gekko513 said:
You're from Norway and saying this?? Seems to me every single teen living in Norway is listening a lot to U2. They're really top of the po(o)ps again, or so it seems to me..
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U2 iPod, Photo iPod and Additional iTMS Localizations Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're from Norway and saying this?? Seems to me every single teen living in Norway is listening a lot to U2. They're really top of the po(o)ps again, or so it seems to me..
Yvan256 said:
WOW, these forums really need to be threaded.
But anyway...CD-TEXT is a great technology that allows text to be stored on a CD that can be read by certain CD players. Most car CD players these days support it. But it has been a life-saver on my 400 disc CD player. Toast supports burning CD-Text onto CDs now, which is awesome because you can just stick a CD in, it looks it up on CDDB, and when you burn the copy it has CD-Text so I can stick it in my CD player.
This technology has caused me to hate the entire recording industry. I have about 500 CDs, I think maybe 10 of them came with CD-TEXT on them. It is a technology that has probably $0 cost, yet they refuse to add it to the discs they sell. This is why I can't stand copy-protected discs. If they are not going to take the 5 minutes to add the CD-Text to the master of the record they are going to make 5 million copies of, and then I can't waste my time and and money to do it on my own, then screw them. It is a prime example of Fair Use. I am not stealing music, I just want to get some additional use from their stupid products.
Sorry, my rant is over now.
In short, CD-TEXT is great, but it was never really received by the major record levels so they can go @#$@#$@#$@#$$ themselves.
dornoforpyros said:
MP3's don't have gaps at all. It simply depends on the way you decode/play said files (there can be audio present at the first and last nano-seconds of the files).
There's CDs without gaps between tracks, why can't Apple implement it (without melding the tracks into one big track, that is).
Heck, even iTunes gives you the option of creating a gapless audio CD! Why can't iTunes *play it* without gaps!
neoelectronaut said:
Yeah, it's too bad Apple doesn't sell a "music-only" iPod for $399, or $299, or $249.
(Look closer, neoelectronaut, THEY DO).
Charko said:
Look in the iPod store for the Belkin direct transfer device (NOT the card reader, which for some insane reason runs at less than half the speed of the USB-transfer device, despite not having the USB 1.1 bottleneck in the middle of the whole process). It's $79. Yeah, one more thing to lug around, but it apparently hooks into your iPod just like the card reader and takes advantage of the built-in photo transfer capabilities of any 3G+ iPod. I'm not sure why Belkin has such a short list of officially-supported cameras, though; seems they'd be using the "USB/Mass Storage" standard that virtually every camera made in the last several years supports ... but just in case, you should probably buy from a store that will take it back if it proves to not work with your camera.
Verdict is still out if these photos will show up in your iPod photo library immediately or if they will need a "round trip" sync (photos -> iPhoto, iPhoto -> iPod photo).
grrr223 said:
top right on the screen.. besides thread tools and search.. Display modes.. but I guess nobody uses it..
gekko513 said:Oh ... I don't hang with teens anymore ... maybe I'm getting old
At 22 yesterday I like to think I still have a little "feel" of what's going on.
who am I fooling?
Poff said:
Yeah, the sound actually ends at the last audio frame of the file. It's really nothing magical. It's just a matter of having the other song ready to cue in when you reach the end of the first song. There's no "analysis", just forethought in getting the next song read off disk and cued up before the current one ends.
The only relationship to "crossfade" is that both involve cuing up the next song. "Crossfade" is actually significantly more difficult than avoiding an audio gap. Which makes it all the more aggravating!
Ah...
Just as I thought, even though Slovenia is in EU, no store was opened... what could you expect from a 2M populace...
Just as I thought, even though Slovenia is in EU, no store was opened... what could you expect from a 2M populace...
dornoforpyros said:
Not at all. In fact, a cross-fade is *not* a gapless playback.
Take the album "Oxygene" by Jean Michel Jarre for exemple. Tracks 1-3 and 2-6 are meant to be played gapless, i.e. as if there was only 2 tracks on the CD.
Now, if you do a "cross fade" between the tracks, you're actually changing the audio (fade out/fade in) that gets played.
And if you imply a "zero second cross-fade", then it's not a cross-fade at all, it's really gapless playback, which is what we're talking about here.
