various slide show functions etc. that are offered by the new photo ipod.

The most interesting thing to note, I think, is quote:
"A kind of slide-sorter view displays 25 tiny pictures per screen; it's one way to pluck a certain photo from among the hundreds. Another is to spin the click wheel, which can page through full-screen photos astonishingly quickly and smoothly. They flicker past almost as though they're frames of film."

Veeeeery interesting.

[~Shard~]

Although I won't be getting rid of my 3G iPod, I do definitely like these new iPod photos. Just like the iPods themselves, and the minis, I'm sure Apple has hit another home run with this new addition and sales will be enormous, especially with it being Christmas shopping season!

I really don't understand why some people are being so hard on the iPod photo either - I think it's a great idea, very useful and a logical progression for the iPod. (Next stop, video!) Of course not everyone would make use of its functionality, but that's no reason to knock it - this is the case with every product to some extent - it's simply not meant to address every single person's concern.

Plus, it could be worse - would you want this iPod instead? :cool:

[nagromme]

Micro Pod :D ha ha. I like the two different play/pause buttons :D

Gallery of the new iPod Photo here--someone got their hands on one!

http://gallery.ipodlounge.com/ipod/thumbnails.php?album=15&page=1

I REALLY like the new OS X-style UI and the new menu font... plus fitting one more line of text on the screen :)

[nagromme]

Micro Pod :D ha ha. I like the two different play/pause buttons :D

Gallery of the new iPod Photo here--someone got their hands on one!

http://gallery.ipodlounge.com/ipod/thumbnails.php?album=15&page=1

I REALLY like the new OS X-style UI and the new menu font... plus fitting one more line of text on the screen :)

[pockyrevolution]

Dang, its fat (thick)!

0.57 in VS 0.75 in

5.6 VS 6.4 ounces

[cgmpowers]

What's new about iTunes 4.7? Just increased support for new stores or is there some new functionality?

One feature I noticed that was new in iTunes 4.7 was the ability to show me duplicate songs. It displays songs that have the same name & artist (and same length) but are on different albums. I have 20,300 songs and always knew I had a boat load of duplicates but never had an idea how many. I have three thousand plus thanks to that new little feature. I can now deselect them and not load them on the iPod!

I ordered my new iPod iPhoto and should get it next week (according to the Apple Store Web Site). I did play with one at the local Apple Retail Store and they're neat. Here's a few comments..

Color screen is a little darker than a color Palm but is crisp and clear. There is no way to adjust the brightness or contrast (that I could find).

Despite adding color, Apple has not added any new games. I was most disappointed in this. I would have thought a new game utilizing color would have been present. A card match game would have been nice!!

I have said this on other message boards but will say it again. Apple had the new iPod iPhoto sitting next too an iBook with an iSight attached. I still would have liked the ability to attach the iSight to the iPod iPhoto and take pictures (or even video??).

Christopher

[aswitcher]

One feature I noticed that was new in iTunes 4.7 was the ability to show me duplicate songs. It displays songs that have the same name & artist (and same length) but are on different albums. I have 20,300 songs and always knew I had a boat load of duplicates but never had an idea how many. I have three thousand plus thanks to that new little feature. I can now deselect them and not load them on the iPod!

Christopher

I have found that I get a lot of false positives, the iTune selecting tracks that are clearly different lengths, on different albumns etc. I wish this was more tailorable so I could sift more carefully to eliminate duplicates.

[Philsy]

Philsy what You were describing seems to be an iPod with a touch screen interface. All those things you want (music, calander, contacts, and games in one place,) your iPod can do right now! So what you are saying is that you want the Ipod to become like that Epson 2000 with a big screen, thats touch....... Hmm


Corey

Blimey, a response ;)

Yes, the iPod does all that but you can't use it for inputting data such as calender appointments. That would be useful to me - a sort of iPod version of a Palm. I'm knocking the current iPod - far from it - merely suggesting an expansion of what has become a very successful brand.

[munkle]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already but is HP going to release an HP iPod Photo? Just interested in the nature of the deal HP and Apple have going on. HP aren't not going to try to bastardise iPhoto and implement it into Windows Media Player are they?!! :eek: :p

[Penman]

What all formats of music do these play?
They are dedicated cameras that do one thing.

Do all of you really expect a $500-$600 iPod that plays music, stores contacts notes calendars & games, can be used as an external 40 or 60GB hard drive, and can play slideshows of pictures on it or to a TV.......to have an equal quality screen as such cameras mentioned above?
The iPod is a music player that now allows you to have fun and view photos on it as well.

You're missing my point.

