This one goes to eleven
The iPod Photo has been causing me some headaches. Mostly because the hype has been so strong around the Mac web, but no one has really been able to tell me why I'd want one. (note: this is only about the iPod Photo... my thoughts on the 'U2 Special Edition' can be summed up with: "How 80's. And not in a good way")
This is basically the crux of the problem: I try to go into things with an open but cautious mind. If I don't understand something, I assume I'm missing something until I've exhausted all angles... which includes listening to what others have to say. When the original iPod was introduced, I understood the product. Even if I thought it was too pricey for my tastes, I understood the functionality people were forking their cash over for.
When Apple shipped the cube, I didn't understand the product. I understood the features in the product, but didn't really understand the functionality or why those features existed as a separate product. I tried to keep an open mind as possible, thinking: "I'm sure Apple did both external and internal market research on the viability of this product. What do they know that I don't?" I never really figured it out, and nobody ever explained it to me.
I'm in the same boat with the iPod Photo, recently released by Apple. I just don't understand it, and again, most of the blog hype generally centers around "It's so cool" and "I know what I want for Christmas". Weirdly enough, it's primarily Mac-based weblogs who are saying this stuff, which made me a little antsy, and in almost all of the happy blurbs, no one talks about why it is really cool. They'll list features, but that's about it.
To go over those features... well, the iPod Photo does photos, for either $500 (40 gigs) or $600 (60 gigs). This isn't the iPod itself getting photo capability, but rather it's being billed as an entirely new product. There's some increased battery life, and it claims you get 15 hours for listening to music, and up to 5 hours of doing sideshows plus music. The interface is exactly the same as the previous iPod, with the exception that now the screen is in color: all two inches of it. It's a hair thicker than a regular iPod, and about an ounce heavier... probably due to the increased battery capacity, as it takes longer to charge, too.
Before I really wanted to make up my mind one way or the other, I wanted to actually see and play with one first, as well as bounce some questions off the owners. I've been able to see two of them, and playing with it went well. Looks just like an iPod, works just like an iPod, feels just like an iPod. You can tell the difference in weight, and while it's odd to think of the iPods actually getting larger, it's not that big of deal.
The questions with the owners didn't go so well, though. They all said they loved it, but when I asked them why, it was hard for me to make sense of the answers... it was like they were reading from a pamphlet, but not actually using them.
I can take all of my photos with me to show people cool x y z.
I got some raised eyebrows when I said "Do people want to look at your photos?", so I then had to explain that I meant it in a more general sense. You see, I see people looking at a picture on little LCDs all the time. 95% of the time, it's because the person is in the photo, it's just been taken, and they want to see how it turned out. The iPod Photo doesn't have a camera, so this is out, and those people will be using their phones or digicams.
When alcohol is involved, this can get really amusing, and is usually followed by "Email me that!". (fyi, that's me on the right, having to get under a light at a pub so the picture would turn out)
However, people just never seem to crowd around someone's camera phone so they can see all their saved snapshots of their pet cat. If they're in a pinch they might be checking out the pictures from the last drunken outing, but even then not really: these screens are really tiny, and not a whole lot of fun to view pictures on. Really think about it how small two inches is. They're the equivalent of previews, not a real viewer, and that's why people email/sync the pictures to their home computer for real viewing.
That itself brings in an interesting thing I don't quite understand, namely that the iPod Photo requires you to use your computer as your home base. Well, I do understand it, I just don't quite understand what it is trying to solve in the equation and how it'll really be used. Perhaps if it had a camera... Most people with enough photos to really be interested are going to have a camera phone or a digicam which they'll be using while they're out, then sync it to their computer.
I'm having a really hard time imagining someone being out and taking photos, then viewing them on their camera, then going back to their computer and importing them, doing whatever they want to with them, and then buying an iPod photo so they can export them to the iPod Photo and carry them around. After checking in with these people, that seems to be about the gist of it... after the initial fun of trying to show everyone their photos, they've just kinda stopped. As in, cold turkey... not even updating the photos on it.
I can take all my photos with me, so I can see x y z whenever I want.
I guess I can kind of understand this, it's sort of like the equivalent of your sweetheart's snapshot in your wallet, except the snapshot in your wallet will be bigger and better quality. I can however imagine someone sitting on a train or plane and wanting to check out their sweetheart for a moment, but it seems like a feature that'll get such small use that it's the sort of thing that gets tacked onto the feature set, not something you build an entire product around.
I can play color games!
This one kinda got me into trouble again, as at first they didn't appreciate my response: "All three of them?". You can play a few games on the iPod Photo in color now, and it's actually four: Music Quiz, Solitaire, Brick and Parachute.
This got more amusing when I asked how often he actually played them, considering his cell phone comes chock full of them which he is always adding... because I often steal his phone to play whatever new Java game he's downloaded to it. Basically, no harm in them being on there, but if you have the money for a $600 MP3 player, your cell phone probably has an order of magnitude more.
I can connect it to the TV!
The idea seems to be, you can plug the iPod into your TV with an A/V cable, and get a nice slideshow of your photos along with your music. To put it more simply, the iPod becomes a $600 floppy disk in the most expensive sneakernet system ever devised.
