Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Replaces B/W White iPods with Color Screens

timothy posted about 9 years ago | from the bring-on-the-speculation dept.

Media (Apple) 113

FlameboyC11 writes "A quick check at the Apple online store shows no sign of the black-and-white screened 'white' iPods. The iPod Photo has replaced them in the 20GB and 60GB categories, but is keeping the same price scale ($300 for low end and $400 for high end). This seems like such a quick switch to color, perhaps a video player is coming faster than we think?"

cancel ×

113 comments

And perhaps... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12939269)

A first post is coming even faster still

Nope (2, Insightful)

keesh (202812) | about 9 years ago | (#12939276)

The CPU isn't fast enough. Heck, it has trouble with straight .ogg files (why oh why do ogg files have to hog so much CPU anyway?), any sane video would be beyond it.

Re:Nope (0, Troll)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 9 years ago | (#12939348)

What is it with OGG Vorbis anyway?

Re:Nope (1, Troll)

sickofthisshit (881043) | about 9 years ago | (#12940672)

do you mean as in

What is it with OGG Vorbis anyway? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig with my click-wheel iPod for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to play a 17 Meg OGG Vorbis file (have to hear my "alternative" music with an "alternative" format, you know). 20 minutes. At home, on my Rio Karma running WMA, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this iPod, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that. ....

Re:Nope (3, Insightful)

aristotle-dude (626586) | about 9 years ago | (#12941910)

Why is this flame bait? Maybe this person never heard of it.

Ogg Vorbis is completely irrelevant to me and the majority of music player owners.

It is an obscure container format (OGG) and codec (vorbis). It is somewhat popular with a small clique of linux geeks because it is open source and royalty free. Unfortunately, it requires either an FPU (which the iPod lacks) or a lot more integer capacity than the iPod could provide. There are also some echo artifacts which can occur with vorbis.

Re:Nope (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12946550)

It is somewhat popular with a small clique of linux geeks because it is open source and royalty free.

And because they're a bunch of closet homosexuals who like the manly man bearded guy on the logo.

"OGG?" Isn't that the sound of someone choking on a penis?

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12947730)

For precisely the reasons you mentioned (but mainly the royalty-free part), OGG gets a lot of use in video games.

you are WRONG (1)

Wetzel (852717) | about 9 years ago | (#12948422)

OGG can play on an ipod. actually, i've played ogg on MY 40gb ipod photo. Using code from the linux on ipod project [ipodlinux.org] i successfully booted into linux, and played back several normally encoded ogg files I copied to my ipod. they played effortlessly.

don't spread misinformation with such conviction, please.

Re:Nope (1)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | about 9 years ago | (#12951376)

Ogg Vorbis is the reason I no longer listen to audio or video clips from Wikipedia. It's too much of a hassle to ensure I have an Ogg player installed.

Sure, I have Winamp on my desktop computer, and I think it's set up to play Oggs. But Winamp is dying (if you'll pardon the cliché), and Windows Media, Real, and QuickTime don't (easily) support Ogg. When I first heard about Ogg, I thought it was an interesting idea, but now it just seems like a hassle in practice. I mean, I have several MP3 players and encoders, and I've never been asked to pay for a codec for any of them.

By the way, the obscurity of Ogg Vorbis is demonstrated by a popular electronics catalog (I forget which) advertising a music player as supporting "099 Vorbis".

Re:Nope (0)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#12939353)

..yet.

You know, it's not a far cry to add a new CPU, or a second CPU, now that they've upped the battery life to a steady 15 hours. Sure, video will drop it back to the 8 hour range, but that's the trade off.

Oh, and DAMN IT ALL. I just had my iPod serviced and they replaced it with the equivalent 4th gen. Guess you can't always win ;)

Re:Nope (1)

SPY_jmr1 (768281) | about 9 years ago | (#12939402)

Don't you mean a third CPU? The critter already is a SMP device... The only one I own, somehow.

Re:Nope (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#12939462)

Really? I thought the iPod was a single processor ARM7 derivative made by PortalPlayer called something like PP5020D (I'd Google it, but I've really got to be getting some sleep).

Add an onboard MPEG-4 video decoder and you could also do some serious video work. Of course, both of these additions would drastically raise the price of the iPod, so this might be something they would introduce in the higher end first (like they did with the iPod Photo).

It'll be interesting to see what happens for sure.

Re:Nope (1)

SPY_jmr1 (768281) | about 9 years ago | (#12939484)

Your alphabet soup sounds close enough for this hour. (I concure very much with your sleeplessness.)

All I know about it, is that when the ipod-linux port was started, it was somewhat difficult due to some unknown customizations/hacks that the cpu uses... It's some type of a dual-core setup, one dedicated to decoding audio, the other for UI things. Linux ARM code ran on it just fine, but the hardware needed both pieces to do its job right.

That said, that was then, and not now, and things may have changed... I seem to recall that the newly denamed photo's have a more powerful cpu in them.

