Some people just don't get it.

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by raynegus, Oct 27, 2004.

  1. raynegus macrumors regular

    Jul 5, 2003
  2. MacDawg macrumors P6


    Mar 20, 2004
    "Between the Hedges"
    Agreed, in my opinion, the iPod isn't designed to be an all purpose PDA to carry around everything like a Palm, nor is it an art gallery. The new iPod looks cool enough to me to consider giving my current iPod to my daughter and getting a new one.

    I'd rather celebrate what it is... not what it is not...
  3. mymemory macrumors 68020


    May 9, 2001
    The iPod is a portable hard drive to show up things, it is not a work station itself for that you would get an iBook. With the iPod you can playback things and for me is fine. Still the hard drive should be way bigger at list.

    I would get an iPod when I can playback video from it and if I get one before that would be from eBay. I think technology wise is way too expensive for a toy. It is at list $200 overpriced.
  4. zim macrumors 65816


    Jan 5, 2002
    The last thing I want on my iPod is more holes. I love the iPod as is, let the diverse number of users decide how best to use it. Want a card reader? buy the Belkin reader but don't inflate the price just so it can said, ya we have that. I use my iPod for photo transfer, through the Belkin reader, with no problems, love it!

    Nikon released the Coolwalker Which has media reader slots. What you get is a 30GB drive Storage unit with a color screen for 499, same price as the iPod with less storage and only a USB interface. If you want media slots built in, most likely you want this device, the Coolwalker, and not the iPod.

    I love the iPod because it's use is undefined and will continue to grow where the Nikon device will remain a photo storage unit forever (I am yet to actually see the Coolwalker in stock anywhere, not sure if it is even out).

    I love the iPod.
    Coolwalker cool.
  5. Mr. Anderson Moderator emeritus

    Mr. Anderson

    Nov 1, 2001
    I have to agree with this....forget the card slots, it should have been able to hook up via a cable to digital cameras so you don't have to bring your laptop with you when you go on a trip - carrying around something that small that allows you to unload your camera would be fantastic....

  6. agreenster macrumors 68000


    Dec 6, 2001
    Walt Disney Animation Studios
    Good point, but then again, Apple still wants to sell laptops... :D

    I agree though that it can be cumbersome to take along the ol xBook, but it is nice to see your images all big and high res on it...
  7. emw macrumors G4


    Aug 2, 2004
    I would imagine that a third party could put something like together.
  8. MacRumorSkeptic macrumors regular

    Jul 9, 2002
    Southern California
    iPod Photo should have a standard USB port for connecting your digital camera. They blew it by not doing so. You still have to carry around some clunky attachment to transfer photos. Not a big leap if you ask me.
  9. Doctor Q Administrator

    Doctor Q

    Staff Member

    Sep 19, 2002
    Los Angeles
    I heard debate about this. Apple has not made the iTunes/iPod sync interface available to third-party developers so there is currently no way for them to get in on the action. It was also mentioned that digital cameras would not be able to provide the photos in the format required by the iPod Photo, since the iPod Photo does not do its own file preparation. In fact, I wonder if it even does its own scaling or whether the sizes you see on the screen are in fact precomputed by iTunes before download and simply stored by the iPod.

    On the other hand, Apple's iPod Photo page says "Copy full-resolution photos to iPod Photo as a backup or to transfer originals to another system", so at a minimum it should have been made possible to transfer photos from a camera to the iPod's hard drive and import them to iPhoto later, whether or not they were integrated into the photo display features while they were on the iPod Photo.

    Conclusion: Yes, Apple should provide a way to transfer from a camera to the iPod Photo.
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816


    Feb 18, 2003
    Well, Belkin did come up with a solution;

    I am not sure if this is the same as the Belkin cardreader mentioned in a previous post...

  11. zelmo macrumors 603


    Jul 3, 2004
    Mac since 7.5
    I know the iPod Photo (iPodP from now on - too lazy to type that all the time) works through iTunes at the moment. Is there anything to prevent Apple from incorporating a sync via iPhoto down the road? Then, if you own a Mac, you could get a cable to hook up your camera to the iPodP, dl images to make room on your card media, then sync up later with your Mac. Since most digicams ship with a USB cable, would Apple need to add a USB port to the iPodP, or could you achieve this with a USB-F/W converter plug?
    I have no idea whether any of this is technically feasible (which may seem quite obvious to those of you who DO know :rolleyes:, please don't flame), I'm just green-lighting here...seems like something that might help lure people to the Light. "Sure you can do it clunky via Windows, but look how simple it is on the Mac."
  12. kgarner macrumors 68000


    Jan 28, 2004
    That is definitely the one thing I think iPod Photo needs. Not card slots, that's just hideous, but I think they should supply an adapter that has the dock connection on one end and a female USB plug on the other. Then just plug in your camera and transfer.

    I would love to get an iPod Photo and would probably get the Belkin Media Reader if I did. But I think it is a little rediculous to ask customers to spend an additional $100 to get a feature that could conceivably be handled by an adapter and some software in the iPod.
  13. emw macrumors G4


    Aug 2, 2004
    Guess a lot of people are looking for the same thing. Unfortunately, this thing is as big as the iPod itself, but I guess that's better than nothing. Thanks for the link.
  14. earthtoandy macrumors 6502

    Jan 18, 2003
    yeah i respect apple for the fact that rather than make a gadget that does a bunch of mildly useful things and make the product cumbersome, they make a product that is specialized and does one or two things REALLY well. If you wanna add those other things it can do it... but its your own perrogative.

    I am sick of devices that are made to "do it all". they usually "do it all" very poorly.

Share This Page