<POINT>The screen - for a 2" color screen - is not very good.</POINT>

The information posted above proves that. The drive isn't under discussion (though many cameras can play slideshows onto a TV and many sub $1000 videocameras can do it wirelessly).

I've bought one of the damn things - it's cool. let's just not pretend that it's the best technology that $600 can buy when anyone with a brain (that's you) can see that we're getting reamed. We're enjoying it, but it's a reaming just the same.

"Please Steve, may I buy another?"

[kbonnel]

I have found that I get a lot of false positives, the iTune selecting tracks that are clearly different lengths, on different albumns etc. I wish this was more tailorable so I could sift more carefully to eliminate duplicates.

I agree. But I love the feature. I new I had a ton of duplicates, and really was dreading looking for them :)

Now it is a little bit easier, but will still take some time.

Kimo

[feakbeak]

I agree. But I love the feature. I new I had a ton of duplicates, and really was dreading looking for them :)

Now it is a little bit easier, but will still take some time.

Kimo

It would be nice to have configurable settings to set what criteria needs to match in order for songs to be considered duplicates. I don't think the defaults are awful, but I would like to be able to make the criteria more or less strict for various purposes.

[kirk26]

Dang, its fat (thick)!

0.57 in VS 0.75 in

5.6 VS 6.4 ounces

Yea, still lite.

[ASP272]

It would be nice to have configurable settings to set what criteria needs to match in order for songs to be considered duplicates. I don't think the defaults are awful, but I would like to be able to make the criteria more or less strict for various purposes.

I must agree. After losing my iTunes preferences once I ended up with about 500 or more duplicates when rebuilding the songs library. It would be nice to have settings to weed out all of the "same song, different version or CD" songs.

[nate13]

wow, the 60 gb looks awesome. the only difference i see is that its a little heavier and the skip protection is less. i still want one though... and does this count as *hidden* features of the 4g? i accualy hope not, so we can get games and stuff like apps on it. \nate

[CalfCanuck]

LOL

I don't think anyone besides Apple's marketing & research folks knows the "MAJOR reason" most people would want this for. It's not the major reason I bought mine for (and it shipped today!! WOOHOO!!).

Whether you're LOL or not, it's not my arrogance, but Apple's, that doesn't seem to understand photographers needs. If the goal of a Photo iPod is to carry around a few pictures you took last year, then don't try to pretend it's for photographers. And don't expect people who photograph to use it very much.

Here a link to a perfect example - dpreview.com - probably the most authoritative, impartial, review driven website dedicated to digital photgraphy (note their 320 million site visitors since 1999!).

They post a front page story with the title "iPod Photo - doesn't Rock" and with the summarizing text:

"iPod Photo will be available in 40 and 60 GB capacities ($500 or $600 respectively), the biggest nonsense? No built-in Card slot! "

This hardly sounds like Apple's hit a homerun with the photo market ...

Now, as I've posted earlier, if Apple pulls a rabbit from thier hat by allowing direct camera to iPod transfers, then this thing WILL ROCK!

Time for those iPod software engineers to earn their stock options.

[feakbeak]

Whether you're LOL or not, it's not my arrogance, but Apple's, that doesn't seem to understand photographers needs. If the goal of a Photo iPod is to carry around a few pictures you took last year, then don't try to pretend it's for photographers. And don't expect people who photograph to use it very much.

Here a link to a perfect example - dpreview.com - probably the most authoritative, impartial, review driven website dedicated to digital photgraphy (note their 320 million site visitors since 1999!).

They post a front page story with the title "iPod Photo - doesn't Rock" and with the summarizing text:

"iPod Photo will be available in 40 and 60 GB capacities ($500 or $600 respectively), the biggest nonsense? No built-in Card slot! "

This hardly sounds like Apple's hit a homerun with the photo market ...

Now, as I've posted earlier, if Apple pulls a rabbit from thier hat by allowing direct camera to iPod transfers, then this thing WILL ROCK!

Time for those iPod software engineers to earn their stock options.

I’m apologizing in advance for the lengthy post.

I agree, for photographers there are probably better devices out there that are more dedicated to the purpose of storing and viewing mass quantities of pictures for less money. (And probably with better displays too… since that seems to be another major issue photographers have issues with on the iPod Photo)

I do not believe this is a problem for the product’s intended market. In watching the launch event for iPod Photo, I didn't get the impression Apple was pitching this product to photographers. My impression was that it’s a mass consumer product. An average consumer buys an iPod to have an awesome digital music player and now you can also carry around pictures to show your friends and family and even run slideshows on a TV if you want. I never heard Steve say this would be a photographer’s new "must have" device.