This one just seems so odd to me, and I'm not saying that there aren't times you wouldn't want to slap up photos onto the TV. But if it's at home, it just seems cumbersome and silly... this is the kind of thing you'd expect people to pay $100 for as an accessory to the iPod, something specialized that does a much better job of getting what you have on your computer onto the TV. If this was something added to an Airport Express equivalent, that you could hook up to your TV, forget about it, and then direct the signal from iPhoto at the drop of a hat, OK.
If you want to take your photos to go show grandma, that's something. Except that was practically the entire basis of the gawd-awful Web appliance informercials starring Tom Arnold, which bled a slow death as people realized there were other ways to do this that weren't so cumbersome (don't gloat too much, Apple had it's own frightening late-night infomercials then). If it was a little more general-purpose, that might be kinda cool: throw your Powerpoint/Keynote file onto it, slap it into the projector and only have to carry your iPod to give your presentation.
Anyways, again I asked how often they'd actually done it: one of them had done it twice, the other had done it three times. In the first case, the guy did it once to check and see if it worked, and then went over to his girlfriend's and did it on her TV to show off his new toy. Hasn't done it since, and probably won't.
The second guy did much the same, except it would have been four times: on one of the times he was going to take it somewhere, he forgot the A/V cable... and on another time, he hooked it up to his TV across the room while plugged into AC power so he could have some nice eye candy to his music, as the TV passed the audio to his stereo. Coincidentally, by passing it through his stereo, it negated his Airport Express being plugged into the stereo, and he now had to get up to change anything... didn't last long.
It not only shows album art, it shows it in color!
I asked what I thought was an innocent question: "How often do you look at your iPod screen while you're listening to music?" Seems like an honest enough question... in my experience, the vast majority of time people who are using their iPod (or any portable music player) are doing other things while they use it. They might be walking, driving, reading... I've seen people futzing with the interface now and again, but once they've had it for awhile they can do what they want without even looking at the iPod... meaning it never leaves their pocket.
So yes, iTunes will automatically download album art to the iPod Photo, which you can view in a small corner of its 2" screen while a song is playing. But how often are you in a position to stare and look at the screen?
It's for families.
Someone said this to me when I asked them what they thought, and it just confused the hell out of me. Nothing they said made me any less confused, so I won't even bother repeating it... I think they were groping too.
It's got a color screen!
Ah, now we're getting somewhere here. That's an immediate and noticeable change from the older iPod, along with the storage capacity that actually outdoes some of their portable computers. And iPod Color sounds just a little lame. iPod Extreme sounds even lamer, but that hasn't stopped Apple before.
On the whole, what it seems to come down to is the addition of the color screen, but trying to make it a little less boring than just a color screen. At least, no one has been able to explain in a few sentences why the iPod Photo functionality is tres hawtt. Normally this is the part where they turn up their nose and say something along the lines of, "How could I explain the sheer coolness to someone too stupid to realize how cool it is in the first place?"
Which is fine, but if that's what you're working with, then this one goes to eleven.
(Update: Added the camera phone pic, which I'd forgotten)
Comments (52)
Posted by: kdf at November 14, 2004 03:56 PM
Why would you worry about something so inconsequential as an iPod to the point that it gives you a headache ?
Posted by: Meghan at November 14, 2004 03:56 PM
Goes to 11? Am I the only one confused by the title of this?
I have had a green mini for a few months, and within a week I stopped looking at the display. Only occasionally when a song plays I have not learned yet and I want to check the title. The scroll wheel interface is superb.
Posted by: ssp at November 14, 2004 04:41 PM
I've asked myself about the same question.
Having had a 40GB iPod for a year now I'd even say the extra thickness matters (at least I started thinking so ever since I saw a 20GB iPod). But that's not answering your question.
While I'm not in the market for the photo iPod (no digicam to begin with...), my take on this would be the feelgood factor. Apart from its design and general 'usefulness', the classical iPod also has this feelgood factor: Wherever you go, you'll have all your music with you. I think the same could go for photos. Once you start seriously collecting photos, that collection may be much more 'useful' if you have all you photos with you at all times and no extra effort.
Perhaps you won't realistically look at all of them (just as there are certainly a few hundred tracks on my iPod that I haven't listened to), but it may just _feel_ good to know all of them are with you.
This may be or at least seem like a somewhat weak point, but it may be the one for the photo iPod.
Posted by: Mark Eichin at November 14, 2004 04:43 PM
I think you've hit it - iPod Color just doesn't make sense, like quadraphonic sound... and charitably, maybe they have some *other* down-the-line motivation for going color. Or maybe this is just "sorry-no-g5-laptops-yet-but-ooh-look-shiny!"
As for TV-out: I had that feature on a Canon S200 camera - which was useful *once* when I took pictures at a wedding and remembered to bring the cable to the party afterwards. (And three or four other people handed me their CF cards to display *their* pictures too... but we're kind of a geek mob... and the ipod can't do that, even *with* the belkin box.) Never used it other than that, didn't look for the feature in my latest camera purchase. If I want to show pictures to my mom, well, I tell her to look at the website...
Posted by: Jussi at November 14, 2004 05:03 PM
There was a need for Cube, it was quitet, small and stylish. In my opinion the thing killed it was the price. Cube was priced too high compared to the features. If it was designed to a lower price level it could have survived.
