Well, it does look like everything you could possibly want!

But uh...yeah...I'm gonna wait a year on that one 'till the price comes down a bit. Just a little...yah...

(I posted this in response to another story; it's more germane to this one)

The iPhoto color looks cool, but I'm surprised (despite the fact that the rumors stated this) that it doesn't have a built-in way to import photos from a digital camera card (compact flash, etc). I assume it'll work with Griffin's adaptor (or an updated version of it), but it still would have been nice to have it built in.

Plus, I had heard that the Griffin adaptor is excruciating slow (to the point of being unsuable) for large photos. I shoot with a 6 megapixel DSLR, and 8+ MP cameras are becoming common. It's precisely the avid photographer, the type shoots hundreds of high-resolution photos, that would benefit from the iPod Photo. Let's hope Apple and Griffin (or another accessory maker) work together to allow us to really take advantage of this cool new gadget.

Oh, and Apple and Griffin--just let me know if you'd like me to test out these things for ya!

Quote

jimothy wrote:
The iPhoto color looks cool, but I'm surprised (despite the fact that the rumors stated this) that it doesn't have a built-in way to import photos from a digital camera card (compact flash, etc).

Agreed about the cameras, but I think you're right...they're expecting other companies to fill those holes. Hopefully they'll come up with even better products to do that. (Also, true about the cards...there are many. It would have to a "camera to dock connector" kind of device that would work for everyone.)

I also just noticed the solution for PCs...it works with the Adobe photo album and Photoshop Elements organizer...not something everyone has, but at least there's a solution to buy for PC people.

I expect it will go up yet again.

The U2 iPod is color. White earbuds, chrome, black and that ugly red bullseye. Who designed this, Ray Charles? Blah. The color iPod also disappointing. No video play even when hooked up to a TV. No FM radio. Less skip protection. Thicker. Heavier. Way more expensive. At least the battery life is better. If it wasn't for the interface, there would be no reason at all to get the iPod, but as it stands, it's still the best only for that. Really disappointed though. I'll hold off for someone to get it right.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The U2 iPod is color.

The U2 iPod’s color--in a word--blah. White earbuds, chrome, black and that ugly red bullseye. Who designed this, Ray Charles? Blah. The color iPod also disappointing. No video play even when hooked up to a TV. No FM radio. Less skip protection. Thicker. Heavier. Way more expensive. At least the battery life is better. If it wasn't for the interface, there would be no reason at all to get the iPod, but as it stands, it's still the best only for that. Really disappointed though. I'll hold off for someone to get it right.

How do you use it for the poor unfortunate souls that have Windows computers?
Is there now an iPhoto for windows?

Nearly all digital cameras have USB ports, and the iPod can support transfers via USB. So why can't you just connect a cable from the camera to the iPod's port and then tranfer directly? Why the heck do you have to go through a media reader?

Quote

jumper67 wrote:
How do you use it for the poor unfortunate souls that have Windows computers?
Is there now an iPhoto for windows?

It will also import photos from a folder on your hard drive -- for both Mac and Windows users. iPhoto import is just a nice "extra" for the Mac.

I too would've liked to be able to plug the USB dock connector directly into my camera and download all the photos from the camera directly into the iPod Photo. Hopefully, that feature will make the next revision. I wonder how easy it is to write code for the iPod...

And of course, 60GB for 499 would've been nicer. But I do like it. The new Myriad font looks sharp. The extra battery life is great! And strategically, it does tap into the mainstream consumer market (as digital cameras have been the number 1 purchase for a while) and increases the value of an iPod.

Forget the consensus estimate of 2.7m. I estimate that Apple/HP will sell 3.5m iPods this quarter.

It is iTunes that imports photos into the iPod, so the new version will take care of that. Apple's site seemed to say that you can import to iTunes all Photoshop elements pictures...

Small White Car:

In the same way that iPhoto can read the songs and playlists in the iTunes Library, iTunes 4.7 will be able to read the photos and albums in the iPhoto Photo Library (or Photoshop Elements/Album and/or My Pictures folder).

If you add additional photos to an album (or Library) that is already selected for syncing in iTunes, then those photos automatically get downloaded. If you create a new album in iPhoto, then you need to select it for auto-syncing in iTunes. (Works just like iTunes and music and playlists.)

This product is significant because it represents Apple's pace of product developement..Apple notoriously rests upon its laurals..can't blame Motorola and IBM for this one.

