16GB Flash-based iPod Video Player?

[BlueRevolution]

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

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

H.264 > DivX > MPEG-4

H.264 != MPEG-4

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

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

Exactly!

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

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

 

[FreeState]

yeah thats how I see it

A player you load up with one or two movies you want to watch...

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

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

That fits the model MrFirework is implying with a flash player

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

 

[sartinsauce]

H.264 > DivX > MPEG-4

H.264 != MPEG-4

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

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

Am I missing something?

 

[iMeowbot]

The accuracy of Daniel Amir's reports are unknown.

Amir said that "Synaptics appear to be a lock" for the second generation nano controller, but that didn't happen.

 

[Archmagination]

Maybe I am missing something here.. but wouldn't this naturally coincide with an announcement for the Full-Screen Ipod?

 

[macfan881]

now would this mean if its flash base would the batery life be better than the orignal 5.0 gen ipods

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Crap..... and I just bought a 4GB Nano

 

[justflie]

crap, i just bought a 4gb iphone. oh wait...

 

[charkshark]

Why would anyone watch HD on a 3" screen?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Philberttheduck]

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

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

 

[miketcool]

I was thinking just now, isnt there a dispute over the iPods current interface?

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

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

 

[Ha ze]

i would like to see "front row" come to the iPod interface, would be an interesting improvement

 

[Chef Medeski]

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

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

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

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

Completely agree. Focus on one aspect. I hate a ****** music player that can also be crappy video player. Its just two craptastular devices molded into one.

 

[Chef Medeski]

I think this is an analyst trying to bolster stocks of companies that sell flash memory. I agree with most that this is counter intuitive.

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

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

Any which way, I'll take 3 please.

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

 

[Chef Medeski]

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

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

 

[iMeowbot]

I was thinking just now, isnt there a dispute over the iPods current interface?

No serious ones remain, Apple settled with the two main rights holders (Creative and Contois).

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

 

[miketcool]

...but even the Front Row interface ultimately falls back on a list that looks very much like the current iPod arrangement after you get past the main screen.

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

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

 

[Yvan256]

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

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

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

 

[MV101]

Hmm..

i would like to see "front row" come to the iPod interface, would be an interesting improvement

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

 

[Ja Di ksw]

My guess is the iPhone or whatever you want to call it will replace the smaller iPods with screens, then there will be larger iPods will screens but still flash, then the largest iPods with a HD

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

Something along those lines.

 

[sartinsauce]

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

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

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

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

 

[koobcamuk]

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

 

[koobcamuk]

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

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

 

[thejadedmonkey]

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

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

 

[ModernGeek]

Yeah, I meant h.264. Whatever.

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

-Clive

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