Posted by: Jason at November 14, 2004 05:09 PM
"Goes to 11" is, I assume a reference to the wonderfully hilarious This Is Spinal Tap.
It's where the dumber than dumb guitarist is showing off his amplifier and guitar collection. He has special amplifier which unlike most others which only goe up to ten, this one goes to eleven.
Cheers,
Jason.
Posted by: ledge at November 14, 2004 05:54 PM
DB, I think you've got it when you say, "It's got a bigger drive and a color screen." Frankly I see the iPod Photo as something Apple could do relatively cheaply (I know color LCDs are a matter of only a few $$$ more than a B&W at that size, and I can't imagine the larger drive costs as much more for Apple as how much more they're selling it.) and add the photo capability "for free." i.e. throw on a little bit of developer time, and instead of "iPod Extreme" which is "only" color and a bigger drive, you magically have "iPod Photo" which Apple can treat as a different product than just a bigger iPod.
Maybe it's something they threw together while getting ready for the much-rumoured "iPod Video" or maybe Steve just wanted one for himself and decided to sell as many as they could get away with, but I'm right there with you; I just don't see what the deal is.
And for those questioning the "it goes to 11" title, first shame on you for never having seen "This is Spinal Tap." Go rent it right now! Second, it's not just that the guitarist's amp went to eleven, but when the interviewer asked him if his amp was any louder or better than "normal" ones, the only answer he could come up with was, "But this one goes to eleven."
Posted by: Fazal Majid at November 14, 2004 06:55 PM
I'm surprised nobody mentioned this hilarious cartoon
Posted by: Skatch at November 14, 2004 08:49 PM
I'm of the same opinion - when it came out I thought 'meh'. Considering the extra $$, the features seemed underwhelming and I couldn't think of a particularly strong target market or a situation where I'd want photo capabilities on my iPod.
But I've thought of another reason that might explain it better than wanting something more than an 'iPod Color' label. People have been talking about iPods with photo capabilities for a while, wondering when one would come out. This goes for rumour sites, messages boards, even the occasional article in the press. I could never figure why people would want one, but I realised that it's important simply that such a product exists, even if most people have no use for it. I think it's similar to the P4 Extreme Edition or Athlon FX CPUs (or whatever the labels are, I can't keep track). Hardly anyone needs or can afford the $$ for these extremely pricey parts that offer only a slight performance gain over the standard CPUs. But they receive a huge amount of press anyway because to a certain extent, the top of the line is seen to be representative of the entire product range. If AMD has the fastest chip of the moment, all their CPUs receive an image boost. This doesn't directly translate to audio players of course, part of it is featuritis. Look at Microsoft's Pocket PC. They added on lots of stuff that Palm didn't have, and even though most of it was useless for a PDA and didn't work that well, people bought it and it now has majority market share. People need to have the perception that if they want, they can get a lot of extra frivolous features.
A lot of articles I've read about the iPod Photo have mentioned the idea of video capabilities. Whether the author is arguing for or against, or just mentioning it, putting the idea in people's heads means at some point people will expect this feature.
I think Apple is keeping up with the trend that says 'more features = better'. They need to keep up the perception that the iPod is cutting edge, or risk giving the impression that it's falling behind what other players can do. Luckily for the rational among us, the normal iPods are still there.
Posted by: Abe J at November 14, 2004 09:10 PM
I think the iPod Photo will sell for a novel, and perhaps unrecognized, reason. It is the world's smallest presentation-capable computer. Turn your PowerPoint (or Keynote) presentation into a series of jpegs or TIFFs, set it up with Apple's transitions, and, voila, no need for a buggy laptop anymore. Just plug it in and bounce through with the wheel.
Posted by: Art at November 14, 2004 09:35 PM
This blog is similar to many I've seen over the years. In fact, I saw quite a few when the original iPod came out. Why would I pay that much for a walkman?? Tapes are cheaper. Etc etc etc...
The iPod photo is a nice addition to the lineup. It's going both ways. Look for a smaller flash player (with low weight/size being the important factor) and also a iPod photo that perhaps is wireless, allowing sharing of photos between iPods. Who knows what functionality will be added in the future. Photos and a color screen are just a small start. One can easily envision a card reader, oral communication between ipods, wireless features, etc.
As to the 'why is this feature so great?' part of the blog.... well, if it doesn't pertain to you, it makes it hard to explain in a meaningful way. I would love sharing photos on any t.v. And color screens? Well.... I suppose we could have stayed with black and white t.v.s for 50 years, but I for one and glad that color was added. It adds joy. And sometimes, that's enough.
Posted by: leachim at November 14, 2004 10:51 PM
Yes,remember when (reveals great age) those pesky colour screens started coming out as an alternative to good old black and white (or green!) monitors, and people were complaining about the extra cost and complexity for no practical advantage? If the capacity is there, software people will find a way to make it wondrously useful - and hey, it's fun! And has anybody mentioned the coolness of the extra battery life? However, I'm completely with the poster who said it wasn't for them till you could import photos direct from the camera. Now that's a killer application!