We're talking camera, phone, MPG players, video, FM radio, etc and etc. This other companies are going to start getting it right, and Apple does not compete. Innovate yes, compete NO!!

The 25,000 photos number depends on using iTunes. (from Apple's site)

1. Photo capacity is based on iPod-viewable photos transferred from iTunes.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Small White Car:

In the same way that iPhoto can read the songs and playlists in the iTunes Library, iTunes 4.7 will be able to read the photos and albums in the iPhoto Photo Library (or Photoshop Elements/Album and/or My Pictures folder).

Having the iPod transfer photos directly from a camera would be useful for storage purposes, not just for viewing. Sometimes, it's not preferable or possible to carry a laptop into the field to transfer photos to.

This may be possible through a software update and a special cable, though.

Quote

Guest wrote:
...No FM radio. Less skip protection. Thicker. Heavier. Way more expensive. At least the battery life is better. If it wasn't for the interface, there would be no reason at all to get the iPod

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
Having the iPod transfer photos directly from a camera would be useful for storage purposes, not just for viewing. Sometimes, it's not preferable or possible to carry a laptop into the field to transfer photos to.

This may be possible through a software update and a special cable, though.

Apple's pace is just right for the consumer market but probably not for the early-adopter/geek market. The consumer market has just caught on to my-personally-selected-music- anywhere, so beginning to introduce the my-personally- selected-photos-anywhere is just right. Move too fast and you overwhelm them.

And Apple's goal is never to just throw stuff out there as a beta-test like others, but to have it work just right on the first try - when will the naysayers learn that its the "just works" customer experience, the seamless transfer, the user interface, the smooth design that sells in the mainstream market and not the thirty buttons and features (which only attracts the geeks). So having one iTunes interface even for photos is the right way to go, imho. And if it syncs as smoothly as music does, Apple's done it again.

Just remember that for now, the iPod is a personal playback device - that's why there's no input other than to customize the playback - so cameras, phones, and microphones don't fit in its core. But add them on (3rd-party) if you wish.

By the way, before music players added FM (because they could), how many people really carried small FM radios around? And I don't mean boomboxes or car radio.

I understand the need for software like Image Capture at the iPod end in order to make the transfers. But why would we need a special cable - why shouldn't the dock connector to USB cable (into the camera) work?

Quote

deasys wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
...No FM radio. Less skip protection. Thicker. Heavier. Way more expensive. At least the battery life is better. If it wasn't for the interface, there would be no reason at all to get the iPod

Hmm...I have an iPod because a portable radio isn't good enough. I don't give a hoot if Apple never adds radio to the iPod.


Some things are only available on radio. Talk radio. NPR. The news. During the blackout in NYC, those that had portable FM radios were clued in to what was going on in the chaos in the street. The rest were wandering clueless asking what was going on, what routes were open in/out of the city, etc.

Also, many iPod users are feeling reality disconnect. Even with every CD in my collection, one of the best ways to hear new music is to scan through the radio (online or FM).

Also, lots of information posts (universities, parks, etc.) broadcast in small areas over FM. The iPod sorely needs an AM/FM radio. They could even innovate here by doing Radio TiVo right. Boom, skip commercials during Howard, Rush, etc.

Also, it's clear they are overlooking a big creative market by not offering an integrated combo media reader for at least SD/MMC (at least on the high end units).

For the life of me I can't figure why they would not enable video viewing on this thing. Which gets to a bigger problem. If they weren't such total control freaks and opened the development of software to other developers, I'm sure some 3rd party would have written video viewing software long ago.

Quote

Guest wrote:

For the life of me I can't figure why they would not enable video viewing on this thing.

Quote

Guest wrote:
No video play even when hooked up to a TV.

Quote

Guest wrote:
For the life of me I can't figure why they would not enable video viewing on this thing. Which gets to a bigger problem. If they weren't such total control freaks and opened the development of software to other developers, I'm sure some 3rd party would have written video viewing software long ago.

Quote

Biff wrote:

And then of course there is the video playback. I already commented on that. But seriously the second they add video playback, you'll be here complaining about which video codecs it doesn't support.

Quote

Guest wrote:
This product is significant because it represents Apple's pace of product developement..Apple notoriously rests upon its laurals..can't blame Motorola and IBM for this one.

We're talking camera, phone, MPG players, video, FM radio, etc and etc. This other companies are going to start getting it right, and Apple does not compete. Innovate yes, compete NO!!