However, iTunes/iPod's "zero second cross-fade" playback doesn't work, it still produces a small fade at the beginning of the next track (most evident when going from Oxygene track 1 to track 2).
And in any case, I still want my 2-second gap between regular tracks, I shouldn't need to have "zero-second gapless playback" enabled all the time for only a few tracks.
dobbs said:
I respect your opinion, but this is the same concept behind why the iMac's don't have 2.5ghz G5s in them, you need to go to the next step.
As for those who think the iPod Photo will fail, remeber the origional iPod 3 years ago, or even the mini? I see a huge deman for photo ipods, from photo displays to the average schmoe. I'm in a robotics team where we used a mac for photo displays on a large monitor. Cut out the clutter and the middle man and just use the ipod.
No, but it doesn't make it better either. The color display makes it better... by adding album artwork, better user interface by using color highlighting, etc.munkle said:
munkle said:
Absolutely disagree. Syncing should be in *no* application at all. It should be part of the OS (as it's gonna be in Tiger) or by iSync. Every application is dedicated to its purpose. iPhoto = Photos. iTunes = Music. Now this rule is broken by having pictures to be tied into iTunes... That's what's bothering me. It's poor software development. The sync code is embedded in the iTunes product. The folks at apple were lazy to create a sync module for iPhoto. Not to mention to create an iPhoto version for windows. That would have been the right way to do.
munkle said:
Well, the point i'm trying to get across is that it is an effort to set up a stage before presenting photos. My family gets nervous when I come home and start fiddeling around on their TV set. Especially elder people. Also, imagine going to other people's houses... do they let you play around with their TV jacks?
munkle said:So you're saying they should have a seperate iPhoto device? Or just that the iPod is a hastily put together concept?
Not hasty. But its not a bold move by apple. They should stick to their concept. Be more innovative and create a new device. They seem to not be risk taking although their financial situation is probably not gonna be healthier than it is right now.
Am I missing something here when I observe that the resolution of the iPod Photo screen is not actually that great? A couple of previous pundits have quoted a supposedly good dpi value, but compared to most digital cameras these days it's way off the pace.
There are several digital camera models available with 2" colour LCDs at around 120000 pixels now. The iPod Photo only manages 38720 pixels. I can't imagine photos looking that great on it? Not trying to be a killjoy here - I just want to know if it's all its cracked up to be.
There are several digital camera models available with 2" colour LCDs at around 120000 pixels now. The iPod Photo only manages 38720 pixels. I can't imagine photos looking that great on it? Not trying to be a killjoy here - I just want to know if it's all its cracked up to be.
Don't but it if you don't like it
Funny, I've had this concept in my mind ever since the iPod first came out (the clue was they called it iPod not iJukebox). I bought the 60GB model as soon as the Apple Store came back online.
For those who have found the wonder of media streaming devices to free their digital content from their computers (I own TiVo and EyeHome) having the iPod take on photos and be portable is fantastic! Besides...
I though this at first too, but then realized the reason why. This was the easiest way they could give Windows and Mac users a consistent interface. I don't get the idea that you need to "import" your photos to iTunes, I think the photo albums list will just show up there when an iPod Photo is plugged in, the same way they show up in iMovie and iDVD. And when I really think about it, this is a much better way than syncing with iPhoto, because I always have iTunes open and slapping the iPod in the dock will still automatically sync to the latest changes, without having to wait for iPhoto to boot up.
I remember saying that about the original Mac 512 I had in college, and when I justified by purchase of a Performa 200 in 1993. Can't hardly imagine a computer without color now. And no, you don't need color for a music player, but you do for a photo player. You are still permitted to buy the non-color non-photo iPod if you choose.
The average iPod customer will buy the regular iPod. The iPod Photo customer is likely to have a digital camera, a large photo library, and a high enough IQ to plug the yellow cable into the yellow jack on Grandma's TV or VCR. It wouldn't take much for Apple to incorporate a Keynote Player in the iPod so presentations in the board room could run off the iPod. Heck, you could make a simple no-frills slide show of JPGs and perform this feat with the iPod Photo as-is. Doesn't take too much tech savvy to figure that out.
