Counting backwards from eleven
iPodlounge has a story up on the iPod photo's new packaging, along with an, um, photo:
In releasing newly affordable iPod photo hardware, Apple Computer has changed the product's packaging to a thinner and highly attractive black and metal foiled design. Metal foil is used for the box's front text, while an all-black matte background highlights the metallic luster.The new packaging, which you can see more fully with the Read More button below, dramatically de-emphasizes the word "photo" on its front, reducing it to a tiny badge underneath the letters "PC." This contrasts markedly with Apple's new iPod mini packaging, which continues to grant the word "mini" equal prominence with the iPod name.
Back in 'This one goes to eleven', I gave a whole bunch of reasons for why I just didn't understand the iPod Photo, and among other things said...
This isn't the iPod itself getting photo capability, but rather it's being billed as an entirely new product.
It was just sort of separated out from the rest of the line in features, capacity and naming. Within a few days, it went from iPod Photo to iPod photo, which seemed to be an effort to de-emphasize it being a whole separate category and more of an edition...
The rumors are that the iPod photo hasn't been selling well. It's really hard to tell because Apple won't break out numbers between the models they sell, just like they won't break out PowerMac and XServe sales, but while they're rumors they aren't ones I find particularly hard to believe.
With the naming de-emphasized yet again, we're probably just a revision away from it just being iPods that all happen to have color screens, and the photo functionality is there if you want it but not something they're trying to push a whole product on...
If you have one and love it, don't get your knickers in a bunch about it, it still works and does whatever it is you love about it. Unfortunately, so far most of the people I've talked to that got one pretty much just forget that it has the photo capability in general after enough time has passed.
I really don't have anything against it, I just still don't understand it...
Posted by drunkenbatmanFebruary 25, 2005, at 01:33 AM
Comments (8)
Posted by: Connor at February 25, 2005 03:12 AM
The one feature of an iPod photo that should be there and isn't is what makes the product so odd in my opinion. And yes, it's been said before many times.
I mean, I shouldn't need an adapter to plug my camera into an iPod photo and have it grab the pictures and I guess put them in their own library for when they get synced back with the computer. I think camera integration without adapters (yes, even the Apple announced one) is key here.
I haven't ever played with an iPod photo, but I don't see much point to it until it gets such abilities. For now, I think I'll just go with a 6gb mini, it seems to be a nice sweet spot.
Posted by: Tim at February 25, 2005 04:48 AM
It's just slick presentation to the top end of the market. Bring out a modified gizmo with an extra feature, and sit back while the "I want wanna those and I want it NOW' brigade rush out to buy it. After a while when the furore has died down, reposition the product by deemphasising the feature, and it becomes part of your standard product range.
For a month or so you've raked in a bit of a premium while the feature's a must have - and generated some buzz at the same time. It's a feature that becomes a standard across all the equivalent products from you and your competitors, but you appear to 0wn the market because you've generated the buzz...
Posted by: Oliver at February 25, 2005 08:51 AM
John Gruber has pointed out further evidence of this de-emphasising of the photo capabilities:
the iPod Photo kit no longer includes an iPod Photo Dock or AV cable. Without the Photo Dock and AV cable, an iPod Photo is pretty much just an iPod with a color screen, rather than an iPod with extra photo-related capabilities.
Posted by: Joe at February 25, 2005 11:05 AM
To some degree, Apple may understand its responsibility as the "role model" for portable mp3. The Ipod Photo was largely about the color screen. Now color screens are becoming standard in more mp3 players. To Apple, this could mean "mission accomplished."
Same goes for the shuffle. While it is pretty cool, it's the price point that really sells it. Apple knows they can sell them without a screen, but Rio etc. will need the screen as well as the price point to topple the shuffle.
I think Apple is trying to place limiting factors on the design of mp3 players--pretty screens, low prices--which really are only benefitting the consumer. I can't wait until the new line of flash mp3 players come out from the other manufacturers--they're guaranteed to be cheaper.
Posted by: Ben Donley at February 25, 2005 11:14 AM
According to my source working in an Apple store, oodles of people come in and say, "I want the iPod." When asked which iPod, it's, "There's more than one? I want the best one. Which one is the best?"
The answer to that is... well... the iPod Photo is best for *Apple*. Given the price premium on that thing, of course it isn't going to sell like the 20GB iPod, but Apple shouldn't care.
Posted by: GC at February 25, 2005 11:17 AM
As a new dad I find myself looking over my own blog at my kids photos (and no, I don't expect anyone else to find it interesting). I walk to work with an iPod so its in use 1 hr a day 5 days a week min. So the two could go naturally together. Also when traveiling, uploading photos to the pod to show family would be a plus. But hey, my hipster days are fading and most of the things I do are more geared toward the family and the practical. Sorry that features like this make you feel unloved. But the rest of us out here can make do with these nice additions.
Posted by: feeze at February 25, 2005 07:49 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone now noticed that the packaging now say "PC+Mac." Didn't it used to be "Mac+PC"?
I wonder why Apple would put the least emphasis on their own product?
Drunken One... that picture of you in the link... are you vertically challenged? :-)