IANAP/CPUS (Programer/CPU Specialist)

Re:Nope (5, Informative)

LKM (227954) | about 9 years ago | (#12939755)

Really? I thought the iPod was a single processor ARM7 derivative made by PortalPlayer called something like PP5020D

It seems the first three iPod generations had two 90 Mhz ARM7TDMI CPUs. The fourth, the mini and the photo have two 80 Mhz ARM7TDMI. This information is brought to you by this page [scoutingaround.com] .

wikipedia [wikipedia.org] agrees:

The first three generations of iPod use two ARM7TDMI-derived CPUs running at 90 MHz, while later models have variable speed chips with a peak of 80 MHz to save battery life.

Re:Nope (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12939805)

Oh, and DAMN IT ALL. I just had my iPod serviced and they replaced it with the equivalent 4th gen. Guess you can't always win ;)

You mean your iPod irrepairable failed and had to be replaced?

Every single portable audio device I have ever owned (an ancient Sony walkman, a Technics portable CD player and a Diamond Rio 64MB MP3 player) all still work perfectly. They've been absolutely bulletproof and I've not had a single failure. If one of them had failed on me, I would have immediately switched brands to a competitor.

So tell me - why are iPods so popular given their abysmal reliability? A friend of mine is now on his fourth iPod - after all the others failed - and he still loves it. I simply do not understand the appeal. Why? Is it product lock-in because you rented DRM'ed music from iTunes? Is it simply because you don't like Apple's competitors or what?

Re:Nope (1)

jessecurry (820286) | about 9 years ago | (#12941255)

I think that it has to do with the ease of use and Apple's tendency to just replace them with no hassle. I don't mind going through a few iPods as long as I don't have to pay for them, and these things do get a lot more use than my walkman ever did.

Re:Nope (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 9 years ago | (#12940696)

DAMN IT ALL. I just had my iPod serviced and they replaced it with the equivalent 4th gen. Guess you can't always win ;)

Thought you might find this funny. From today's issue of The Onion [theonion.com]

Dead iPod Remembered As Expensive
VENTURA, CA--A third-generation, 30-GB iPod, serial number AP356372, died early Monday morning at age 2. "I'll never forget all the great music it used to play during my workouts," said the late iPod's owner Sarah Zartman at a brief memorial held over the junk drawer. "It was convenient, portable, and really pricey--almost $500." Zartman said that, had she known the iPod's lithium-ion battery would have such a short lifespan, she might have spent more time listening to it. AP356372 is survived by a BlackBerry.

Re:Nope (1)

G-Licious! (822746) | about 9 years ago | (#12939690)

Huh? I thought ogg/vorbis was supposed to consume less CPU than, say, decoding MP3s?

Re:Nope (1)

CableModemSniper (556285) | about 9 years ago | (#12940129)

The fixed point decoder is kinda sucky.

Re:Nope (3, Interesting)

ZackSchil (560462) | about 9 years ago | (#12940136)

Yes. The iPod is certainly incapable of playing video. [clarkson.edu]

Re:Nope (2, Informative)

Synbiosis (726818) | about 9 years ago | (#12946171)

Except that has no practical use. People would use the slideshow with a soundtrack option, and would move the scrollwheel as fast as they could so they could get motion.

I think they got something like 10 or 15 FPS... And I doubt you could keep up a consistent rate of motion for any longer than a minute.

Apple Portable Video Player... (1)

BugDave (874027) | about 9 years ago | (#12939278)

Will it really happen? Clearly no one outside of apple knows for sure, but it makes me wonder if it does happen that it will also sport a different shell. Any thoughts?

About Time Too! (4, Insightful)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 9 years ago | (#12939297)

The colour interface looks so good on the iPod Photo models that there's just no excuse for it not to be across the whole line.

Sure, you don't actually *need* colour if you just want to listen to music, but it's more vibrant, more dynamic and fits better with the look of OS X.

And the brick game looks a little nicer too. I was hoping for Arkanoid, but there you go. ... but a video player? I don't want the iPod in its current form to play video. I just can't imagine anything looking good on a miniscule screen like that, but I can imagine what that'd do to a hard drive that relies on large RAM caching rather than sustained reads.

A video iPod would have to be very large to be worthwhile (I'm more than doubtful of the video success of the new Sony PSP, but it'll take a while for the results to come in on that). A large unit contradicts what the iPod is all about - a small, convenient device for a single purpose.

Lastly - I don't see why people want video while they're out and about. Audio I can understand - you can easily walk around and listen to music. Video? I look forward to the first hysterical warnings brought on by teens walking accidentally into traffic while watching their PSPs. You just can't watch video and do other things. It's too intrusive.

Re:About Time Too! (3, Insightful)

_undan (804517) | about 9 years ago | (#12939420)

Think outside the little box.

The iPod Photo plugs into the video-in jack on your TV and displays the images on there.

The iPod also has stereo audio out. Duh.
iTunes has started selling video content. But why?

Put the pieces together.

It may not be for a while, but I would bet money that we'll see iPods that are capable of playing QT7 HD/MPEG4 video through a standard RCA AV cable when plugged into a Televison.