The color iPod has an AV connector. I wonder if you can attach it to a camera and use th iPod as a HD for the camera.

Or connect the iPod via Firewire or USB to the camera. Problem would be Apple would need to collaborate with a Camera maker.

That would be more useful.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The color iPod has an AV connector. I wonder if you can attach it to a camera and use th iPod as a HD for the camera.

Or connect the iPod via Firewire or USB to the camera. Problem would be Apple would need to collaborate with a Camera maker.

That would be more useful.

Quote

Small White Car wrote:

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
The color iPod has an AV connector. I wonder if you can attach it to a camera and use th iPod as a HD for the camera.

Or connect the iPod via Firewire or USB to the camera. Problem would be Apple would need to collaborate with a Camera maker.

That would be more useful.

Again, it's possible now:

http://www.belkin.com/ipod/cameralink/

But from what I hear, this one is kind of slow. Of course, that may be a limitation of the iPod itself. I have no idea.

Quote

Guest wrote:
But that is for still digital cameras. What about miniDV cameras? Also, if you can record directly to the iPod, then you should be able to watch directly on the computer.

It would be great when you are on vacation and run out of tape.

Actually I have been thinking about it and I realized it would be really helpful if the iPod had a little gas tank built in. That way if I was driving and I ran out of gas, I could just pop open the ol' iPod and fillerup!

...that Apple is just following a long-term, well-though-out master plan of product releases that ultimately will fit together like puzzle pieces? Slowly but surely Apple is making sure that each component of iLife has a consumer-oriented device associated with it. Wwill we really be THAT surprised when an "iPod Movie" device comes out?

It reminds me a bit of the BASF ads. Apple is saying: "We don't make the digital camera. We make using your digital camera better." Apple precisely enters a category and sideswipes the competition with something so brilliant that everyone wonders why nobody thought of it that way before!

The iPod Photo revives a very old tradition too: keeping a few photos in your wallet. This device will even appeal to grandparents, who now can carry around hundreds of grandkid and vacation photos wherever they go.... can home movies be too far behind?

-Ken P

ummm... I liked them back in 1989,

Quote

Anonymous wrote:


But that is for still digital cameras. What about miniDV cameras? Also, if you can record directly to the iPod, then you should be able to watch directly on the computer.

It would be great when you are on vacation and run out of tape.

The iPod is starting to approach the iBook's territory. With only a $300 dollar difference between the low end iBook and the high end iPod, I think I would buy the 12" iBook.

My biggest problem with the iPod is that my 20gig is less than 6 months old and they have released, what, 2 more versions since then? Same with my Yosemite. I had it less than 4 months before the G4 came out. If Apple is willing to give me a good trade in on my 20gigger I would opt for a photopod.[/b]

Quote

Guest wrote:
ummm... I liked them back in 1989,

Anyone else feel like the silly "where's my video?" and other related comments is just RC not logging in?

Time to pummel the trolls. I'm bored.

RC ???? Where are you ???
We want blood !

Quote

Biff wrote:

Quote

Guest wrote:
For the life of me I can't figure why they would not enable video viewing on this thing. Which gets to a bigger problem. If they weren't such total control freaks and opened the development of software to other developers, I'm sure some 3rd party would have written video viewing software long ago.

Would you really like to know why they don't want lots of 3rd party developers writing iPod software? I'll tell you. It's because then you would install some poorly written software and then you would be here complaining about how crappy your iPod is because it crashes all of the time.

And then of course there is the video playback. I already commented on that. But seriously the second they add video playback, you'll be here complaining about which video codecs it doesn't support.

A couple of comments above mentioned card readers and slow transfer speeds. Someone more technical than I can fill in the details, but it's my understanding the speed is because of the flash cards. I remember being surprised myself the first time I heard someone tell me the flash cards are slow, but apparently because of their read/write speed, cameras themselves are built to take a picture then store it to the flash card afterward. This may all seem fast to us as we take a picture, then go to look at it, maneuver around saved images,etc. but when you're talking about actual connections to computer and transfer, it all bogs down. Another example would be, say, the fashion model photographer who does those quick takes one after another quick-fire - flash, whirr, flash, whirr, flash, whirr. This, from what I'm told, is child's play for a regular camera with motorized film cartridge, but only possible in the digital realm with the fastest more expensive digital cameras which go beyond the flash card tech.