With that said, I also agree that being able to transfer pictures directly from your digital camera and/or media card into the iPod's photo library would be a great enhancement. Right now, there are the Belkin accessories that let you copy your photos onto the iPod. Although I haven't used it, I'm assuming it would only copy them over to the HDD as normal file storage and not actually import them into the photo library database on the iPod. They couldn’t have known about iPod Photo when those accessories were released and so they probably won’t magically work like that now that iPod Photo is released.

So... I wonder what Belkin will do next with their photo import accessories??? Hmmm, can anyone guess??? I'm stumped. Oh wait, here’s an idea!

I would be willing to bet that Belkin offers updated accessories within three months that import directly into the library. While you might complain this should come standard on the iPod Photo, I disagree. It's a mass consumer product and many buyers will just want the 60 GB storage, the nicer color screen for album art and a few of their favorite photos to carry around. Not everyone buying iPod Photo needs or wants a card reader built into the iPod. I wouldn’t. First of all, you have the additional size and weight and a clunky slot, even if it were covered it takes away from the minimalist aesthetics. Then, what cards should be supported, CF, SD, MS, etc? Should they offer different models and fragment their stock and piss off resellers who have trouble anticipating demand for which formats? It causes more problems than it solves.

I think accessories are the best way to handle these desired features and those typically come several months after the main product launch, so just wait and see. Pehraps, Apple will produce some accessories themselves, that's been rumored for a while.

Updating the current Belkin photo accessories with new firmware/software or producing new accessories that handle transferring pictures directly into the iPod photo library either from storage cards or direction connection to the digital camera will be on the way. There's obviously a market for it and if people will pay, then businesses will make the product.

That's my 2 cents… I never understood why posts in these forums are often so reactionary. It’s as if those posters believe everything is set in stone at launch. Products and their accessories develop and become more robust over time. iPod Photo has been available for two days now, I don’t think it is fair to judge if Apple hit the mark or not yet.

[meanmusic]

How did the Canadian verion of the 60gig iPod Photo end up being $799 CND? After the currency conversion and $25 fee for blank media, it shouldn't be that expensive.

meanmusic

[~Shard~]

How did the Canadian verion of the 60gig iPod Photo end up being $799 CND? After the currency conversion and $25 fee for blank media, it shouldn't be that expensive.

meanmusic

Yes, it definitely should be cheaper. But, I've seen this before, where Apple doesn't keep their prices in line with the exchange rates. Of course, I'm not saying Apple should update their prices on a daily basis to reflect the current exchange rates, as they would have to modify prices on a daily basis, but with the Canadian dollar strengthening against the weakening US dollar, you think they would have picked a more approrpiate, accurate price point. Ah well, if I want one I guess I'm ordering through the States.... ;)

[~Shard~]

Micro Pod :D ha ha. I like the two different play/pause buttons :D

Glad you liked that one nagromme. I also like the inclusion of "alt" "ctrl" and "del" on it as well. What a sweet device... ;) :cool:

[artifex]

Awesome! I'm a student, and just this afternoon I got an email coupon offering me $30 off a purchase over $300. Coincidentally, today is also my birthday :) And yes, I already wanted the music set, even though I have maybe 1/2 the CDs already, so this was perfect timing.

Anyway, my total before tax and (free) shipping was $299. :P I'm telling you guys, Apple is after my soul.

If they give me a $250 coupon while I'm still taking classes, I'll buy a laptop, next, and finally switch :) Which one? Something ending in "book," probably - feel free to tell me which model's best for a college kid who might sometimes want DVD playback, won't need to burn anything on the go, but will want at least 802.11g and possibly bluetooth if it's easy...

[Surreal]

I would like tyo interject...if apple put a card reader on the ipod phot right now, i would not even CONSIDER buying it


because i would be buying the 60 for capacity...not photo...or eve color


which leads me to this..when the capacity for the photo and regular ipod are equal, then a card reader would make sense.

think about it, apple cant match the capacity yet, they want to force buyrs hands and get the ipod phot out, once the photo is established, then they should emphasize the photo application of the ipod photo.


(i want Line in recording)

[DaLazernet]

My two cents...

Well, I ordered the iPod Photo 40 GB today for a christmas gift (the motherly figure told me to order it to be sure I got the right one). Why did I go with the iPod photo? Well, I have 22 GB of music thus far, so that threw the new U2 ipod out -- and I was really hoping to get that black ipod, oh well. So that left the 40 GB iPod and the new iPod Photo. Taking into account my student discount, the extra hours of music playback time, the color display, the included dock ... it just seems really worth it to me. Will I use it for photos? It isn't my primary intention. This coming from someone who upgraded their PDA merely to get one of the first color screens for the ooh-la-la factor. Sure I'll let it sync up my photos, and we'll see how usable it truly is soon...but I always dreamed of having an iPod...and to get one with a color screen -- oooh! Should be coming in 2 weeks or so, I opted for the engraving... "Eric's iPod Photo" with my email addy under it. I'm excited!