Re:About Time Too! (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 9 years ago | (#12939438)

I did think of that, but then I couldn't find a compelling reason to buy video content, put it on an expensive iPod and transport that to somewhere I can plug into a TV when instead I could just buy a DVD of the content and take that with me.

It's not hard to think of specific uses, but I can't think of good, general uses that show reasonable value.

Re:About Time Too! (2, Interesting)

tooth (111958) | about 9 years ago | (#12939602)

Use in meeting presentations where you don't want a full laptop, just plug straight into a data prjector? I wonder why they haven't done a keynote -> ipod interface yet? I guess you could do them as jpgs on the ipod photo?

Re:About Time Too! (4, Insightful)

_undan (804517) | about 9 years ago | (#12939447)

Oh, and before anyone asks: "Where do we get the video from?", think about it:

iMovie now supports HD video, as does iDVD, and QuickTime 7.

I know that I would rather edit, export a HD movie, dump it on my iPod and bring it over to a friend's place to preview than waste time burning DVDs of rough cuts.

This shit is cool. And it fits in well with the way Apple seem to be going with iLife.

Re:About Time Too! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940858)

Plus, the H.264 codec [apple.com] is supposed to be "highly scalable", so it would be quite natural, IMO, for Apple to start offering methods for the entire range of use. They've already got the HD side pretty well covered, and a video iPod would be perfect for the "mobile" end of the codec.

Re:About Time Too! (1)

mbourgon (186257) | about 9 years ago | (#12940924)

Nope - it'll probably be (As mentioned by As Seen On TV, though he hasn't been around lately) an update of the Airport Express, with an S-video out or something similar.

Re:About Time Too! (2, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 9 years ago | (#12940402)

Gut feeling: it's cheap to add, and the "photo" feature of the iPod photo is considered a "nice-to-have" that will generally improve the odds of the standard iPod selling (by people who like to carry around a lot of photos to show relatives and friends, for example. If my fiance didn't have a job that required being on the phone a lot, I'd be getting her one) without necessarily being capable of selling itself in a more expensive model.

I can see why a $500 "iPod Photo" couldn't sell, but I think a $299 model has a lot more viability.

Re:About Time Too! (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | about 9 years ago | (#12940551)

Gut feeling: it's cheap to add

I'll go one further and speculate that they reached the point where adding it to the low-end model was probably cheaper than keeping the B&W screens around.

This way, they have one stock display part going into all full-sized iPods. Less inventory management is usually a good thing.

Re:About Time Too! (1, Redundant)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | about 9 years ago | (#12940426)

I think Apple should make an iPod video. Even if the market isn't huge. PSP video discs are surprising everyone's wildest expectations. The best argument against it, IMO is the copyright issues, to get the content people want on such a device, generally requires software that is against the copy protection circumvention laws.

And yes, I don't think the current tiny screen would work well, which I'd suggest using the 320x480 screens used on some Palms, T5, and the Tapwave, because those screens are beautiful and don't require a needlessly large device package.

Re:About Time Too! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940626)

> Lastly - I don't see why people want video while they're out and about. Audio I can understand - you can easily walk around and listen to music. Video?

Some of us use our iPod on our hour-long train commute to work. I do agree that the screen is a bit small for video, but just because you don't use it in a way where it could be useful for video, doesn't mean that other people don't either.

Re:About Time Too! (1)

nine-times (778537) | about 9 years ago | (#12940813)

A video iPod would have to be very large to be worthwhile (I'm more than doubtful of the video success of the new Sony PSP, but it'll take a while for the results to come in on that). A large unit contradicts what the iPod is all about - a small, convenient device for a single purpose.

I agree that video on an iPod-sized screen would be a bit painful, but I think the PSP screen is just big enough. What I think might end up being the biggest hurdle for PSP as a video device is the idea of buying separate media just for that purpose (as in, having to choose between buying a DVD to watch on TV or a PSP disc, whatever they're called).

Lastly - I don't see why people want video while they're out and about. Audio I can understand - you can easily walk around and listen to music. Video? I look forward to the first hysterical warnings brought on by teens walking accidentally into traffic while watching their PSPs. You just can't watch video and do other things. It's too intrusive.

It certainly is easier to listen to music and do other things, but where I can imagine these things really coming in handy are for commuters (train, not car). Of course, if you live outside a big city, you might not consider this, but lots of people end up sitting on a train for a total of a few hours a day with nothing to do. People read books, work on their laptops, play games on portable devices. And yes, watch movies.

Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (0, Troll)

furiousgeorge (30912) | about 9 years ago | (#12939327)

Why is this news? Oh yeah, it's not.

Just moving to color screens for all the 'big' iPods is not new.

I have an iPod. I love it. But Apple has been really complacent with it's development for the last while. Then again, it's poor PPC faithful are in even worse shape (I have no problem with the x86 switchover, but in the mean time almost their entire PPC line is desperate for updates).