The more I read this post the more I think it must be some sort of attempt at sarcastic humor, since it's hard to believe anybody could be so down on an innovative product that they do not have to buy. Adding photo display capability does not detract from the iPod's functionality as a music player (and actually adds to it with the ability to display the until now unused cover art). Sorry if I misread the tone and didn't get the joke.
headhighguy said:
Funny, I've had this concept in my mind ever since the iPod first came out (the clue was they called it iPod not iJukebox). I bought the 60GB model as soon as the Apple Store came back online.
headhighguy said:
For those who have found the wonder of media streaming devices to free their digital content from their computers (I own TiVo and EyeHome) having the iPod take on photos and be portable is fantastic! Besides...
- Carrying around an AV cable is not that big of a deal for those who want this functionality to go to Grandma's. Compare this to the major setup hassles my family did in the 70s and 80s when we wanted watch slides!
- Many folks (like me) will simply have the iPod Photo dock permanently connected to the TV-Entertainment Center. This is just one more place for it to be. I dock my current 40GB at the computer to sync and update, keep it in my pocket with headphones while out and about, connect with a direct line in using the Belkin connector in my car, have a dock conencted to the pool stereo for outdoor music, and use a Cambridge PlayDock when I want a BoomBox (soon to be replaced by the new iBoom).
headhighguy said:
I though this at first too, but then realized the reason why. This was the easiest way they could give Windows and Mac users a consistent interface. I don't get the idea that you need to "import" your photos to iTunes, I think the photo albums list will just show up there when an iPod Photo is plugged in, the same way they show up in iMovie and iDVD. And when I really think about it, this is a much better way than syncing with iPhoto, because I always have iTunes open and slapping the iPod in the dock will still automatically sync to the latest changes, without having to wait for iPhoto to boot up.
headhighguy said:
I remember saying that about the original Mac 512 I had in college, and when I justified by purchase of a Performa 200 in 1993. Can't hardly imagine a computer without color now. And no, you don't need color for a music player, but you do for a photo player. You are still permitted to buy the non-color non-photo iPod if you choose.
headhighguy said:
The average iPod customer will buy the regular iPod. The iPod Photo customer is likely to have a digital camera, a large photo library, and a high enough IQ to plug the yellow cable into the yellow jack on Grandma's TV or VCR. It wouldn't take much for Apple to incorporate a Keynote Player in the iPod so presentations in the board room could run off the iPod. Heck, you could make a simple no-frills slide show of JPGs and perform this feat with the iPod Photo as-is. Doesn't take too much tech savvy to figure that out.
The more I read this post the more I think it must be some sort of attempt at sarcastic humor, since it's hard to believe anybody could be so down on an innovative product that they do not have to buy. Adding photo display capability does not detract from the iPod's functionality as a music player (and actually adds to it with the ability to display the until now unused cover art). Sorry if I misread the tone and didn't get the joke.
this may have been previously posted, and i apologize if it was, but did anyone notice this new feature? it's what i've always wanted mini player to be! i can just keep it down there and not have to open itunes just to change the track or volume! best of all it's not distracting! this is one of the very very few times i'm glad to be a windows user
Attachments
Someone just sent me an email with this rant....very long but funny!!
I ask you. Who in the HELL is going to buy a U2 iPod?
Only the most out of it music purchaser. One who doesn't download. One who
thinks KaZaA is a theme park and when he hears mention of BitTorrent gets
scared. BELIEVE ME, you wouldn't want to be caught dead with a U2 iPod. Except
maybe before Christmas. When you can show your baby boomer and Gen-X friends,
before word gets out that you were taken, and the KIDS, who know EVERYTHING
that is hip, inform you they want NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Look at the U2 iPod. It looks HOKEY! Like something for Halloween. What a
wannabe metal band would come up with.
And the signatures on the back? Does Mercedes-Benz engrave the name of its
race drivers on the trunk lid? NO, because a Mercedes-Benz is YOURS! You
EARNED it. You PAID for it. You don't want ANYBODY ELSE to have a piece of it.
The U2 iPod is not much different from a Beatles lunch box. Sure, they sold
a bunch, but no SELF-RESPECTING Beatle fan bought one. For THEM, it was about
the MUSIC!
Steve Jobs has gone too far. He's blurred the brand.
