iPod Photo: The beginning of the end... (1 Viewer)

[David Lawson]

http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/

Has the iPod jumped the shark? I like the capability to display album artwork, but the Photo Library seems useless to me. If I want to view photos on a 2" LCD and/or display them on a TV, I'll just carry a digital camera around...which, incidentally, can also take additional pictures. $599 for 60 GB is also insane, but I'm sure drive supply is constrained, so Apple may not be completely to blame for the pricing.

What's next? iMovie integration so that I can attach my DV camera, copy footage to the internal drive, and create rough cuts? What about an integrated cell phone? I think I'll stick with my mini.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I kinds like the off-brand MP3 player that comes with a 40GB hard drive and an MPEG-4 decoder. Imagine walking around with 120+ of your favorite Star Trek episodes in your shirt pocket.

 

[Ted Lee]

hmm...the ipod is really blossoming. i can't think of the last toy that created such a huge "sub" industry - unless you count pokemon toys.

as far as it being a picture viewer, that seems kinda silly. just put your pics on a 50 dollar usb key. but you just *know* it's a matter of time before it starts doing video. then it may be worthwhile.

 

[Ken Chan]

The iPod can hold up to 25,000 pictures. Is that 50 times more than any camera? 100? If the idea is to carry "all your music" and "all your photos", clearly the iPod is better. How many people want to do this? I have no idea.

 

[Chris]

Link to the player with Mp4 decoder? Does it have video outs at all? That could be a sweet little device, actually.

 

[Steve Ridges]

The main problems I see with the iPod photo are that it's doesn't have a built in card reader and that it uses iTunes to generate reduced quality pics for display. It looks like Apple really missed the boat on this one. Pitty...

 

[Bob_Chase]

Uhh, not quite. It synchs with iPhoto not iTunes and the photos that are synched are full-resolution.

Just keepin' it real.

 

[Al.Anderson]

I'm mixed. On the one hand I do stash a number of pics (~200) on my Palm just for fun. On the other hand it's not much of a radically new or much used capability - I mean, you tend to listen to music in the background and do it all the time. Checking out a picture is pretty much a once in a blue moon activity (like when the meeting get dull).
I do like the idea of having the disc artwork. The best feature might be the black color; for which I am not willing to pay an additional $200. (By the way I have a 20G iPod which I love, so I'm not just being Apple-negative.

 

[Christian Behrens]

Er, you're confusing the iPod Photo with the U2 Special Edition (normal) iPod.

-Christian

 

[Steve Ridges]

I got the iTunes and reduced res info here...http://www.dpreview.com/news/0410/04...eipodphoto.asp

 

[Chris Moe]

I can see the photo part coming in handy. Say you just had a baby, bought a house, got a new car, took a trip and you run into a friend you can bust out your ipod and show them some pictures.

 

[Al.Anderson]

Oops. Well, don't I feel silly!

 

[RichP]

Sorta.

Photos are synchronized via iTunes 4.7, not iPhoto. Otherwise how would Windows users sync photos? Now, the Mac version of iTunes can use iPhoto's library, but you still need to sync via iTunes.

http://www.apple.com/ipodphoto/

 

[Bob_Chase]

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info Rich. :b

But the capability to sych full res photos still exists. Not sure if I would need the full res though for displaying on a standard def television. But I still like the flexibility.

All that being said...I want one.

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

 

[Rob Gardiner]

I hate to ask stupid questions, but that has never stopped me before:

Has Apple seen fit to fix the flaw in the iPod that introduces a gap between MP3s that segue together, such as live recordings or side 2 of Abbey Road?

 

[Ken Chan]

That would make the device bulky and difficult to use. Apple made the right choice. You manage your photos on your computer just like you always do -- download, organize, touch up, delete. At the touch of a button, it copies all the photos (all the ones you want) so you can take them with you and share them, at the same time it's syncing your music. And because it displays on a TV (480 lines) or the built-in screen (176 pixels high) it can reduce the size of the pictures to save space, although you do have the option of include them at full resolution as well.

 

[Steve Ridges]

If they had included a card reader, photographers would flock to them to use as a digital wallet.

 

[CRyan]

I guess video capability would be nice. But where do you legally get decent movies? I mean I see no use in these portable video players when the only way to use them is to illegally rip DVD's. And it is so time consuming to rip anyway. I am not into that much work to watch a movie on a 2-4" screen.

What is the draw for video on one of these if it came to pass?

 

[Thomas Newton]

I saw one of these today while I was out getting lunch.

The 2" LCD display doesn't have the highest photo quality, and you'll definitely want to turn the backlight on if you are viewing photos. On the other hand, scrolling through loaded photos is VERY fast; nothing at all like the painful experience that most digital camera owners associate with retrieving photos for display.

The device doesn't seem to be much bigger than the regular 40 GB model, and the extra menu item is not intrusive. Battery life for music playback is supposedly greater than that of the 40 GB iPod. So as a music player, it looks as good as ever (in all respects but the initial price tag).

 

[Jason Adams]

Um...arent there portable media players that both play music and display picture, BUT can also play video, and they have a much bigger screen?

I mean the best thing about this newsbit is that Apple has a 60 gig version of the Ipod, and its going to be in color.