Complacentcy will kill ya. Look out Apple. For the 'kings of innovation' there isn't much to see for the last while.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#12939396)

Kinda shows that they're listening to the customers. I grumbled when I saw the price of the iPod Colors, and I wanted one so badly, but there was no way I could afford it, and settled with the iPod deal that came with my iBook.

I'd say they're cooking a lot more inside of Apple; this is still major revision 4 of the iPod. Gen 5 could bring us a whole host of things we weren't expecting (bluetooth remote? sync to cell? wifi? bigger color screen? video?). The options are really limitless. This is just more to quell the customers who really wanted a feature that couldn't get it until now.

To me, it looks like Apple hasn't stopped innovating, but as any company, innovation can only take place in steps. The iPod, just like the iMac, iBook, Power Mac, PowerBook, and Mac OS X products all have their own release cycles now, and you can't ask them to continously flood the market with new warez; not only would this bankrupt the company, the consumers would get bored of the almost constant updates.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

snorklewacker (836663) | about 9 years ago | (#12941167)

> Kinda shows that they're listening to the customers.

Can you replace the battery? Especially now that there's a color screen to drain even more of it?

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12944727)

Battery life on the iPod Photo was *better* than any previous iPod. These colour iPods apparently keep that 15 hour battery life.

Before you ask, Apple is pretty realistic on battery life estimates. Even if that ends up being only twelve hours, that's an entire workday plus commute of continuous music. So "the colour screen draining even more of it" is not an issue. You won't run through your charges faster than a BW.

Battery's still non-replaceable though, and that's starting to be a real issue for the first time. Before, one could argue that having to buy a new, bigger iPod wasn't that bad. At least you got more storage. Now that the whole line is colour and there's a 60 GB model, there's enough hard drive space for all but the most hardcore of music fans.

It would be foolish to suggest that 60 GB will always be enough. Limited space is never enough. But I doubt many people who buy a 60 GB now are going to be actively hurting for more space the way 10 GB owners were when their batteries died. Not on a device that can't play video.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#12947310)

I don't believe in the need to. By the time my battery dies, I'll be ready to purchase a new one. Apple expects the same from you. If you have a problem with that, tough. Apple's got a system you can send in and have them replace your battery for you, if you'd like.

If you care so much about user replaceable batteries, use some other player.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

rokzy (687636) | about 9 years ago | (#12940062)

>But Apple has been really complacent with it's development for the last while.

"for the last while"? sounds like someone wants to make a point but has no facts or evidence so just uses meaningless vague language. congratulations, pick up your MBA on the way out.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 9 years ago | (#12940832)

Agreed. They've mostly been doing software stuff; AAC, iTMS, photos, library sharing, shuffle, etc. The only thing of note they've released is the iPod Shuffle in the last year; of course Apple is milking their products for as much as they can, so it's not all bad.

Last year was the iPod mini, this year is the iPod shuffle, so it's not as if there's a drought. If they don't release a new 'high end' model next year, then Apple will be forced by market economics to play the volume game, because prices can only drop.

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | about 9 years ago | (#12941588)

Complacentcy will kill ya. Look out Apple. For the 'kings of innovation' there isn't much to see for the last while.

The only thing of note they've released is the iPod Shuffle in the last year

What the hell are you and the GP talking about?? Apple has done a crapload this year. They released iLife 05, iWork, Tiger (a signifigant upgrade to the Mac OS), and probably more software I'm forgetting; They released the Mac Mini, they have updated (if I recall) every one of their computer lines (for instance a month or two ago they upgraded the iMacs and made them slightly cheaper), they released the shuffle (as you mentioned) and they announced their switch to Intel (which doesn't have any tangible benefits for the consumer yet, but I'm sure it's taken up a ton of their time).

If anything, Apple does stuff too fast. It's really easy to buy something from Apple and then weeks later wish you'd waited just a little longer (but if you do that you'll always be waiting).

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12944699)

That's hardly true when you consider how lackluster the upgrades have been on many of their products. 1.5 ghz to 1.67 ghz can't be considered a significant upgrade; especially when the bus speed hovers around 167 mhz.

I guess you can say MS has been innovating as well as they've announced Longhorn (that has been taking up a lot of their time) and also announced that they'll take the "my" out of "my computer"

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

dangitman (862676) | about 9 years ago | (#12947845)

That's hardly true when you consider how lackluster the upgrades have been on many of their products. 1.5 ghz to 1.67 ghz can't be considered a significant upgrade; especially when the bus speed hovers around 167 mhz.

Increased processor speed is not "innovative." Nor does it mean much to most users, these days. Apple has been making some great software and an innovative OS. That's way more important than mere clock speed. What's the point in having a fast clock if you haven't got good software to run on it, or useful accessories for your machine?

Re:Malibu Stacy - NOW WITH HAT!!! (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 9 years ago | (#12946784)

Sorry, I wasn't too clear that I was only talking about mp3 players.

Of course I was pretty specific in only mentioning the iPod, iPod mini, and iPod shuffle, and the article talks about iPods...

So if we narrow the conversation to only mp3 players, yes, Apple is taking their sweet time (complacent). I expect another revision of the iPod with the new ARM core powering the mini, giving them a good battery life improvement without changing anything else.