The iPod WAS the coolest item on the planet. And, unlike a Mercedes-Benz,
AFFORDABLE! Even a schoolkid could save up the money for one, if he didn't nag
his parents to buy him one first.
The iPod was a MUSEUM piece. Existing in a rarefied air unto itself. Its
only mission to be the best portable music player extant. Not only that, it
essentially INVENTED the category!
Now it's fine to extend the brand. To add uncompromising features, like a
color screen for showing photos. That's COOL!
But the U2 iPod isn't cool.
Talk to the kingpins of design. It's about the sheer power of the
item/edifice. The logo is BARELY DISPLAYED! It's the CORPORATIONS that insist their
logos adorn skyscrapers, the designers HATE THIS, fight AGAINST IT! Think about
it, if a record company made the iPod, they'd put the name on the FRONT! In
BIG LETTERS! Saying that kids WANT the logo. That they're IMMUNIZED to
overhype. That they're STUPID!
But the logo on an iPod is just a small engraving on the back.
When you log on to OS X you only get a gray Apple, no lettering whatsoever.
So why have an iPod that SCREAMS brand?
When really, the iPod is a PERSONAL brand! It's a device to hold YOUR music.
Hell, there's not even enough U2 music to FILL IT!
The iPod is a TOOL! That fulfills a MISSION! It's industrial design
PERFECTION! Why drag it into the world of ******** American commerce?
Really. How many of these U2 iPods do you think Apple will sell?
As for U2. Hell, the Beatles authorized lunch boxes back in the SIXTIES!
SINCE then, acts have garnered so much POWER! To make sure they don't look
CHEESY!
But make no mistake, U2 looks cheesy.
They just want to make sure they're the biggest band in the world. That they
sell out stadiums.
Hate to tell you Bono, et al. That's purely about the MUSIC!
Even Vanilla Ice sold records. But no one's going to see him now.
Have you no dignity? Can't you stand on your work alone? Or do you HAVE to
have the free advertising of the iPod TV spots? Do you have to endorse a
bogus product like the U2 iPod?
And, as referenced above, ALL OF THIS just turns the younger generation off.
The generation that could truly keep U2 in business.
But U2 isn't thinking about their long term career, they can only see THIS
record. How can we hype THIS record. FORGET if our antics backlash against us
in the future, like all those people who can't believe they once wore leisure
suits.
U2 ain't Ashlee Simpson, but they're not far behind. They'll do almost
ANYTHING to stay famous, to earn a buck.
As for Steve Jobs...I expected more.
Then again, if you think we'll be downloading from the iTunes Music Store a
decade in the future, to a little hard-drive based device, then maybe the U2
iPod was made FOR YOU!
The iPod IS ALREADY MATURE as a music playback device. In the future,
delivery systems will be essentially instant, and you won't even WANT to store all
your tracks.
Then again, your photos are yours alone. To extend the brand/product there
is a good idea. THIS is the kind of insurance for the future one can applaud,
the kind U2 should employ, focusing on the CORE PRODUCT instead of the
penumbra, the hype.
"Gonna save all my money and buy a GTO
Get a helmet and a roll bar and I'll be ready to go
Take it out to Pomona and let 'em know
That I'm the coolest thing around
Little buddy, gonna shut you down
When I turn it on, wind it up, blow it out GTO"
Gonna save all my money, and buy an iPod.
Then I'm gonna rip all my CDs, and download P2P.
And then I'm gonna put on the white headphones and go to school, the mall,
I'm gonna be COOL!
Why do they WEAR the white headphones, when they SUCK! Because they want to
be identified with the brand.
But kids don't want to be identified with the U2/iPod brand. That's just the
old folks in a circle jerk trying to make money. Their PARENTS might fall
for this, but they won't.
I ask you. Who in the HELL is going to buy a U2 iPod?
Only the most out of it music purchaser. One who doesn't download. One who
thinks KaZaA is a theme park and when he hears mention of BitTorrent gets
scared. BELIEVE ME, you wouldn't want to be caught dead with a U2 iPod. Except
maybe before Christmas. When you can show your baby boomer and Gen-X friends,
before word gets out that you were taken, and the KIDS, who know EVERYTHING
that is hip, inform you they want NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Look at the U2 iPod. It looks HOKEY! Like something for Halloween. What a
wannabe metal band would come up with.