Posted by: Dolphin at November 14, 2004 11:27 PM
iPod Photo is not for the man-in-the-street. The early adopters are likely to be:
- photographers,
- like-to-chase-new-products kids,
- have an older iPod and need a higher capacity iPod and have some spare money to splurge on a colour version iPod,
- did not own an iPod and why not buy the latest model, and
- like to exploit the possible usages e.g. presentation.
Except for above, most of us will think like the author and will not buy an iPod Photo.
Posted by: Timor at November 14, 2004 11:31 PM
This blog is similar to many I've seen over the years. In fact, I saw quite a few when the original iPod came out. Why would I pay that much for a walkman?? Tapes are cheaper. Etc etc etc..
I remember those about the ipod but I did not get that from the article. After reading it I feel similar. The iPod fills a need (taking digital music with you) if expensively :) You had walkmans and they worked great for CD or tape but you need an MP3 player to take your MP3 players with you. The success of the walkman should show that MP3 players should be successful Apple just has the most successful. :)
What the author is saying is he does not understand the need the iPod Photo is trying to service so it is just a luxury item for those with more cash than brains which he says is OK. It is not as conspicuous as selling a solid gold ipod but frankly after reading his post and the comments he may be onto something.
Posted by: Rashenberg at November 14, 2004 11:54 PM
I think the iPod Photo will sell for a novel, and perhaps unrecognized, reason. It is the world's smallest presentation-capable computer.
I don't think so but I was intrigued when it was announced! I use Windows and Apples and give presentations several times a week using my Thinkpad or 12" Powerbook. Before you flame the Thinkpad came from company but it is a nice little computer. This part intrigued me...
If it was a little more general-purpose, that might be kinda cool: throw your Powerpoint/Keynote file onto it, slap it into the projector and only have to carry your iPod to give your presentation.
If I could do that, I would seriously consider it! It would be nice to leave my book behind and take the iPod and cables. I will never separate out all of my slides as individual images, they are too large, and it would be too limiting. No movies on the iPod still, many of my projects link in external data. Sometimes I have to edit my projects right there if I find a fault or something changes. And you are usually at the mercy of the projector, many only have computer ports.
Posted by: at November 15, 2004 12:28 AM
To put it more simply, the iPod becomes a $600 floppy disk in the most expensive sneakernet system ever devised.
ROFL. You made your point, but that is going over the top.
At least the rest of your post was constructive. The iPod Photo is just about Apple trying to keep the iPod exciting now that you can buy it everywhere. You can buy the regular iPod from HP but have to buy the iPod photo from Apple.
Posted by: Jeb at November 15, 2004 12:29 AM
I've had the iPod Photo for about 2 weeks. It's an upgrade from a Gen2 10 GB iPod.
I hadn't really thought of replacing my existing one cause it still works fine.
But, I only have a digital camera and I have just a few more than 1000 pictures of my family that sit on my hard drive. I've wanted a convenient way of viewing those pictures. So far, so good. At some point, the novelty of having the pix readily available will wear off. Nevertheless, I'm glad that I have them in reach. There are times when I have to see my daughter, when she's not with me, and having dozens of recent (to the day) picture of her is really cool.
So, you can wring your hands about how pointless the iPod Photo is, but that's not the way it is for some of us.
Posted by: win39 at November 15, 2004 12:30 AM
Awesome analysis!
If there had been a Compact Flash Reader installed and a larger LCD it might have been something really special. It just does not make sense the way it is.
Posted by: Aaron at November 15, 2004 12:32 AM
OMG drunkenbatman is french!
Posted by: Kai Cherry at November 15, 2004 12:46 AM
Like many things, the iPod Photo was made for those that see its usefulness.
For one, it has a much better and more usable sceen in Real Life...sorta like how the screen on the mini is sooo much better than the full size units...but that much better.
Secondly, as was mentioned before, its *great* for doing presentations. I've done this, and its really quite neat, actually...a nice intro montage of of 1 second slides and "fast" music, a bit of an intro speech to set up for a manual slideshow with no music, then you step right thru your slides. Good stuff.
And pulling it out of your pocket to hook up is quite impactful; I've had "let me see that!" and "thats the clicker AND the 'computer'?" type questions for the couple I've done so far.
Its great for the Blackberry "travel light" crowd for this purpose.
The screen is nice too...did I mention this? :)
-K
Posted by: Bruce McL at November 15, 2004 12:54 AM
Cell phones are poised to take over the music market. Some cell phones are being sold with hard drives inside right now. Once the 4 GB memory cards hit the market you will be able to put a thousand songs on many models of cell phone. I suspect that will be enough for many people.
As the author and other posters say the new iPod just an iPod with a color screen right now, and it's a bit pricey. However I think Apple has to keep moving forward with the iPod to keep it ahead of cell phones. I would call the color iPod an interim release and look for more features to be added soon. Maybe WiFi with IM and video chat using the iChat/AIM network, maybe something else.
Posted by: Eric at November 15, 2004 01:02 AM
The only iPod photo I'd have understood ( and maybe even bought ) would have been one with memory card readers ( compactflash, SD, MMC ). This way you could use your iPod photo to store pictures taken in the field. I know Belkin sells a card reader for the iPod but it will set you back about 100 $ more I think... This iPod photo is expensive without adding any usefull functionnality. Too bad.