Then if we don't see some real 'improvement' there is the real chance that an alternative competing mp3 player will finally catch up with software and hardware.

By the way... (1)

ciroknight (601098) | about 9 years ago | (#12939367)

They also updated the U2 edition to the color screen, and the price is now only $30 over the default iPod price of 299.

I like the U2 edition's colors, but it just wouldn't match my snowflake iBook. :)

Re:By the way... (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | about 9 years ago | (#12939480)

I would love a black iPod , I just really don't like U2 and don't fancy paying 30 more for music i don't want and U2 branding.

Re:By the way... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12939955)

You can buy coloured skins for iPods, or even buy iPods that have been repainted for you [colorwarepc.com] if you really want a black or different coloured one.

Of course, it does come at a higher price (though sans U2 branding).

Cheapest alternative: one iPod, a Sharpie, and lots of patience :)

Visualizer (5, Funny)

cappadocius (555740) | about 9 years ago | (#12939377)

Screw movies. Where's my iPod Visualizer? iTunes is great and all, but does Apple really expect me to be in view of my computer every time I get stoned? £:-)

Dude, comb your hair (1)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | about 9 years ago | (#12942662)

> £:-)

You've obviously got a weird cowlick thing going on on the left side of your head...

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:Dude, comb your hair (1)

cappadocius (555740) | about 9 years ago | (#12946162)

It is an emoticon someone on MacSlash uses. Means ironic. Because you never know when dumb people will fail to notice irony. I guess the icon must not have spread very far.

Re:Dude, comb your hair (1)

Russellkhan (570824) | about 9 years ago | (#12948700)

OK, maybe I'm dumb, but please explain to me the irony in your original post.

...or maybe you're calling people dumb for not seeing irony when it's actually you who doesn't know the meaning of the word?

Technology (1)

paulius_g (808556) | about 9 years ago | (#12939378)

Ah! I love technology. I love companies upgrading their product lines because technology gets more and more affordable.

Now. I'm a big Apple fan... But I think that the iPod is getting quite too popular. I can't go walking without seeing 10 people with it... Ahh!

And no, I don't have an iPod. It's price is quite too high for my budget.

Re:Technology (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | about 9 years ago | (#12940853)

See, here's the logic:

Good product -> Popularity.
Popularity -> Volume
Volume -> Affordability
Affordability -> Popularity

So the longer you wait, the more affordable it will get; however, it will get to the point, as it is more affordable, that you can't go walking without seeing 20 people with it.

iPod minis are only $149 from the Apple sale store (these are the older last year models, with 8 hour battery, instead of the new 16 hour battery).

Re:Technology (1)

SonicBV (644848) | about 9 years ago | (#12948073)

I'm amazed that people so frequently make this (most decidedly correct) observation only about the iPod, whereas it applies to so many other products, as well.

Cell phones, for example. I'd be willing to bet that you could swing a stick anywhere in public and the odds of not hitting a cell phone user are slim to none.

Personally, I stick with my cell phone in my pocket, and my iPod on my belt.

Video player?! I think not (1)

Skippy_kangaroo (850507) | about 9 years ago | (#12939392)

Perhaps a video player is coming faster than we think

I don't know how fast you think its coming - but I think it will be a cold day in Cupertino before we see one of those.

A coulour screen is one thing but even the photo functionality on the iPod itself hasn't caught on. It seems that the most common use (and even this isn't common) is actually to hook the iPod up to a TV to show off the photos, not on the dinky little screen of the iPod. Video would be an order of magnitude worse.

Re:Video player?! I think not (1)

iroll (717924) | about 9 years ago | (#12941640)

It seems like the entire photo functionality is kind of an "oh yeah, it can do this too" that Apple added after they put a color screen on the iPod. The real reason for the color screen was probably a) to look kewl and b) so that the iPod could display album art in color (also cool!).

Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is future (1)

gsfprez (27403) | about 9 years ago | (#12939502)

that will be the device that plays back purchased videos from the iTunes Video store.

it can hold a tiny h.264 decoder chip from Texas Instruments, and can have a DVI/HDMI/S-VHS output to connect to your plasma/LCD/Standard TV. It also, of course, already has the audio output.

Charge $150 for it - that's a duable price - and stream HD and SD h.264 content you've bought from the iTunes Video store - bamo.

You're watching movies and TV shows you've paid $2 a piece for - instead of waiting for the DVD to come out.. I'm so there.

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 9 years ago | (#12939556)

If only we had our resident Apple 'insider' around to give some info...

As Seen on TV has been strangely quiet since the x86 announcement...

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (1)

sl8r (104278) | about 9 years ago | (#12939675)

ASOTV has been strangely quiet for a lot longer than that, last comment was on May 23rd, here [slashdot.org]

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | about 9 years ago | (#12939754)

I know - my comment was the parent of his one, and even then I was wondering where he was.

He may have been an Apple guy or he may have been someone posing as an Apple guy, but he seemed to know his stuff and put his points well.