And the signatures on the back? Does Mercedes-Benz engrave the name of its
race drivers on the trunk lid? NO, because a Mercedes-Benz is YOURS! You
EARNED it. You PAID for it. You don't want ANYBODY ELSE to have a piece of it.
The U2 iPod is not much different from a Beatles lunch box. Sure, they sold
a bunch, but no SELF-RESPECTING Beatle fan bought one. For THEM, it was about
the MUSIC!
Steve Jobs has gone too far. He's blurred the brand.
The iPod WAS the coolest item on the planet. And, unlike a Mercedes-Benz,
AFFORDABLE! Even a schoolkid could save up the money for one, if he didn't nag
his parents to buy him one first.
The iPod was a MUSEUM piece. Existing in a rarefied air unto itself. Its
only mission to be the best portable music player extant. Not only that, it
essentially INVENTED the category!
Now it's fine to extend the brand. To add uncompromising features, like a
color screen for showing photos. That's COOL!
But the U2 iPod isn't cool.
Talk to the kingpins of design. It's about the sheer power of the
item/edifice. The logo is BARELY DISPLAYED! It's the CORPORATIONS that insist their
logos adorn skyscrapers, the designers HATE THIS, fight AGAINST IT! Think about
it, if a record company made the iPod, they'd put the name on the FRONT! In
BIG LETTERS! Saying that kids WANT the logo. That they're IMMUNIZED to
overhype. That they're STUPID!
But the logo on an iPod is just a small engraving on the back.
When you log on to OS X you only get a gray Apple, no lettering whatsoever.
So why have an iPod that SCREAMS brand?
When really, the iPod is a PERSONAL brand! It's a device to hold YOUR music.
Hell, there's not even enough U2 music to FILL IT!
The iPod is a TOOL! That fulfills a MISSION! It's industrial design
PERFECTION! Why drag it into the world of ******** American commerce?
Really. How many of these U2 iPods do you think Apple will sell?
As for U2. Hell, the Beatles authorized lunch boxes back in the SIXTIES!
SINCE then, acts have garnered so much POWER! To make sure they don't look
CHEESY!
But make no mistake, U2 looks cheesy.
They just want to make sure they're the biggest band in the world. That they
sell out stadiums.
Hate to tell you Bono, et al. That's purely about the MUSIC!
Even Vanilla Ice sold records. But no one's going to see him now.
Have you no dignity? Can't you stand on your work alone? Or do you HAVE to
have the free advertising of the iPod TV spots? Do you have to endorse a
bogus product like the U2 iPod?
And, as referenced above, ALL OF THIS just turns the younger generation off.
The generation that could truly keep U2 in business.
But U2 isn't thinking about their long term career, they can only see THIS
record. How can we hype THIS record. FORGET if our antics backlash against us
in the future, like all those people who can't believe they once wore leisure
suits.
U2 ain't Ashlee Simpson, but they're not far behind. They'll do almost
ANYTHING to stay famous, to earn a buck.
As for Steve Jobs...I expected more.
Then again, if you think we'll be downloading from the iTunes Music Store a
decade in the future, to a little hard-drive based device, then maybe the U2
iPod was made FOR YOU!
The iPod IS ALREADY MATURE as a music playback device. In the future,
delivery systems will be essentially instant, and you won't even WANT to store all
your tracks.
Then again, your photos are yours alone. To extend the brand/product there
is a good idea. THIS is the kind of insurance for the future one can applaud,
the kind U2 should employ, focusing on the CORE PRODUCT instead of the
penumbra, the hype.
"Gonna save all my money and buy a GTO
Get a helmet and a roll bar and I'll be ready to go
Take it out to Pomona and let 'em know
That I'm the coolest thing around
Little buddy, gonna shut you down
When I turn it on, wind it up, blow it out GTO"
Gonna save all my money, and buy an iPod.
Then I'm gonna rip all my CDs, and download P2P.
And then I'm gonna put on the white headphones and go to school, the mall,
I'm gonna be COOL!
Why do they WEAR the white headphones, when they SUCK! Because they want to
be identified with the brand.
