Anyone else disappointed with the new iPod?

[manly]

Originally posted by: DeathReborn
Somehow I doubt this will last more than 3 hours playing Video. Coincidentlaly, APple seem to be pretty keen to not advertise it's Video playing Battery Life or the lack of a Fast Forward or Rewind function.

I'm no fan of apple but still, you'd expect 6+ hours of battery life & Fast Forward & Rewind too.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html">30GB: Up to 14 hours of music playback; up to 3 hours of slideshows with music; up to 2 hours of video playback
60GB: Up to 20 hours of music playback; up to 4 hours of slideshows with music; up to 3 hours of video playback</a>

 

[0roo0roo]

its just not there yet. i don't know what u were expecting for it to be very good its gonna need a larger screen and very good software for automating large batch conversions of videos and dvr type stuff with a tv card so you have easy access to video. video tends not to be like music where u'll listen ot the same song over and over. with video u got the chore of constantly feeding the player new content to watch. its gotta be as easy and automated as possible for it to be really worthwhile for the average person.

 

[jpeyton]

Lets see, they increased the capacity, increased the screen size, reduced the overall size, and kept the price the same.

If you're in the market for a DAP, you should be ecstatic.

If you're in the market for a PMP, you should be looking at some products made by Archos or Creative.

iPod is a DAP w/ video capability, NOT A PMP. It doesn't even have fast forward or rewind. It supports only one video format. And the screen is pathetic for watching movies.

Apple only added video support to lay the groudwork for future products in their suite of home appliances. They will eventually want to tap the video-on-demand market and this is their foot in the door.

 

[CKent]

Anyone else disappointed with the new iPod?

No more so than with the older ones.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its just not there yet. i don't know what u were expecting for it to be very good its gonna need a larger screen and very good software for automating large batch conversions of videos and dvr type stuff with a tv card so you have easy access to video. video tends not to be like music where u'll listen ot the same song over and over. with video u got the chore of constantly feeding the player new content to watch. its gotta be as easy and automated as possible for it to be really worthwhile for the average person.

Indeed but battery technology is not where it needs to be for this to work properly. Or rather to have the iPod to not have a big battery on it.

2hr of video playback but then it will die out as you probably listened to some music before and it wasn't fully charged before hand or something.

A 2" just doesn't cut it imo for video but that isn't what apple is going for. That will be their real Video iPod.

For an mp3 player it looks great imo.

Koing

 

[bleeb]

PWNED! Welcome to last year!

 

[jammur21]

They need the Sony PSP screen with touch wheel thing on the back of the iPod or HP iPaq VGA screen with a ghost touchwheel that is integrated into the screen and pops up on command.

 

[Rubycon]

Yes a screen the size of the front using touch input would be nice. At least the screen would assume a proper aspect ratio this way.

I guess they didn't want to go back to the drawing board. Next time perhaps?

 

[electricJ]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
No, because I'd get a Dell Axim x50v or Sony PSP if I had any use for portable video.

But you'll be reloading new video all the time on a 1GB card.

 

[dug777]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Lets see, they increased the capacity, increased the screen size, reduced the overall size, and kept the price the same.

If you're in the market for a DAP, you should be ecstatic.

If you're in the market for a PMP, you should be looking at some products made by Archos or Creative.

iPod is a DAP w/ video capability, NOT A PMP. It doesn't even have fast forward or rewind. It supports only one video format. And the screen is pathetic for watching movies.

Apple only added video support to lay the groudwork for future products in their suite of home appliances. They will eventually want to tap the video-on-demand market and this is their foot in the door.

 

[ponyo]

Robert Cringely's view

 

[mrSHEiK124]

WHOA! Anyone seen the Creative Zen Vision? Goddamn, thats a DVP that was done RIGHT, I'm putting all my hate for Creative Labs aside for this thing.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: deftron
Gurck in 5,4,3,2....

:laugh: at that YTMND. Gurck hasn't been around for a while, its been dozens of iPod related threads with "Paging Dr. Gurck" or "Gurck in" countdowns, but, he just never shows up .

lol @ gurck ytmnd

Gurck was banned a while ago, I think, for being a troll and not knowing when to keep the personal flames to a minimum.

That and he created a 2nd account.