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (1)

name773 (696972) | about 9 years ago | (#12939871)

"someone posing as an Apple guy"

i hope (and my faith in a portion of humanity rests on this hope) that such things are rare if not unheard of and you are only conjecturing on a hypothetical possibility of something that John Doe might think of pondering while trying to come up with a good "what if" line for a short artistic work he might get around to writing.

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940204)

As Seen On TV was running his mouth off and got told to shut up by the superiors.

Re:Color pods !=vPod. Airport Express Video is fut (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940384)

Yup. There's nothing worse than waiting an extra ten minutes for your burger because one of the guys who was supposed to be cooking them has just spent the entire morning on Slashdot flaming someone for their belief that Quartz is based upon PDF. As one of the associate managers said, that's not what "flame grilled" is supposed to mean.

awesome. (1)

chrisxkelley (879631) | about 9 years ago | (#12939674)

i think that this is great. i have been wanting an ipod photo only because of the color screens but now i dont even have to go there. my friend has an ipod photoo and left it at my house today- i have been looking at the pictures, and they suck because the screen is so small. as far as video goes, i think they'll go to touch screens -meaning larger screen and no dial thing- before they do video. and even then, video will take up a shitload of battery so they better fix that before they go video. my ideal ipod is one that fits in my back pocket and scratches my back when i ask it to. (you know its coming to this :-D)

Some other tidbits (5, Informative)

MadMoses (151207) | about 9 years ago | (#12939694)

The iPod photos have lost the "photo" part of their name.

The 30GB iPod is no more.

The 1GB iPod shuffle is only $129 from now on.

Re:Some other tidbits (2, Funny)

switcha (551514) | about 9 years ago | (#12948365)

The 1GB iPod shuffle is only $129 from now on.

Well, of course it is, silly. I just bought one for $149 a few weeks ago.

iTunes update designed to kill off podcasting! (1)

RikF (864471) | about 9 years ago | (#12939701)

More interesting is apples bid to end this non-corporate podcasting craze. By updating the iTunes store and software yesterday to promote and supply podcasts they have effectively brought the craze to an end. See how no non-commerical podcasts can survive the battering that millions of curious users have unleased upon them. More impressive even than a slashdotting!

Seriously though, this has rendered my favourite podcasts, with the exception of the BBC's Today programme and From Our Own Correspondant, completely inaccessable :( I pity the people covering those bandwidth costs. The sooner a peer-peer solution for podcasting is found the better.

RikF

Re:iTunes update designed to kill off podcasting! (1)

argent (18001) | about 9 years ago | (#12940122)

The sooner a peer-peer solution for podcasting is found the better.

Bittorrent should work fine. And don't forget nyud.net works with any slashdotted resource.

Re:iTunes update designed to kill off podcasting! (1)

RikF (864471) | about 9 years ago | (#12940166)

a bit-torrent solution would be fine, but it needs to be an integrated solution to give the podcasters mass market access. If iTunes could automatically accept, process and download podcasts from a torrent without the user having to intervene at any point we would definately have a winner on our hands. And, perhaps, sufficient legitimate use (properly marketed, of course) to keep the RIAA from being able to sue bit-torrents creators for supporting piracy!

RikF

Re:iTunes update designed to kill off podcasting! (1)

argent (18001) | about 9 years ago | (#12940337)

If iTunes could automatically accept, process and download podcasts from a torrent without the user having to intervene at any point we would definately have a winner on our hands.

If you want it automatic, write an Applescript that nyud-net-ifies the URL of the podcast.

Otherwise, you'll want to make the torrent client a proxy (listening, say, on port 6161) that recognises URLs of podcasts that have torrents available and fetches them, otherwise just do the regular lookup... and then set your network proxy settings to "localhost:6161". The source to tinyproxy is probably a good place to start, I've found it very hackable.

Re:iTunes update designed to kill off podcasting! (1)

Chyeld (713439) | about 9 years ago | (#12942976)

I've seen atleast one Podcast download util that can utilize a normal torrent ecapsulation.

I've also seen more than one plug-in for Bittorent clients to check a RSS feed and start queue up any torrents in the feed.

The solution is there, it's just getting people to use it.

Color vs. battery (0)

BortQ (468164) | about 9 years ago | (#12939703)

Driving a color screen uses up much more batteries then a simple B&W one does. Personally I would prefer increased battery life - I don't feel the need for color in my music player.

Good thing I already have an iPod ;-). Also, this announcement didn't mention the iPod mini. I assume they are still B&W?

Re:Color vs. battery (1)

iainl (136759) | about 9 years ago | (#12939830)

Yes, the mini is still in black and white, and there wasn't a price-cut either.

Re:Color vs. battery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940779)

well now they just need to do a 20GB mini and i'll be happy again. color ipods suck.

Re:Color vs. battery (1)

R.Mo_Robert (737913) | about 9 years ago | (#12940769)

Driving a color screen uses up much more batteries then a simple B&W one does. Personally I would prefer increased battery life - I don't feel the need for color in my music player.