[bairdm]

Although at first extremely excited about the Ipod photo, after a little research I have decided not to purchase one. Here is why:

FROM APPLE:
"Copy full-resolution photos to iPod Photo as a backup or to transfer originals to another system." Notice they don't say "view".

"A Fine Array of Formats
iPod Photo supports syncing photos from the most popular formats (JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF and PNG) and even lets you carry around full-resolution copies of your photos." Why are you carrying a full-resolution copy of?

"Syncs iPod-viewable photos in JPEG, BMP, GIF, TIFF and PNG formats." So what is an iPod viewable photo?

FROM CNET:
"Also, while you can transfer photos to the new iPod using a device such as Belkin's Media Reader, you won't be able to view them on the iPod--you need to sync with iTunes for that." Hmmm...

MY TWO CENTS:
When ipod photo syncs with your computer a thumbnail is created of the image which you can carry around. That is why they boast on the website that you can hold 25,000 pictures- they are only thumbnails of high enough quality that they look okay on the two-inch screen and projected on a TV. You can choose to carry around a full-resolution copy of the image as well. Apple is careful in the way they word this as you can see from their website. When downloading from the Belkin card reader you will NOT be able to view your images until itunes creates a thumbnail for the ipod to read.

Check out the Archos Gmini400 or AV400. The Gmini is not any bigger than the ipod photo, has a BUILT IN card reader and does video too. Not to mention its only $400.

[hansen]

According to Kenneth Nielsen, country manager for Apple in Denmark, there are no plans for iTMS in any new countries in the near future, except for Canada. He says this to the Danish ComputerWorld.

And the reason: they don't want to deal with the local currency.

This is a really strange argument to mee. I use my credit card all the time to buy on-line in dollors, euros, pounds or whatever. If they don't want to deal with the local currency they could just go ahead and use euro - that is just no big deal for us. THere isn't a store in Copenhagen where you can't pay with euro despite the local currency is kroner.

[blybug]

Whether you're LOL or not, it's not my arrogance, but Apple's, that doesn't seem to understand photographers needs.

Just to clarify...the LOL was specifically at your alteration of my "Old Days" and "Modern" analogy, because it was funny. I apologize if you read some sort of condescending tone into my reply. I wasn't LOL at your post or the points you are making, mostly I agree with what you are saying.

But I also agree with what another poster has pointed out, the device is not primarily meant for photographers any more than the iPod is meant to be for professional musicians. It is a cutting edge consumer device that is first and foremost the most advanced version of the iPod, by far the most popular consumer portable hard-drive music player on the market due to its elegant simplicity and ease of use, that just so happens to let the average joe carry around his pictures like a digital wallet if he wants to shell out the $$$ for that capability. In its present form it is for showing pictures, not taking pictures.

Give the thing some time to evolve, and almost surely a later iteration will allow direct downloading of pictures into the iPod. And I won't be surprised at all if either the Belkin product is soon updated to integrate with iPod Photo, or if Apple themselves provide a firmware update to allow the direct connection of some digital cameras (the PortalPlayer hardware is supposed to support this and many other features).

Anyone who is serious about photography (my wife is a professional photographer) has enough high-capacity memory cards or a laptop to get them through whatever job/vacation/event they are shooting. I see a place for the iPod in that workflow someday, but do not find it at all disgraceful that the very first iteration of this product does not boast that capability.

[iMeowbot]

"Copy full-resolution photos to iPod Photo as a backup or to transfer originals to another system." Notice they don't say "view".
You don't need to undertake any detective work to find out the capabilities and limitations, it's all spelled out in the manual (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod/iPod_photoUG_0190269.pdf).

[robocop2000]

The reason for Irelands exclusion is painfully obvious if you live in ireland. We are subject to the same rip off prices as th Uk for music, and I would say that Jobs was unable to negotiate the 99c per song from the labels as this would mean larger cut in profits for the record companies. And they could hardly open itunes ireland at 1.20 a song!

So folks don't expect itunes ireland anytime soon, unless the case against the cost difference between UK and Europe is resolved.

[cgnjny]

I'm not a pure tech person, so I don't know specifics, but why does the new iPod photo have a smaller "buffer" of skip protection (from up to 25 mins for previous to 17 minutes for the photo version)?

Is it a space limitation? Is the 25 mins being shared for photo use and viewing?

I keep going back-and-forth between the merits of 8 minutes...

Thanks.

