U2 iPod, Photo iPod and Additional iTMS Localizations Released

[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?

 

[izzle22]

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

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]

Post reinforces why Apple must do Photo iPod better ...

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/Ms...age_id=11208192&query=F8E477*&hiword=F8E477*+

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]

Nope, it's Apple that named it, not us.

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/Ms...age_id=11208192&query=F8E477*&hiword=F8E477*+

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]

Picture Transfer Speeds

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 { 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]

Another use (hope) for WiFi iPod

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 { 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]

iPod Video and PortalPlayer

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 ...