Posted by: Sarah K at November 15, 2004 02:44 AM
Hi Mr. DB,
I thought you might "Its really about Quicktime" funny. I believe it is a rewrite of your "Convergence Kills". It certainly made me LOL
Posted by: David Gnotta at November 15, 2004 03:04 AM
For those of you who go back that far ... remember when the Apple II first came out (along with the other early "personal computers)? At the time "conventional wisdom" said they were "interesting toys", but "why would any normal person want one? What would they do with it?"
I suspect the iPod Photo may be the same kind of animal.
Myself, I am an Architectural Rep. We use a lot of photos. Yes I have all these on my Powerbook. But that takes a lot of time to boot up. Now (Yes I bought one) I can walk into any architect's office and say "Yes, I have some photos of that style right here on my iPod. Then I quickly plug it into their meeting room monitor / TV and presto!
Who knows how many creative ways people will think of to use this now that the ability is there. :-)
Posted by: Flaggiot at November 15, 2004 03:15 AM
This is the worst product review ever, if that is what it is. I love my iPod Photo, the screen is gorgeous and vibrant.
Posted by: Carl at November 15, 2004 04:48 AM
I'm in the exact same boat as Jeb up above. I had a Gen 2, 10GB and decided to upgrade to a iPod Photo. Now, as we all know, the plural of anecdote is data, so the question of "who is Apple planning on selling the iPod Photo to?" should be answered right there.
Think about it from my point of view: My 10GB worked fine, though it was a little scuffed and the headphones were falling apart. I have a music library of around 20GB, so I always had to move around songs and decide which ones to take with me, which is annoying. So, I wanted to upgrade. But, being an Apple Rumors watcher, I decide to wait and see what Apple comes up with.
OK, let's follow this through to its conclusion: Now, when you're paying $400 for a replacement to your glorified Walkman, that isn't even broke in the first place, what justification can you bring? There has to be new features on the model you buy, and just on-the-go playlists isn't good enough. I need something a little more substantial than that. OK, so Apple decides to throw in a color screen. Wow, that's kinda cool, but I still don't know. How about the ability to see all your photos ever, anywhere? Wow, that is sorta cool. And hell, I wanted to upgrade anyway. Now, I have a good excuse!!
And that's what the iPod Photo is, a great excuse to upgrade an iPod. So, not only has Apple sold me an iPod, TWICE, they've now added a $100 on to the cost of my iPod in exchange for a $20 dollar screen and battery. In other words, their margin went way, way up.
The product is pure money from Apple's point of view. All they have to do is make sure not to build more than they can sell (or if they do, don't introduce another upgrade until they sell the current stock) and it's like Apple just found a gold mine in the basement of 1 Infinite Loop. And that gold mine is called: IPOD UPGRADES.
Posted by: Wax On at November 15, 2004 06:29 AM
Shit! You (blogs) are influencing everything. It's Monday morning (the day after I read this) and now NewsDay has an article saying the same thing.
Use your powers for good not evil.
Posted by: PP at November 15, 2004 08:13 AM
Good post, but I feel like you are pulling your punches lately. I DO think some will want the photo feature. It is a good question if enough want it to build it as a product or if it should just be converged into the iPod.
All is forgiven because of the Spinal Tap reference. But you are an ugly mofo DB. :p I preferred the mystery.
Posted by: Gerry at November 15, 2004 10:26 AM
When the first iPod came out, my reaction was much like yours toward the iPod Photo... "Kind of interesting, but I can get by with CDs, and that's *way* too expensive." Now I can't seem to leave home without my 3G iPod.
The photo version is a little easier for me to grasp. I already store all of my photos on a Powerbook. I'm slowly creating a digital archive that encompasses most of my life in pictures, for my own pleasure (not necessarily to whip out at a party to show from beginning to end!). Because my friends and family know that I have this archive, they frequently ask me about a picture with so and so, when we did such and such.
Similarly, if I am telling a story about how isolated a Mayan village was on that last adventure trip I took, I can punctuate the story with one or two really telling photos.
And when I travel across the country to periodically visit family or friends, we always exchange catch-up stories of what we've been doing since the last time together. The photos on my Powerbook create a structure for the storytelling, even if I don't necessarily have to bore them with every single photo.
In all of these cases, the laptop would do most of what I need -- just as CDs did most of what I needed with music. The iPod just adds an element of extreme portability, convenience and spontaneity that wasn't there before.
I don't have an iPod Photo yet. I want one and I know I would find it useful. But while it is desirable, it's not quite compelling -- yet. When the price drops (or my current iPod wears out), ask me again!
Posted by: Alan at November 15, 2004 10:32 AM
We are Apple Resellers and had a customer come in the and purchased two photo iPods. He and his wife were leaving for China to adopt a child and wanted iPods to listen to on the plane, but also wanted the feature to carry photos of their family and home to share with those they would meet on the trip. I think that this was a practical use of the photo ipod and while not everyone will need this feature, it seems like everyone is carrying around family photo albums on their phones so having collections on iPods is similar, just with a larger storage capacity.
Posted by: Mindflayer at November 15, 2004 10:44 AM
The iPod Photo is more impressive in person, but it's still not the gee-whiz, so worth $600 sort of impressive. OTOH, if Apple ever makes it so the thing could push quicktime, then you could present full, animated Keynote presentations. Of course, at that point, get a cheap laptop.