Actually, the new color iPods tout 15-hour battery lives. I don't know what the previous iPod photos had, but my B&W 20 GB iPod from the last line claims 12 hours. Sounds like an improvement to me.

Re:Color vs. battery (1)

BortQ (468164) | about 9 years ago | (#12943349)

And just imagine if they had used their new improved battery with the B&W screens. You'd have even more then 15 hours then.

Re:Color vs. battery (1)

FlameboyC11 (711446) | about 9 years ago | (#12948090)

I doubt it. They base those run times on setting a continuous playlist and then see where it dies, and then average it for the life of the pod. The screen after a few seconds of starting the playlist in both ipod color and b/w are just changing a few pixes a second (song title and track position), hardly costing anything in terms of battery life. No backlight is being used, and no songs played that have not been pre-buffered (no fast hard drive spins)

My G5 isn't fast enough for a video iPod (4, Insightful)

el_womble (779715) | about 9 years ago | (#12939768)

Lets assume that I can buy video from iTMS. Do I buy a video that fills my nice 20" widescreen (1080i), or do I buy one that suites my iPod (480p)?

Being Apple its going to come in H.264. Thats great. I love playing back H.264. What I don't love is encoding it. It took me over 24 hours to encode a 2 hour DVD. As my G5 can only just handle playing 1080i there seems little chance of an iPod handling it in the near future (hell, my powerbook can't do it). So do I download the 1080i then re-encode for my iPod, or do I download the 1080i version and get the 480p version for free? I don't think so. It seems more likely that Apple will charge us twice, or not offer the 1080i version. As for re-encoding, that seems unlikely too - unless the iPod has re-encoder built into it.

As this is obviously a post designed to generate speculation...

iTMS is not a good place to get movies. A good movie requires 2 hours on continuos attention, and on average I'll watch a purchased DVD twice. Music can be enjoyed in the background and I'll listen to a good song twice a day for a month. DVD is not even like books. In general, you can (even though its hard) put a good book down at any point and still enjoy it as much. Also, DVD take up too much space. iTunes is good, because I don't have to look for a CD anymore. Everything is in one place and instantly accessable. To be equivalent, 1080 would require home users to have close to 1TB of storage. Not unlikely, but not now.

iTMS is a great place for TV. I wouldn't mind picking up a 480p TV show. I watch TV exactly once. I know this, so I don't mind deleting it once I'm done - it hurt at first, but I haven't regretted it once (I'm a natural hoarder). I consume TV differently to DVD. I wouldn't mind there being advertisements. I wouldn't mind them tracking my viewing habits and giving me adverts that I want. I would like to be able to tell my iPod that I'm interested in a product and to add the products site to my 'adverts' bookmark folder. In this respect I'd expect Apple to step into the same role as a conventional network - just with a much larger audience. But in return I'd expect the content to be free. They could sell me an add free 1080i, as long as it had no adverts and I was free to burn it to Blu-ray and the cost was similar to a song. File size aside - $5 for a 60 minute show, that I watch once seems expensive - $20 a month all you can eat, now your talking.

Re:My G5 isn't fast enough for a video iPod (2, Insightful)

linds.r (895980) | about 9 years ago | (#12939899)

Am I the only one that thinks distributing full HD content over the internet is a ridiculous concept? Not only are the storage requirments unrealistic as you mentioned, but sending a cool gig or two down a pipe regularly for this purpose is obscene.

The reality of this is that h264 is a scalable codec and whats going to be in primary focus is short films, video clips and television shows formatted for mobile viewing, ie. possibly less than 480.

Personally I think the video store will be as relevant as the hardware its supporting, the current format of the iPod screen is really not sufficient to drive it.

Re:My G5 isn't fast enough for a video iPod (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 9 years ago | (#12939974)

Firstly, I don't believe a Video iPod makes any sense. The only time it would make sense would be if iTMS offered video and the iPod had video and audio out so you could play on a big screen. This would probably require some sort of dedicated dock, so you didn't have to deal with cables every time you wanted to watch something.

H.264 is designed to be scalable. It is designed to be playable on mobile phones at the low end, and scale up past HDTV at the high end. If an iPod were to support video, then it would include a dedicated H.264 decoder chip. These are relatively cheap and low power.

As to the resolution question, H.264 is wavelet based. This means that you start off with a low quality image (e.g. 2x2) and then progressively apply additional wavelets to it until you have something that closely resembles the original image. You can adjust the quality and bit-rate by deciding how many iterations through this process are done. If you were copying video to the iPod for watching on the iPod (which, as I said, I think is quite a silly idea anyway) then you could simply[1] remove the highest detail wavelets from the stream, which could be done orders of magnitude faster than decompressing and recompressing the entire stream. This process (i/o permitting) would actually be faster than playback, since all you need to do is an inverse-quantisation, a cut and a write, rather than actually decoding the video.

[1] Well, non-trivially.

Re:My G5 isn't fast enough for a video iPod (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | about 9 years ago | (#12943287)

H.264 is designed to be scalable.