[crossed-over]

Good job Apple for pushing the iPod forward, but can someone please explain to me what's so great about having photos in your pocket? I just don't see the necessity here. It's like having a walkman with pictures on it. Not sure it will sell as well as the hype.

[summitwynds]

Thank you FedEx! I was scheduled to get my iPod Photo on 11/3. FedEx showed up with it today. Its pretty cool. I know I will used the photo feature for hooking up to a tv to impress clients. Not a gadget for everyone, but the photos are nice and crisp on the iPod, I havent hooked it up to a tv yet. As usual, very simple to set up. The color screen is very nice. Very crisp and clear. I definitely hope that someone (Apple or otherwise) figures out a way to put iMovie & Quicktime movies on the iPod. I have Eye Home and would love to be able to pop a recorded show or an iMove on the iPod, then play it on a tv. Again, not a gadget for everyone.

[CalfCanuck]

Although at first extremely excited about the Ipod photo, after a little research I have decided not to purchase one. Here is why:

Check out the Archos Gmini400 or AV400. The Gmini is not any bigger than the ipod photo, has a BUILT IN card reader and does video too. Not to mention its only $400.

While I'm disappointed in number of things for the photographer in the new Photo iPod,be aware of a couple of points on this device.

First, its only 20 GB - 1/3 the storage of the new iPod.

Second, smaller comanies go out of business all the time, and may not support the products as well as you like.

My first portable HD storage solution was a very well reviewed device from a company called "Minds@work". Bought almost 4 years ago, it was a small, portable, 10 GB HD with a DOS OS that read from Compact Flash Cards, with a FW interface to upload to your computer. It was decent, but the battery life was awful (I felt it had to be plugged in to ensure a safe upload).

And of course the comapny went bankrupt. I still use the device, but would recommend you factor long term support and upgrades into decisions.

[CalfCanuck]

Just to clarify...the LOL was specifically at your alteration of my "Old Days" and "Modern" analogy, because it was funny. I apologize if you read some sort of condescending tone into my reply. I wasn't LOL at your post or the points you are making, mostly I agree with what you are saying.

But I also agree with what another poster has pointed out, the device is not primarily meant for photographers any more than the iPod is meant to be for professional musicians. It is a cutting edge consumer device that is first and foremost the most advanced version of the iPod, by far the most popular consumer portable hard-drive music player on the market due to its elegant simplicity and ease of use, that just so happens to let the average joe carry around his pictures like a digital wallet if he wants to shell out the $$$ for that capability. In its present form it is for showing pictures, not taking pictures.

Give the thing some time to evolve, and almost surely a later iteration will allow direct downloading of pictures into the iPod. And I won't be surprised at all if either the Belkin product is soon updated to integrate with iPod Photo, or if Apple themselves provide a firmware update to allow the direct connection of some digital cameras (the PortalPlayer hardware is supposed to support this and many other features).

Anyone who is serious about photography (my wife is a professional photographer) has enough high-capacity memory cards or a laptop to get them through whatever job/vacation/event they are shooting. I see a place for the iPod in that workflow someday, but do not find it at all disgraceful that the very first iteration of this product does not boast that capability.
Thanks for the clarification. I also am slowly coming to the belief that Apple will support direct camera to iPod uploads with future software updates. All of the need I/O stuff already exists on both ends, so it appears to me to just be a matter of software (not a small task, I know, in syncing up three devices - camera, iPod, computer).

I'm just a little frustrated at the "iPods are designed for music" nonsense around here. The non-pro camera market is HUGE - Canon alone is looking to ship 15 million digital cameras this year. If the installed base is 300 million (conservative #), and a killer Photo iPod gets 5% of that market a year, that's 6 million Photo iPods a year in sales.

Plus Photo iPods can drive Mac sales. When users try to sync the photos with their Win systems, some might be tempted to consider a Mac when their next computer upgrader decision comes along.

[feakbeak]

Thanks for the clarification. I also am slowly coming to the belief that Apple will support direct camera to iPod uploads with future software updates. All of the need I/O stuff already exists on both ends, so it appears to me to just be a matter of software (not a small task, I know, in syncing up three devices - camera, iPod, computer).

I'm just a little frustrated at the "iPods are designed for music" nonsense around here. The non-pro camera market is HUGE - Canon alone is looking to ship 15 million digital cameras this year. If the installed base is 300 million (conservative #), and a killer Photo iPod gets 5% of that market a year, that's 6 million Photo iPods a year in sales.

Plus Photo iPods can drive Mac sales. When users try to sync the photos with their Win systems, some might be tempted to consider a Mac when their next computer upgrader decision comes along.

