Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
jettredmont said:
If I had to lay money, I'd say the U2-iPod is more likely to be a "Cool ... but why?" product like the TAM ... but to each his own. Others apparently are much happier with black/red than I am.



I strongly disagree. The color screen compares to the 4G iPod screen approximately as OS X compares to OS 9 in terms of "sex appeal", and that's a vital component of the iPod's popularity. Also, the additional information from the color screen (both in terms of color and in terms of resolution) is a Very Good Thing for the music player. Being able to see album art allows quick identification of the artist/album at a glance instead of squinting to read the text title.

I agree to the "sex appeal" and not only it is that, but rather the ability to better read the screen, have color coded information, highlighting, etc. Displaying the art work is awesome. I was all saying that in my posting, however I just can't see any fit for photos. IPod is an audio-centric device. Bringing in a video-centric product in the measurements of the audio-centric device is just not well designed. I don't want to say the idea of having photos on the road is bad, but it should have deserved a better design, a device by itself. something that should have been released further down the road as a "iPod Media" or something, with a screen that spans across the entire surface of the ipod and has video capabilities. It seems like the ipod photo is a cough of a little bit of future thrown at us.

jettredmont said:
As for the photos themselves ... well, obviously *you* didn't want that, but *I* certainly would pay the iPod photo premium ($100) to get it with my next iPod (which, unfortunately, is a ways in the future...) And I know that's one feature that would get my dad to buy an iPod, which is saying quite a bit.

jettredmont said:
Sigh. No. iTunes can see your iPhoto libraries, just like most OS X apps which want to hook into the iLife apps can see the other app's libraries. For instance, how iPhoto can see your iTunes library to accompany a slideshow. There's no "export/import". It's a matter of clicking on which (if not all) of the iPhoto albums you want to have available on your iPod.

Since iTunes has been the primary sync-point for the iPod, especially on Windows, it makes sense to not have to open up yet another application to do the synching (note that in Tiger the non-music/non-photo syncing of the iPod will be handled in the OS itself, not in iSync).

i strongly disagree. Syncing should be a background process that is running as a service. both itunes and iphoto should be sticking to their purpose: itunes = music, iphoto=photos. There shouldn't be anything that imports or selects or drags stuff from iphoto into itunes just for it to be synchronized. As to windows, there should be an iphoto for windows. In the picture library, there should be a functionality to select albums or photos to sync to the ipod , just like you do the same with songs in itunes.

Apple slacked here on sw development. They didn't spend the time to convert iphoto to windows and since they had their ipod sync routines embedded in itunes, they just thought it was easier from a software development standpoint, to have the user import the photos into itunes to then being synched to the ipod. Very lousy implementation.



jettredmont said:
Ummm .... well, it does. About 89% more pixels than in the 4G iPod models. Not sure if that translates to more text on the screen, as the font has also changed; we'll have to look at them side-by-side to judge that.

As for the appeal of color ... I talked about that above. Sex appeal. Additional information (you sound like a DOS lover circa 1989!). Photo viewing. All really good features.





No, sounds like a digital camera user. Most weekends I'm in at least one round of "look at these pictures on my 1.5" back-of-the-camera screen". Other than the fact that changing most cameras to output to the TV is a feat of thumb gymnastics, the TV-out option would get more use around my family. As for the TV set not supporting an RCA jack connection ... come on! Practically every TV built in the last decade has an RCA jack connection on it, especially since DVD players became commonplace! And how do you f. up your channel presets by plugging in an RCA jack? Granted, tv's generally don't have the best interfaces for switching to the RCA inputs, but it's not anywhere near as difficult as you seem to believe it is!

In any case, obviously this isn't a product for you. Personally, I'll be dancing in the streets when I can get my hands on one of these puppies, and I strongly suspect my extended family will have at least three new iPod owners as a result of this. While it may not be useful for you, I think Apple's hit the market square on its head here.

I see it differently, however, I do think apple will increase sales with this. The fact is the color screen and the larger harddrive. Not the photos. People always want color. Same in the cellphone market, even before camera phones. color sells and that might be just their goal by releasing this product. geez, how are we gonna implement a color screen in the ipod and make it useful? .... hmmmm.. okay.
 
drlunanerd said:
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.

what cameras have a 2" 400x300pixel screen?
 
gapless playback

jettredmont said:
I am at a complete loss as to why Apple, across four major releases of iTunes and six major releases of iPod OS, hasn't fixed this yet. It's certainly not rocket science!

I'm sure they think their "join tracks" feature is enough to take care of the problem (which isn't).

Edit: well, it does take care of the problem, but creates another (it "destroys" the tracks "separation")
 
Poff said:
what cameras have a 2" 400x300pixel screen?

Canon Ixus 30/40: 2" 118000 pixels
Panasonic Lumix models - 2" and 2.5" similar rez
Sony models (T1, T3) etc. etc.
 
I'm getting ready to get the 60gig for 569. I am so excited. Hot damn, they are SO nice. Good going Apple. Those Merrill Lynch people know NOTHING.
 
no direct camera download

I read the ipod+photo page and saw no mention of connecting a camera directly to download photos. If this is right that's pretty lame.
Also when will ipod be able to record higher quality audio?
 
headhighguy said:
Apple slacked here on sw development. They didn't spend the time to convert iphoto to windows and since they had their ipod sync routines embedded in itunes, they just thought it was easier from a software development standpoint, to have the user import the photos into itunes to then being synched to the ipod. Very lousy implementation.