Posted by: at November 15, 2004 01:09 PM
Dude it is not that much of a stretch - it is just a color iPod with marketing around it. Most devices graduate to color over time. If you have a color screen you want a way to benefit from it. Getting a color iPod for just album artwork is a waste so they made software to let you sync photos to the iPod. People who have digital cameras tend to store them on a computer, but then they are stuck in the computer at home. So now people with digital photos have an easy interface to get them on their iPod. Think proud parent, high-school kid or college kid who wants to carry scrapbook. Ever heard of the wallet-sized photo?? This is the same concept. So if someone went on a trip, and they run into a friend on the street, they can say, hey look at these pics. It is not earth shattering, it does not override the using iPod for music, it is just an obvious way to extend the iPod.
The price is an issue but it could go down in time. In time, this feature-set, especially the color screen, could trickle down the line, so that all iPod can usefully carry photos. Also in the future, iPod with bigger screens could come, they'd make the photo capability more attractive to everyone.
Posted by: cjp at November 15, 2004 02:58 PM
I've never really seen the point of it either, and now you've mad eme think about it -I really don't see the point of it. Even with a sub $600 digital camera or phone with a built-in camera you can view your photos -and you could just take that round with you. Indeed, the only time I've actually had anyone show me a picture they've taken, is on thir fone -in the pub. And they probably wouldn't bring their iPod out with them to the pub, it's not very sociable to listen to music when your out with your mates. In fact as you've said, most people seem to use an iPod whilst they're doing other things so the picture thing seems a little wasted.
Still once the feature is intergated into the mainline, it will be a "nice touch". Not sure $600 is worth it for a "nice touch" at the moment though! No wonder those who have already shelled out for it, feel the need to defend it -reminds me as a kid when someone would spend all their cash on a really bad computer game, and try anything to defend their mistake. You'd hear things like "you haven't had a chance to play it properley like I have" to which you'd reply "yes I have, and it's still crap. But then I didn't spend the money on it......." -ah those were the days ;-)
Posted by: Twist at November 15, 2004 10:37 PM
I think they should have just had the 60 gig iPod replace the 40 gig in the $499 slot and added a small tag about how it can now display photo's. If I was to get one (err if I was even able to afford one that is) I would be getting the 60 gig one mainly for the extra storage space. 60 gig would actually allow me to carry almost my full music collection around with me.
The photo functionality could be useful around a TV though. I am a photography major so I could see getting some use out of it since it would be much easier to carry around than a slide projector. Though there are better and cheaper alternatives. Also most professional and many student photographers already have laptops which often have some form of video out. I am sure I could find some device for less than $100 US that would let me output a slide show to a TV with my iBook G4. Or I could always burn slideshow SVCD's. So yeah I agree, the Photo functions of the iPod Photo rate more of a new feature blurb than something to base a new product on.
Posted by: Chris Marshall at November 15, 2004 11:22 PM
I think your missing one area in your arguement... the iPod is a cultural phenomina and has effected the way we organise, utilise and percieve our music collections. Coupled primarily with the emergence of an overall digital lifestyle I think we'll see the same thing with the photo iPod.
The notion of carrying your entire music collection arround with you, listening to whatever you want, sorting, organising and creating playlists, all with incredible ease, a few years ago would be little thought of, certainly seem of little benefit. I now listen to (+ more importantly for the likes of apple: purchase) music more than I ever have. My approach to my music collection has changed, its more creative, more fluid, certainly more immediate. This isn't just iPod feeding.
It would be true to say the same of the digital camera. Anyone who owns one of these things know the volume of material they produce, you just aint worried about the film running out. Card reading aside (that'll just exasparate the problem for a lot of users!) the problem lies in what happens to this material then. Certainly Kodak knows we ain't printing it. We're viewing it on our computers, we're publishing to the web, we're certainly being more creative. But for a lot of people it is problematic, even restrictive. It requires a lot of effort and desire on the part of the user to manipulate and organise this material. It's certainly not as emediate or fluid as our music library. But then neither was our music till the iPod.
Posted by: at November 16, 2004 02:07 AM
I think the point of this is that it is just an iPod with a color screen and increased HD and that the "photo" functionality is mostly marketing to make the color screen more desirable but most will not use it. Most people cannot fill up a 40gig ipod so a 60gig is getting to be much. I do wonder if this was thought through while they were trying to figure out ways to make people pay more for storage.
Posted by: Carl at November 16, 2004 04:58 AM
Anonymous' message above this post makes a good point. The average person is lucky to have say 5 gigs of music, mostly stolen from various p2p sevices over the years. Now, those of us who are techheads have our whole music libraries ripped. These probably range in size from 10 to 20 gigs on average. Now, a person who is a real music enthusiast may have even more, let's say as much as 40 gigs.
Apple clearly needs something else to fill our hard drives and make us buy new iPods. Unfortunately for Apple, photos are generally smaller than mp3s, and most people have fewer photos than songs. On the plus side, photos accrue over time, and by just using a single roll of film at 5 major holidays, you can add more than 100 each year. So, photos are an OK stop gap measure to make people fill their iPods faster.