While I'm not sure if the all of the "iPods are designed for music" comments are nonsense, I hear your point about trying to capture the photo market though. Still, the iPod Photo is brand new. I think with time the photo capabilities will become more robust. The iPod was launched about three years ago and look at all the new features that have been added to iPod/iTunes since.

BTW, I'm one of those Windows users who will probably be getting a Mac for my next upgrade. My current PC is still pretty decent and I need a PC for work (I'm a software developer for Win32) but I want a Mac for all the "fun stuff" - digital music, photos, videos. Plus, I can better take advantage of my iPod with iSync, iCal, etc. iPod Agent helps out on Windows, but they still don't have support for Thunderbird and I'm not a big Outlook fan.

[Rower_CPU]

You don't need to undertake any detective work to find out the capabilities and limitations, it's all spelled out in the manual (http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/ipod/iPod_photoUG_0190269.pdf).

From that link:
Storing Digital Photos From a Photo Card Reader
Note: Using an optional iPod photo-compatible photo card reader (available for purchase at www.apple.com/store) and a standard digital camera and photo card, you can store photos on iPod photo, then delete them from the photo card and take more pictures. Then later you can transfer the photos from iPod photo to your computer using a standard digital photo application (such as iPhoto, on a Macintosh). You can’t view photos transferred from a photo card reader directly to iPod photo. To view the photos on iPod photo, you must transfer them to your computer, then import them to iPod photo using iTunes.

Hopefully Apple will address this in software soon - it's quite a handicap for the iPod to be marketed now as a digital music/photo wallet but not be able to display the images transferred directly to it from the camera or card reader.

[blybug]

iPod Photo on my front porch this morning (5 days ahead of schedule!!)

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

I started a new thread on the hardware forum with a picture of the pref pane, looks like the full res photos will be stored in disk mode, assuring that at least for now the Belkin reader will not allow download and view.

iPod Photo Prefs (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=95409)

[johnnyjibbs]

I would doubt iPod Photo would have the necessary processing power to manipulate the files into the size required for it to view. Early reports make it sound like the Mac has to do a fair amount of work in iTunes to do this process. And just take a look at the woeful photo rotation capabilities of iPhoto!

[iMeowbot]

I would doubt iPod Photo would have the necessary processing power to manipulate the files into the size required for it to view. Early reports make it sound like the Mac has to do a fair amount of work in iTunes to do this process. And just take a look at the woeful photo rotation capabilities of iPhoto!
Definitely, it's a good thing that they are doing the scaling and resampling up front. It's very expensive (both CPU and memory) to do it correctly, and it would be just like Apple to drop a built-in function that wasn't as good as its computer-hosted counterpart. That's most likely the reason why photos can't be viewed directly from a camera.

It will be interesting to see what the scaling quality is really like on competing units. I'm guessing that there will be jaggies.

[Poff]

According to Kenneth Nielsen, country manager for Apple in Denmark, there are no plans for iTMS in any new countries in the near future, except for Canada. He says this to the Danish ComputerWorld.

And the reason: they don't want to deal with the local currency.

This is a really strange argument to mee. I use my credit card all the time to buy on-line in dollors, euros, pounds or whatever. If they don't want to deal with the local currency they could just go ahead and use euro - that is just no big deal for us. THere isn't a store in Copenhagen where you can't pay with euro despite the local currency is kroner.

Do you have a source? This should mean it won't come to Norway either!

[artifex]

Is the U2 iPod dockable?

[iMeowbot]

Is the U2 iPod dockable?
Sure. Except for the color, coupon and obscene markup, it's a regular 4G iPod.

[tallyho]

Can the new iPod Photo do this yet? I mean properly (as the Rio Karma and the newer iRivers can), not the iTunes "combine the second side of Abbey Road into one huge track" so called work-around? I'll be sticking with my 1G 10GB pod till Apple fixes the music side of their player.

[Sayhey]

This is interesting even though it has an incredibly stupid title to the article.

iTunes Ireland sees 'pot of gold'?

By Jonny Evans

Apple is in negotiations to launch iTunes Music Store in Ireland, reports claim.

It appears Apple originally planned to open for business in Ireland this Tuesday, when it extended its service across Europe. These plans, however, were stymied at the last minute by a disagreement with the Irish Music Rights Organization (IMRO).

These disagreements have now been resolved, according to Phonographic Performance Ireland (PPI) sources, who told Macworld: "We (the Irish recording industry) expected iTunes in Ireland on Tuesday, just like the other ones."

However, a spokesperson for IMRO told Macworld this morning: "We are currently negotiating with Apple," confirming that "negotiations haven't concluded, yet".

Apple this week opened for business in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.

The local label source said: "We welcome iTunes with open arms. We believe the issues have been resolved - I expect it to open very quickly."