I suggest they weren't slacking, rather they have higher priorities than converting iPhoto to Windows. Where is the business case for doing that?
 
Since this is the Photo version of the iPod (which now has its own division at apple right next to computer hardware), it should be able to do everything with photos.

1) it should be able to download photos directly from a camera. printers can already do it.

2) it should be able to print directly to printers, cameras already do it.

3) it should be able to connect to another iPod Photo to transfer all/some of the photos

I have to agree with the logic and the frustration of JediL1, iTunes managing the photos instead of iPhoto is alot to get your head around if you don't take into account the windows users.

Today is a sad day when apple has chosen to slight its core Mac users by not using iSync and iPhoto (the most obvious and already conceptually integrated method for Mac users) to do the management of photos and decided to use iTunes to manage the process just to appease the windows users.
 
CalfCanuck said:
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.


Yeah, they have to beat the Archos devices to be worthwhile to photographers. Right now they are far from it.
 
Aussie John said:
I read the ipod+photo page and saw no mention of connecting a camera directly to download photos. If this is right that's pretty lame.
Also when will ipod be able to record higher quality audio?
No, it does work with the belkin unit, as does every regular sized iPod.
 
Badradio said:
Is that a U2 iPod or a Knight Rider iPod?

It's the new killer iPod K.I.T. we've all been waiting for, I've heard there is an easter egg.. whisper "Hasselhoff" into the voice recorder and the iPod will play Nightrider's theme music. :D
 
chewbaccapits said:
So what the HELL is the new hidden feature for the 4th gen. iPod? :confused:

anyways!

i guess one must be patient... just got a new 20gb 4g ipod off my soon-to-get-a-500bucks-color-ipod cousin

and i cant wait for the pb g5

even if it comes out next tueday! ordered mine today! :D
 
jimsowden said:
No, it does work with the belkin unit, as does every regular sized iPod.

Yes, but the belkin unit is FAR too slow to be of real use.

What is needed is a CF slot, so the images can be directly copied to the iPod.

(And I can guarantee you that Sony's next offering will view photos and have a memorystick slot).
 
CalfCanuck said:
The Belkin device is a glorified modem - 300 Kbps! What a joke.

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.
 
This is worthless to me

:mad: The only reason I'd buy a photo ipod is if I could somehow transfer photos from a digital camera or memory card and actually view them immediately.

According to the available info on apple.com, the only way to view photos on a photo ipod is by first syncing them to your computer from a camera, memory card, or ipod hard drive (after using a card reader) AND THEN transferring them back to the ipod in a standard format.

Correct me if I'm wrong because I hope I am.
 
nemaslov said:
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.

Ah, I love you guys. You make me laugh.

It's the people who buy those underwater subs, the tablet pcs and such, it's for those who want something nobody else has. That's the U2 iPod. There will be a demand.

As for the photo iPod, get over it. If you want the iPod to be thicker than the origional iPod 1g, then the media reader is good. Until Apple can shrink it, we won't see a media reader. Plus, when the add a media reader, all the Belking/Griffin people will whine and cry about how another 3rd party is being screwed over.

And finally, yes, the iPod is a mature music device. Good. What else can it do? It's not called the iMusic or the iJukeBox for a reason.
 
I just got the 4G 40Gig ipod last august and now this. That's just my apple luck I guess. Buy the best and somthing better comes out the next day.

Oh well.
 
CubaTBird said:
hmm, how does the color screen work? do u have to have the backlight on for it to be functional? Is the backlight always on? I mean if its off, what color if any shows?

Color shows even without backlight... See Gameboy Advance SP.
 
headhighguy said:
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.

I disagree, Apple is doing all it can to keep people coming back to buy. 4 generations of iPods in 3 years, some with significant improvements over previous models. I don't think anyone would disagree that fine tuning a device which seems to be #1 in popularity in the world is a bad thing. The only way a company to stay on top is to ensure that the product is what the customer wants.

There are now 5 separate models with 5 colors for the minis, U2 in the 20 gig, plain white in 20 and 40 gig and color photopods in 40 and 60 gig. So if someone only wants an iPod to play music they can buy it. If someone wants an iPod that can play music AND display/store photos, they can buy. Apple is playing its strengths not its weaknesses. The iPod should benefit from the iApps and vice versa. Why go out and build a device that is strictly for photos? Nobody, but nobody is gonna pay $400 for one! Only by integrating into the iPod does it have any real value.

Is it before its time? Yeah, probably. It needs wi-fi built in or some better way to transfer the photos to another device and to be able to directly hook up a camera to it. You can bet your booties that there is a video iPod in the future BUT until the studios figure out a way to license content across the board Apple is not going to bring it to market. That is the reason that Steve specifically said today that they put photos on the iPod because there will be no copyright infringement involved. This is not a bad or ill-timed move for Apple, once again the market may be limited but anything that creates more sales and more interest is a good thing for Apple.

I really don't understand those who think that a company known for innovation and creativity can view Apple's releases this year as anything but phenomenal.
 
dejo said:
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)

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 ...
 
Updating the software?

Ok not sure if it was mentioned already, but to update all this software - iTunes and QuickTime - do I just go to Apple's site? Or will it be in Software Update?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.