But the real key is going to have to be video. Nothing, nothing wastes space the way video does. If Apple ever wants to market a 120 gig iPod, it's going to have to be sold under either the name "EZ bak-up HD" or the name "iPod Video." Clearly, the latter has more potential. But apparently, Apple wants to work out the economies of scale for color LCD screens before it starts making those.
Fair enough.
Anyhow, I got to use my iPod Photo today when my coworker and I were walking to the train to show her a picture of a vending machine that I took a couple weeks ago.
If that isn't worth $100, what is?
Posted by: mattie at November 16, 2004 07:29 AM
My first reaction was "I want one". My second was "Why? What would I do with a photo-iPod?". If it was also a gameboy, for instance, I'd think again.
Anyway, I never had an iPod in the first place. Don't need music *everywhere*. At my job or on the train, I have my powerbook. It displays fotos at 1152 x 768 and plays music.
Apple outfits the iPod with features one by one. I'll wait until that thing is sort of finished and reevaluate it then.
Posted by: uv at November 16, 2004 09:48 AM
[going to some uncharted territory here...]
I wish Apple would add lyrics to the iPod: "Start off with showing one line at a time, and then progress to the 'jumping ball' method on version 2".
Posted by: indiana losof at November 16, 2004 01:05 PM
awful! tons of comments. again. whatsoever, here's mine:
/me needs to file a complaint about the worth of album art
album art is about usability. not just the beauty of a special cover. to associate music with a picture rather than text.
of course this is theory, because we might associate an album's name with a picture, but then we seldomly think of an artist as a picture of that person (exceptions apply: björk, the residents, david bowie...) and title names are made up of words.
still even a slight little bit of hangover can undo your day, somtimes and it might be very handy to select the next album you like to listen to by its cover picture - if you like to listen to albums instead of random songs this will be a feature that matters to you... and sometimes even if you listen through random songs: if you check out new tunes you might like. you go to your local record shop and pick out that album by cover instead of reading all the titles and names on each record.
but there is a very valid point hidden beneath: all this only applies if you can shell out those $s -- only few barbarically well paid people have those bucks to hand out $600 to make that slight uncomfort go away. damnit, you can get about 50 albums for that money. that digital lifestyle must mean a lot to you, propably more than the music you use it to listen to. (ok i have that bad habit to take as much cdda copies with me whenever i face a travel longer than two hours or so, but...)
...but just in order, to...
/me jumps the bandwagon
you're right about that digital photo collection use: that show-picture-on-tv use is as ridiculous as long as the cable is about as big as the device itself. (hey! i can show you those photos, i have them right here in my pocket! ...a minute passes... too bad we have to settle with that 2-inch-screen. that cable i can use to connect it to a bigger screen is simply too uwieldly to carry around all the time. ... damn, i could have at least brought that data cable with me, so we could download iphoto/photoshop elements/driver so we could watch it on your screen... [now imagine josh and judy sitting on the couch, watching those hopefully never-to-be-seen-on-the-internet photos on that 2 inch screen])
/me likes to feel part of a family
btw, you don't actually look terribly drunk on that snippet, do you? one of my worst digicam photo collection moments was the moment i realized i was drunk on all those photos because the only thing i had in common with that guy who owned the digicam was we drank ourself to ruin - regularly and serveral times a week. it was fun, sure, but... however, that was also the moment where i understood that i wouldn't like to see those pictures on teh interenets, never.
and that ipod photo is really missing a card reader thingy or so, that'd be the only option to make it valuable. and it would need to work plug & play. (plug card in: synchronize to camera (backup) or move data away). not to think about that 'airpod' functionality. awrgh.
i still stand behind my 'if you want it - start it' note i left here a couple of weeks ago, but apples marketing failed with this one and the only reason the creative labs empowered zen fans won't stand right there (laughing at whoever is afraid of them), is because there will be a lot of die hard apple fanatics who stand there, right in line, to propagate the use of the one and only perfect product that's made possible by the capitalistic system. -- photo support is nice and it's a nice teaser for future appliances, but it is hardly anything with use to someone like a photographer (unless he's a die hard apple fanatic, of course) or even work as a selling point. all theese glitter's ain't that gold... trumpery, lametta & silver sprayed plastic. was there something wrong with kitsch, again?
now please let me look for 'secret usage'. you know. this 'secret usage' that the triumph of the video recorder and lots of the internet revolution was built on: with xvid/avi support it'd be a nice pr0npod, you could easily hide it, hug it, stroke it and you would only seldomly feel the temptation to add new data to it while you're on the road. however i still feel mobile phones are going to be better equipped for such a use (umts will allow media streaming, won't it? if they can provide an illusion of anonymity for umts use i suppose this will work fine) -- of course your default mobile phone doesn't look as sexy (ok, wait nokia 7280, do provide harsh competitions, of course.).
but maybe then, this powerpoint/keynote thingy works well enough for all that billions of people who don't need the ability to apply last minute changes to their perfect presentations. there must be a reason why they get paid enough to buy such things.
phew. NOW i do feel sleepy.