However, local artist representatives repeated: "Negotiations continue".
Macworld UK (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=10017)

I also found these quotes from the article of interest for those non-Euro nations.

Apple declined to comment on its Irish plans, saying: "We are not announcing any new stores beyond Canada in November at this point of time. We are committed to expanding the iTunes Music Store globally, and will announce new countries as and when they come on board."

and,

Apple has confirmed it will open a Music Store in Canada in November, and online reports also claim that progress continues toward launching iTunes in Japan, though the latter venture has faced local problems, too.

Apple Japan vice president Yoshiaki Sakito, a former Sony employee, has previously confirmed Apple's intent to launch in Japan "within the year".

emphasis added.

[BS85]

i just received my ipod photo on friday. which was faster than the expected time of one to two weeks. nice, since i waited several months for a dual 2.5 and i'm still waiting on my 30" monitor. anyhow, the ipod photo is pretty much just a color ipod. i wish that they could have included pics in the address book and perhaps a graphic equilizer or something. as for photos, they are 'optimized' for viewing through itunes and then downloaded onto the ipod. you have the option of transferring full-sized images, but only for transferring purposes. i was misled to believe that the photos you view were synced to you iphoto library. but there's not much syncing if you can only go one way. as for viewing, it's pretty limited, you can't even zoom like most digital cameras. i was hoping that this would be a good device for backing up photos and post viewing them before downloading them to a computer, but i guess not. so i guess i'm left with a 60gig ipod that just happens to have a color screen.

[tomozj]

What's new about iTunes 4.7? Just increased support for new stores or is there some new functionality?




Theres a Artist Alerts thing added on the artist and album pages
They tell you when the artist publishes something to the store

[Zaty]

I guess the reason why Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Switzerland are still iTMS-less has definitely something to do with the fact that all those countries still use their own currencies. Sweden and Denmark being part of the EU, Apple shouldn't have problems launch a store using the Euro currency since the store for those countries can operate out of Luxembourg.

I guess Apple can't open a Swiss store using the Euro because legally, a Swiss store has to be physically located in Switzerland (at least its accounting department) which in turn means that they have to accept the Swiss Franc because it's the only official currency in Switzerland even though many stores in Switzerland accept Euros.

I'm sure, Sweden and Denmark will get access to iTMS sooner or later. As for non-EU countries such as Norway and Switzerland, we'll have to wait and see.

[BA_Baracas]

I was going to get a 20 gig but then Steve Jobs had to go and announce the a new colour iPod, so I thought - why not. It's something that I think looks cool, although I won't be using the photo features much.

Most people will buy the new iPod because it is cool - simple as that.

I think the Apple designers have kept the simplicity of the device constant with the rest of the line-up. I don't want a card reader slot built into the thing - that would ruin the look, feel and the simplicity of the iPod (remember, Apple won't put two buttons on a mouse because they think it looks bad!). It's pretty much the same thickness as the 3g iPods, which is still very thin.

The syncing software is iTunes and I normally use iPhoto to store my pics, do I care? No. Do most of the consumer market that are going to purchase the iPod photo care? No. It's all good. It makes it simple enough for everyone from a 6 year old to an 80 year old to use.

I understand that photographers were expecting more, and maybe Apple should have added a direct picture import facility - but maybe that would have involved more software enhancements on the portal player chips ( i don't know). Or piss a lot of third party accessory makers off.

Video? Yeah I guess carrying your own movie clips with you would be cool (to view on a TV), but I think that will come.

What I would have loved to have seen is a firewire link to the iSight camera, so you could take video/pics and use the iPod's screen as a viewfinder. that would be fun (especially if coded in H.264). Oh! and what about 'home on iPod'??

But I suppose good things will come. And for those that are not happy, I guess there are plenty of other products out there to buy and use the way you want to. I just want something that is cool and will not give me a headache trying to use. Most people are shallow.

That's the beauty of the iPod. The name is now associated with music by everyone. Do you think Apple intended that?

'iPod' - if you did not know what it does, would you think of it as a portable music player? To me it sounds like something from one of Woody Allen's films. Maybe it means 'POrtable Data???

I need some sleep. :o

[sweetaction]

not trying to sound like an ass, but just wanted to let you know that I ordered 3 iPod Photo 60s when they annouced them (christmas came early for my dev crew) and the FedEx woman came in at about 9am with an armload of iPods.

The screen is amazing. I am very impressed.

Good job Apple.

[tzm]

I was going to get a 20 gig but then Steve Jobs had to go and announce the a new colour iPod, so I thought - why not. It's something that I think looks cool, although I won't be using the photo features much.