Which has nothing to do with the original point that a particular H.264 file has a particular bitrate and resolution, and you need a device powerful enough to decode the file.

H.264 is wavelet based.

No, it isn't.

[long description of scalable video]

Too bad you can't actually do that with any H.264 files that really exist.

Re:My G5 isn't fast enough for a video iPod (1)

zo219 (667409) | about 9 years ago | (#12948637)

>Firstly, I don't believe a Video iPod makes any sense.

Neither does Steve. . .

My new iPod (1)

OPTiX_iNC (691070) | about 9 years ago | (#12940287)

I'm having trouble trying to use usb 1.1 with my new ipod. I just got out of the Apple store, and it won't even work. It clearly states that it is compatible with usb 1.1, but I just got the damn thing, plugged it in, and it won't even turn on. How the hell am i supposed to load 4,000 songs. My friend has a Archos Gmini and works just fine with his alienware laptop, and when i plug my ipod into his lappy it works just fine. problem is all my tunes are on my compaq p233 laptop. does anyone have any advice?

Re:My new iPod (1)

jk0 (859377) | about 9 years ago | (#12940443)

Use it in your powerbook, whitey

Re:My new iPod (1)

miller701 (525024) | about 9 years ago | (#12940471)

What OS are you running?

Racists! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12940319)

Apple's trying to make colored ones the majority and white the minority.

Cheaper (2, Insightful)

Punboy (737239) | about 9 years ago | (#12940419)

Actually, they probably did it because its cheaper to use one screen across every iPod then to have two different screens, especially since there are also differences in the way the color screens have to be hooked up... they probably had two almost completely separate manufacturing lines, due to this. By switching them all to color, they can make every ipod on the same manufacturing line, throw certain amounts of ipods into a specialized manufacturing section that puts in the right drive.

Re:Cheaper (1)

BurntNickel (841511) | about 9 years ago | (#12940473)

I would tend to agree with that. My new cell phone has a color screen and near as I can tell the only thing that the color screen is useful for is to have a prettier user interface. The phone has no games or a camera. Warning! Verzion rant to follow..... If I want to change the background picture, I have to choose one that Verizon has for download and cough up $1.99. Not that I need that or a screen saver on my phone.

iPod photo not that great (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 9 years ago | (#12940564)

I thought it was a great idea, instead of having a giant iPhoto library taking up space on the hard drive, keep all your images on the iPod.... but it doesn't store the images in the original, highest resolution... so it becomes not even a good back up device

that being said, I wish I had one

Re:iPod photo not that great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12946822)

You know the iPod does work as an external usb/firewire harddrive?

Re:iPod photo not that great (1)

catmistake (814204) | about 9 years ago | (#12947908)

yes... but this doesn't mean that full resolution pics can be displayed

Thickness changes? (1)

Winterblink (575267) | about 9 years ago | (#12940759)

Have the managed to keep the same thickness as the previous non-Photo iPods? One of the reasons I didn't spring for one before (aside of the insanely high price) was the fact that it was quite a bit larger and heavier than the others. A fraction of an inch doesn't sound like much, but in your hand it definitely felt bulkier.

Re:Thickness changes? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 years ago | (#12941494)

The 20GB/color is the same thickness (and, I believe, weight) as the 30GB/color. Which is kind of a shame; I'd have thought they should've dumped the 20GB configuration altogether and dropped the price on the 30GB/color. But having handled both, I think that the extra thickness of the 20/30GB/color models is minimal and acceptable (compared to the thickness of the 40/60GB monsters). In fact, I was toying with the idea of buying myself a 30GB iPod photo to replace my current 4G/20GB in a few months (passing my "old" one to a family member). But now I've got no incentive to upgrade -- the color screen and photo capability is nice, but not worth spending the money for when you've got recent model! And I don't want to have the super-thick 60GB size, either, which is also WAY too big for my purposes!

(Really, can the price difference between the 20GB hard drive and the 30GB hard drive really be worth eliminating the larger model over? Considering how much the price of the iPod photo (now just "color") models has dropped in the past six months, I find it hard to believe that they need to preserve their margins on those two models that badly. Heck, even keeping the 30GB model around at its previous price would've been just fine. I just think that limiting the choices to either 20GB or 60GB leaves way too big of a gap in between.)

Think Marketing (1)

dfl (808355) | about 9 years ago | (#12941028)

If you're ESPN, are you rushing to podcast your content so that your audience can listen off-line, where your web ads don't reach?

No, you are not.

But what if your ads display on this nice color screen?

Re:Think Marketing (1)

geoffspear (692508) | about 9 years ago | (#12943765)

ESPN Radio has plenty of advertising. It works just fine without the listener being near any sort of video display device at all.

iPod Mini Colour? (1)

Abberlaine (709428) | about 9 years ago | (#12941768)

Say, any word/rumours on the iPod Mini receiving this upgrade?

3.9 confirms video (1)

LuckyLimey (720683) | about 9 years ago | (#12948354)

When I try to sync Rocket Boom to my color iPod using the latest version of iTunes (3.9) - I get the error that "this iPod model does not support video"...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...