But kids don't want to be identified with the U2/iPod brand. That's just the
old folks in a circle jerk trying to make money. Their PARENTS might fall
for this, but they won't.
You get a bit more for that extra C note:jocknerd said:
Store & show Photo Slideshows (onscreen or on a TV)
Color screen with hi-rez screen
All new OS with color graphics (Games, Calendars, etc.)
Album Art (That's been a long time coming)
Better battery life (15hours vs. 12hours)
And I think $100 more for 60GB is not a bad deal either ... an extra 20GB for only a $100 -- pretty damn good.
Remember, the 1G 5GB iPods were $399! We've come a long way!
Brian Hickman said:
I'm curious to see Apple's pricing strategy for iPod over the next year.
The 1G iPod, announced October 2001 was 5 GB for $399, and a 10 GB model for $499 was added March 2002. When the 2G iPods debuted July 2002, the lineup was 5/10/20 for $299/$399/$499.
When the 3G landed in April 2003, the lineup pushed to 10/15/30 at the same price points. The 3G pushed to 10/20/40 in September 2003; again, same price points.
When the 4G landed in July 2004, Apple dropped the $499 price point and went with 20/40 for $299/$399. Today Apple added iPod Photo 40/60 for $499/$599.
So basically, from 2G through 4G, Apple has had three price points, $299/$399/$499. For a while this year there was only $299/$399 and now there's four price points, $299/$399/$499/$599.
My guess is:
Sometime in early to mid-2005, maybe at WWDC in June, Apple will move to all color with either three or four price points. (If Apple is selling out $599 iPods, they'll continue to sell one at $599; if the price point turns out to be too high, we're back to $299/$399/$499.) With four price points, it's probably 20/20color/40color/60color or even 20color/40color/60color/80color. At three price points, Apple goes all color, which they'll do anyway at some point.
Also, I am assuming that any flash-based iPod is going to be marketed as an iPod mini and isn't really a part of the iPod Photo equation. Different topic altogether.
Yvan256 said:
I don't think you can expect iTunes to automatically know the difference between regular tracks and ones that don't have a gap. I believe this is more or less determined by how the files are mastered. For example, Oxygene, Part III actually has some silence built into the end of the track (or at least it does on my CD).
But, I agree, iTunes and iPods need gapless playback, if only as a preference!
Photo iPod already getting panned by photographers ...
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102604appleipodphoto.asp
Well, after all the rumors, the color screen turns out to be true. But as others (wildmac, etc) have pointed out, the failure to include an acceptable way of uploading photographs in the field makes this a MAJOR limitation. The Belkin device is a glorified modem - 300 Kbps! What a joke.
If Apple solves the I/O problem, they'd move millions of Photo iPods into the hands of photographers. As it stands, little reason (beyond faith that they'll solve this in the future) to buy one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04102604appleipodphoto.asp
Well, after all the rumors, the color screen turns out to be true. But as others (wildmac, etc) have pointed out, the failure to include an acceptable way of uploading photographs in the field makes this a MAJOR limitation. The Belkin device is a glorified modem - 300 Kbps! What a joke.
If Apple solves the I/O problem, they'd move millions of Photo iPods into the hands of photographers. As it stands, little reason (beyond faith that they'll solve this in the future) to buy one.
iPod Photo syncs with PCs through the Adobe applications or straight from their My Pictures folder.
Most of my PC friends just dump all their pictures into Microsoft's My Pictures folder and are "amazed" at how you can see a little preview of it.
iPhoto for PC wouldn't make sense for Apple to spend that much money hiring people, keeping it up to date and providing support for it without something like the iTMS to get back some of the costs. The My Pictures folder is a perfectly fine solution for now. PC users expect much much worse.
Who knows, maybe in the future iPod Photo will sync to Google's Picasa photo management software.
Most of my PC friends just dump all their pictures into Microsoft's My Pictures folder and are "amazed" at how you can see a little preview of it.
iPhoto for PC wouldn't make sense for Apple to spend that much money hiring people, keeping it up to date and providing support for it without something like the iTMS to get back some of the costs. The My Pictures folder is a perfectly fine solution for now. PC users expect much much worse.
Who knows, maybe in the future iPod Photo will sync to Google's Picasa photo management software.