Most people will buy the new iPod because it is cool - simple as that.

I think the Apple designers have kept the simplicity of the device constant with the rest of the line-up. I don't want a card reader slot built into the thing - that would ruin the look, feel and the simplicity of the iPod (remember, Apple won't put two buttons on a mouse because they think it looks bad!). It's pretty much the same thickness as the 3g iPods, which is still very thin.

The syncing software is iTunes and I normally use iPhoto to store my pics, do I care? No. Do most of the consumer market that are going to purchase the iPod photo care? No. It's all good. It makes it simple enough for everyone from a 6 year old to an 80 year old to use.

I understand that photographers were expecting more, and maybe Apple should have added a direct picture import facility - but maybe that would have involved more software enhancements on the portal player chips ( i don't know). Or piss a lot of third party accessory makers off.

Video? Yeah I guess carrying your own movie clips with you would be cool (to view on a TV), but I think that will come.

What I would have loved to have seen is a firewire link to the iSight camera, so you could take video/pics and use the iPod's screen as a viewfinder. that would be fun (especially if coded in H.264). Oh! and what about 'home on iPod'??

But I suppose good things will come. And for those that are not happy, I guess there are plenty of other products out there to buy and use the way you want to. I just want something that is cool and will not give me a headache trying to use. Most people are shallow.

That's the beauty of the iPod. The name is now associated with music by everyone. Do you think Apple intended that?

'iPod' - if you did not know what it does, would you think of it as a portable music player? To me it sounds like something from one of Woody Allen's films. Maybe it means 'POrtable Data???

I need some sleep. :o
I totally agree with you, I would go get one now if there are some more cool features like:
1) Video viewing supported (If possible Id like to see the feature "Import DVDs to iPod" just like what we can do with the music from CD, what do you think people?
2) iSight support, use iSight as a camera for an iPod
3) iTune Music Video Store
4) iTune Movie Store
...
So instead of carry PowerBook for viewing DVDs on a picnic trip and stuff I will use iPod instead, DVD in a pocket, anywhere, anytime I want.. What do you think?

I think iPod should take an advantage of the capacity (40GB - 60GB) to do this stuff. Shouldn't be so hard to do. (I wont blame for the battery, if it is able to view DVDs or video. 3-5 hours are enough for this)

[msconvert]

I totally agree with you, I would go get one now if there are some more cool features like:
1) Video viewing supported (If possible Id like to see the feature "Import DVDs to iPod" just like what we can do with the music from CD, what do you think people?


As much as I agree with you,

the only problem with this is: The MPAA had the copyright laws changed so that copying (backing up) a dvd is illegal. Therefore apple will not overtly make a device to break the law. Yes, guns don't kill people people kill people, but this has been a stated reason by Apple as to why portable video is a long way away. The legal system is not ready for this kind of device. Jobs is even against putting HDDVD readers/burners into computers to prevent illegal copying untill it can be sorted out.

[Zaty]

Today, Microsoft launched its MSN Music Service in several European countries. Unlike Apple, MS managed to bring its service to Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland.

No hurry up Apple!

http://yahoo.reuters.com/financeQuoteCompanyNewsArticle.jhtml?duid=mtfh58500_2004-11-04_09-00-04_l02232901_newsml

[~Shard~]

Today, Microsoft launched its MSN Music Service in several European countries. Unlike Apple, MS managed to bring its service to Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Switzerland.

No hurry up Apple!


This should come as no surprise, it's been the case in other countries as well. Here in Canada for instance we have Napster and a couple other online stores, whereas iTMS won't be here for a few more weeks.

It's definitely a good kick in the rear for Apple though to make sure they work as hard as possible to keep opening stores in order to keep gaining market share.

[mazurka]

This should come as no surprise, it's been the case in other countries as well. Here in Canada for instance we have Napster and a couple other online stores, whereas iTMS won't be here for a few more weeks.

It's definitely a good kick in the rear for Apple though to make sure they work as hard as possible to keep opening stores in order to keep gaining market share.

Yea, still working hard to exclude Ireland, though. Despite all sorts of promises that last-minute problems had to be cleared up, and that the iTMS Irish store was imminent after sorting out some copyright issues, the whole subject has just disappeared. We may be small, but we are in the Euro zone, and the only one using this currency to be ignored.

[whooleytoo]

Yea, still working hard to exclude Ireland, though. Despite all sorts of promises that last-minute problems had to be cleared up, and that the iTMS Irish store was imminent after sorting out some copyright issues, the whole subject has just disappeared. We may be small, but we are in the Euro zone, and the only one using this currency to be ignored.

Well.. I don't know about you, but I'm boycotting iTMS until it comes here... ;)