I don't know the details. I'm just passing on my layman understanding of something I heard once. I'm sure someone else could point to links or explain it better ... if I'm even right.

"Would you really like to know why they don't want lots of 3rd party developers writing iPod software? I'll tell you. It's because then you would install some poorly written software and then you would be here complaining about how crappy your iPod is because it crashes all of the time."


Well guess what? Then your problem would be YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT. Go figure that one. Just like it's your own damn fault if you install a program that hoses your computer. Is apple responsible for that? NO. And nobody expects apple to be. It's called UNSUPPORTED. But there's a huge difference between unsupported and trying to completely disable something in some retarded attempt to preserve your "pristine image". If a user is stupid, then a user is stupid. They are going to find a way to screw up their iPod no matter what apple does. So why cripple all the users who AREN'T stupid and want more capablity? Who cares if it's supported or not. If you're screwing around with something, then you know right off that bat you might cause a problem. Obviously that doesn't stop people from being interested in more capablity anyway.

"Slowly but surely Apple is making sure that each component of iLife has a consumer-oriented device associated with it."


BZZZT! No they aren't. And that's the problem. It's all about "how can we tie XXX to the iPod?" Apple gets one success and suddenly half their business revolves around the successful product. Like the mac isn't a successful product- screw it we'll push the iPod. Heck, even the friggin IMAC was advertized as being the computer "from the makers of the iPod". Hello? The mac came BEFORE the iPod. Does anyone at apple even remember that anymore?

So now Apple is continuing to do stupid things because they seem to think they can't make anything else as successful as the iPod. No PDA, no cell phone, no camera, etc. Instead, let's give the iPod a bunch of half-assed features that make it seem more useful and promote our brand. Let's give the iPod calendar viewing. While we're at it, lets let the iPod view text. Or maybe we can let the iPod view contacts. Yea. Screw the fact we can't EDIT the contacts... I mean, who edits their contacts? But lets not stop there, no, lets let the iPod view pictures. And sure, we can make iTunes view pictures too. You say iTunes is supposed to be about music? That we already have iPhoto for pictures? Screw iPhoto. Everyone knows iTunes + iPod is the god of apple.

The whole thing is retarded. The only reason why the iPod is viewing photos instead of some other device is because some marketing dumbass at apple, obsessing about apple brand name, decided that everything should sound like the iPod. Thus "iPod Photo", even though playing music is a totally different market then dealing with photos. Instead of thinking about what people would actually DO with on-the-go photos. Like wanting to attach the device to their camera, or having a bigger screen, or accepting flash cards, or any number of things that photographers are obviously going to want in a photo iPod. Instead, it's once again with the half-assed effort trying to milk people into ponying up $500 for something they will barely use. Instead of just making a device that does photos the way they should be done.

The iPod Photo will flop. And I won't be suprised in the least when it happens.

So the iPod Photo is big & bad and costs a big chunk of change. It's still a really great product. What other MP3 player can interface with as many accessories as iPod? What other players have a better UI? (of course everyone has personal preferences). Apple is selling MILLIONS of these devices. There are competitors, no doubt, and competition is strong. But look around. People I see walking on City Streets are sporting the white earbuds.

I've had my 1G 20GB ipod for 2 years now and still going strong (used daily in the gym and frequently for band rehearsals). I have no problem moving on to the 60GB iPod.

The price may be restrictive, but rumor has it that Apple will release a flash memory iPod. If the rumor is true, this version of iPod will most likely saturate the market when released.

Quote

pyxl8 wrote:


The iPod Photo revives a very old tradition too: keeping a few photos in your wallet. This device will even appeal to grandparents, who now can carry around hundreds of grandkid and vacation photos wherever they go.... can home movies be too far behind?

-Ken P

FM radio - you do realize that this is not an international thing (different countries use different frequency systems)? The world is not the USA. In fact, the USA is an increasingly anomalous part of the world in cell phones, etc. In the part of the world I live, everyone with a cell phone has a camera (you can't buy a phone without a camera any more). It's a large Apple market, too, so Apple would be fools to compete in this area. The whole point of the iPod is simplicity - adding the features that are mentioned here would defeat this simplicity. I make my money documenting consumer electronics -- 90% of what I write about has far too many features, according to the marketing guys and support staff. Thank goodness Apple has someone who can stamp out the creeping featuritis that afflicts so many developers.