 

The portable device itself is not compelling. Portable video will never be as interesting as portable audio. The killer app in the whole thing is the ability to download TV shows and watch them on your PC or Apple Front Row. I know a lot of people who would drop $2 to catch a show they missed, TiVO or not.

Having Lost and Desperate Housewives from the get-go is killer. Wait until 24, The Sopranos, etc get on and they most likely will. Apple crept up and took over the legal audio download market, now they have their roots planted in video. Who's laughing at Apple now a days?

 

[Pliablemoose]

I'm not disappointed, but then again I will never buy an overpriced, overhyped Apple product.

That being said, I can appreciate the marketing geniuses at Apple & Jobs vision in Apple products.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: dwell
The portable device itself is not compelling. Portable video will never be as interesting as portable audio. The killer app in the whole thing is the ability to download TV shows and watch them on your PC or Apple Front Row. I know a lot of people who would drop $2 to catch a show they missed, TiVO or not.

Having Lost and Desperate Housewives from the get-go is killer. Wait until 24, The Sopranos, etc get on and they most likely will. Apple crept up and took over the legal audio download market, now they have their roots planted in video. Who's laughing at Apple now a days?

The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

 

Originally posted by: sheik124
The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

I agree. Not many people here would do it. Heck, I just downloaded all of My Name Is Earl this morning (allegedly) *cough* because I missed it when it aired.

If I were not jacked into the seedy underbelly of the net where it's easy to get that sort of thing, I would shell out $2 to catch a show I missed.

Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: sheik124
The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

I agree. Not many people here would do it. Heck, I just downloaded all of My Name Is Earl this morning (allegedly) *cough* because I missed it when it aired.

If I were not jacked into the seedy underbelly of the net where it's easy to get that sort of thing, I would shell out $2 to catch a show I missed.

Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.

What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: sheik124
The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

I agree. Not many people here would do it. Heck, I just downloaded all of My Name Is Earl this morning (allegedly) *cough* because I missed it when it aired.

If I were not jacked into the seedy underbelly of the net where it's easy to get that sort of thing, I would shell out $2 to catch a show I missed.

Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.

What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

it saddens me that people watch MTV

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: sheik124
The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

I agree. Not many people here would do it. Heck, I just downloaded all of My Name Is Earl this morning (allegedly) *cough* because I missed it when it aired.

If I were not jacked into the seedy underbelly of the net where it's easy to get that sort of thing, I would shell out $2 to catch a show I missed.

Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.

What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

it saddens me that people watch MTV

It saddens me that MTV hasn't been shut down yet.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: dwell

Originally posted by: sheik124
The reason these video downloads won't catch on with the typical AT'er, is the same reason that the iTMS didn't. I'm not shelling out 2 dollars for a 320x240, DRM-locked TV episode, just like I won't shell out 99C for a 128kbps, DRM-locked song (yes I know that can easily be got around). Yet, people are sheep, they'll pay for downloading TV episodes just because they can now.

I agree. Not many people here would do it. Heck, I just downloaded all of My Name Is Earl this morning (allegedly) *cough* because I missed it when it aired.

If I were not jacked into the seedy underbelly of the net where it's easy to get that sort of thing, I would shell out $2 to catch a show I missed.

Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.

What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

it saddens me that people watch MTV

It saddens me that MTV hasn't been shut down yet.

touche

 

[mzkhadir]

Originally posted by: deftron
Gurck in 5,4,3,2....

is Gurck psychic ?

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: Anubis

it saddens me that people watch MTV

LOL, I edited MTV off of my Direct TV line up, poor teenager doesn't even knwo we have it

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: sheik124

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: sheik124
What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

it saddens me that people watch MTV

It saddens me that MTV hasn't been shut down yet.

touche

On a more serious note, even though I think its riddiculous to pay 1.99 for a music video (or TV show for that matter), people still will. His Steveness, is probably the best hype-man I've ever heard of, Apple is just awesome at getting people to buy all this stuff.
RIP iPod Innovation, my 4G will keep me happy till something interesting actually comes out of Apple in terms of the iPod, now, to find someone selling the Zen Vision.

 

Originally posted by: sheik124
Now $2 for crappy music videos, which are in reality just commercials. No way.
What saddens me is people will put $2 right into the RIAA's pocket for a music video they could just catch on MTV.

There's no videos on MTV. Just bling-bling, make a bunch of ignorant thugs rich programming.