-han
sings a malcolm middleton tune
Posted by: at November 16, 2004 01:15 PM
p.s. i was joking about that xelibri and 7280, and i didn't mention .mac. but there is no way you don't know about its features, so why should i.... [compare 60gb vs 250mb, even though that's a lot of jpgs]
Posted by: Marilyn Langfeld at November 27, 2004 08:45 PM
Well, I recently went to a party where someone was showing photos from their latest trip to France on a pda. Why not on an iPod?
I've got a 2nd generation iPod and am not tempted, but I don't think it's too weird. I agree it's keeping up with pda's and cell phones, while waiting to see if video takes off or bombs. More power to Apple for that.
As for the Cube, I bought one and still use it for a print server. It's a beautiful machine, but was introduced at least a year too soon, before Firewire drives, etc. were introduced. That's what I think was its biggest limitation. Price too, but it wasn't really too expensive. It was always a second machine for me, so I didn't worry that I didn't yet have a Firewire drive or scanner, etc. I slowly upgraded to them, but I might not have bought it if it would have been my primary machine, since it came out when scsi was being phased out but before Firewire was readily available.
Posted by: Sam at November 30, 2004 12:16 PM
well, you guys wanted to put a keynote on an iPod Photo, here it is:
http://www.zapptek.com/ipresent-it/
My guess is that others will find useful ways to take advantage of the features.
Posted by: Matt Will at November 30, 2004 05:55 PM
DB, you OK? Is it vacation time again? Looking for new posts...
Posted by: Kyu at December 4, 2004 01:05 AM
Would this device make more sense if it had a camera attachment? I would hope that a company like griffin or belkin have this type of add-on in the works. The ipod photo also helps to enhance the functionality of the belkin digital camera link because you can actually see the photos that you just loaded onto your ipod and know they are safely there.
Posted by: Kenny T at December 4, 2004 03:45 AM
It is all of that and a little bit more.
I'd love to have the iPod photo with me together with the MediaReader attachment.
I take lots of pictures on vacations. A 256MB flash memory card coupled with a 5 megapixel camera doesn't quite make the snap-happy person, well, HAPPY. When I've filled the card to the brim, i load it up to the iPod photo. I can view it if i want but it keeps me from lugging a few SD cards when I am out on a photo taking excursion.
Isn't that useful? I don't have to buy extra memory or lug my expensive laptop and live in fear of it getting stolen (such a common thing these days, I personally lost an iBook last year).
I am sure there will be quality digital camera accessories for the iPod Photo soon. Or even a video recorder. Simply because it can be done. It will catch on. Perhaps soon, there will be a third party hack to allow video to be played on the iPod? How about scrolling lyrics that follows the songs? So that people can sing along to their favorite tune in perfect harmony.
I think the long battery life alone is worth at least half the premium you pay for the iPod Photo over the regular iPod.
I think I said the same thing about colour screen on phones when I first held the Sony Ericsson T68 in my hands. DO WE NEED A PHONE WITH A COLOUR SCREEN? Such a waste of battery life and money. But now, I don't look at anything else without a colour screen. Its natural evolution.
But it seems, if you don't have a colour screen on your phone now. You're so last decade.
Obviously, the drunkenblog on iPod photo was written when the author was drunk.
Posted by: sam at December 6, 2004 01:07 PM
While the post above seems like a good excuse to buy an iPod photo, the problem is that you can't see your photos by downloading them to your ipod. You have to sync them with iPhoto, them resync them with iPod in order to see them.
Hopefully this will be fixed in future generations.
I won't buy one of these yet, even though I am usually an early adopter. I think it's worth lies in where it is going to be, not where it is right now.
Posted by: Junebug at December 20, 2004 09:40 PM
It makes all the sense in the world. another way to get us iPod users to spring for a new model just like from 2nd gen to 3rd gen then to clickwheel..i wont get one but if i did the only reason is so that the cool album art would keep my change company in my pocket....well done DB. well done indeed
Posted by: Shane at December 21, 2004 11:54 PM
The iPod photo is a joke. Steve simply doesn't "get it" here. Indeed, in this area, Apple has been "digging in the wrong place." People want video. People want direct-to-camera and direct-to-video-camera connectivity without requiring iTunes (!) or iPhoto, even.
The screen is too small to see anything. The unit is overpriced.
Apple is successful again, which is nice, but I tend to see the same complacency that killed them in the 90's setting in again. Apple has no good pocket device that lets people do what they want to do with a pocket device -- video, e-mail, phone, music player, and more all in one.
Posted by: Sam at December 22, 2004 04:00 PM
If the rumors are true, the iPod Photo is not selling well. :(
I own some shares, so I am disappointed, but DB has some points. Perhaps if it included a camera it would have done better
Posted by: Mike at April 24, 2005 02:21 PM
I definitely reccommend you look at the iRivers. They have a much larger feature set and are a lot higher quality. Unlike the iPod Photo they have a decent battery life. My sister got an iRiver h10 and they're amazing (but that's the 5 gig version). Some of my friends have the 40 and 60 gig version and they rock. THey have colour screens and a nicer interface in my opinion. I would definitely get one over an 810 if I had to chose.








I finnally saw one yesterday... Not impressed. I have a 40 Gig (some gen) and it is just fine for me. If you could dump your digital photos into it from your camera, I would be sold... If you don't have an ipod, I wouldn't get this one.