And you all missed out the espresso maker.

You know what? I am sick of this crap. Utterly sick of it.

To The Whiners:

This is not a RDF rant. This is a rant from a person who has run and owned his own businesses ever since he was able to work legally.

There is a reason Apple does not make certain products anymore, or why they do not enter certain markets as of now: it makes perfect business sense.

Ever hear the saying too many cooks spoil the soup? Well, too many ingredients make it taste like feces.

Apple is being very business savvy about their products. They have the education market Mac, consumer Mac, portable consumer and prosumer, and also the high-end pro and with the new low-end G5 a prosumer offering.

In software, they have the average joe stuff as seen in iLife. Then there is prosumer with the Express Suite. When you want to go big you got the Pro apps: Final Cut, DVD Studio, Logic, Motion, Shake, et. al.

As for the iPod: WHAT MORE DO YOU FRIGGING WANT, YOU LEECHES!!!!??!?!??
WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE!! DON'T LIKE WHAT IS OFFERED? THEN BUILD ONE OF YOUR OWN YOU MORONS!!!

There is the consumer line: iPodmini.

Prosumer: iPod.

Pro: iPodPhoto.

Specialist: U2 iPod.

Now onto the feature request list:

FM/AM Radio: Why are you buying an iPod? Why are you even looking at one? You can get an earpiece radio for $9.95 at the flea market. An iPod is so you can take YOUR music with you, not so you are forced to listen to what the radio station is playing. Get a clue.

Video: GET OVER IT!!!! Eventually, when materials are cheaper, there will be one. The iPodPhoto tops out at $599. Can you imagine a VideoiPod? $1299? You can buy an iMac G5 for that price or a 20" Cinema Display for the machine you have now. I can guarantee that your video will look better on those than the iPod.

Want portable video? Buy a DVD burner. DVD media is so cheap it is stupid. If you buy the right $40 DVD player you don't even have to re-encode those illegal movies you downloaded off of Kazaa. Just burn the disc as a data disc and it will play fine.

If you want to take the video to a friend's house and play it, then re-encode the video and burn to DVD. NOT THAT HARD!!! A lot of freeware will take care of it for you. Convert, edit in iMovie, burn with iDVD.

Oh, but that is so hard for you people to figure out! I forgot, you left your brains somewhere outside of your head.

Or for less than the iPod, you can buy a portable DVD player with more screen real estate than a video iPod has. Five inches is bigger than two.

And the iPodPhoto only has thousands of colors. JPEGs aren't even going to look that good on the thing. How would a movie look?

Oh, but you want to hook it up to a TV. The HD inside of the iPod wouldn't be fast enough to be able to watch it without skips and stutters. Battery life would be almost nil.

"oh, but there are faster versions of the HD!!! so nyeah!"

And add another couple hundred dollars onto the price.

The iPod is mostly a consumer device. The iPodPhoto is a shot in the dark in the prosumer area for the product. Could fail miserably, or could shine like a star. Won't know until MWSF.

PDA/Bluetooth/other crap: Apple is not re-entering the PDA market anytime soon. Bluetooth on the iPod for headphones would be nice, but not happening. Not wide spread enough for mass acceptance. Yes, I know some cellphones have it, but how many people with those phones actually use it?

Apple is not doomed, the iPod is not doomed, Apple is not playing favorites with the iPod.

To the person who was complaining about the ads for the iMac saying "by the makers of the iPod". Is cross-product advertising so horrible? The iPod is Apple's hottest product right now, no matter how much advertising they do for anything else. There is nothing wrong with a business promoting two products at once, especially if one product has a strangle hold on 70% of a market and the other only has 2-5%.

Back to the beginning: Any business worth their salt knows not to get into too many areas at once. Microsoft is a perfect example of too much at once.

M$ is trying to be the end all of everything for you life, from Windows to toilets and cars. Pretty soon we are going to have M$ jaws of life that breakdown halfway through cutting, need four hours of paid tech support, and then a new license and remote reactivation. M$ is in a limbo right now as far as product is concerned.

Apple is sticking to what they know. One product and feature at a time they are making roads into new areas. To do it any other way would be business suicide.

To close, I am sick of all the armchair CEOs here and other places. It is fine to discuss new products, it is fine to not like it or wish for something better. But drop the holier than thou, I WANT AND AM OWED, I could do better crap.

If you could do better, than why aren't you doing it? Make that better product and let the masses decide.