Slashdot Mirror
Video iPod Screen Test
Carl Bialik writes "The Wall Street Journal's Walter S. Mossberg has an interesting review of Apple's video iPod. From the article: 'It's a surprisingly decent video player, with crisp, smooth vivid playback of TV shows, music videos, short films, video podcasts and home videos. We wouldn't want to watch a full-length movie on this iPod -- the screen is just too small. But, for short things like music videos, video podcasts or even hourlong TV shows shortened by stripping out the commercials, as Apple is doing, the new iPod provides a pretty good experience.
However, there are some significant downsides to the video function on this iPod. Some of them are due to Apple's design decisions, while others are due to restrictions imposed by media companies, or to the simple human factors that go into watching video.'"
We wouldn't want to watch a full-length movie on this iPod
How many years ago was TV created, and how long after that was their Color. People improve ideas, the video ipod doesn't seem to be marketed as a "Buy me and you'll never need a tv again". I really don't think it will become people's primary mode of entertainment.
Of course then again.... how big is the PSP screen? I'm sure it's much bigger but by how much? And they are still able to mass sell DVD's made only for the PVP.
Just your everyday corporate code monkey.
Yes, but does it run LINUX?
oh, wait, let's make it harder..
Yes, but does it run KDE?
I don't know why the guy is that surprised. Apple lately has a reputation of making good products, minus some untested issues with first generation products like scratches on iPod Nano. But apple products for the last 4 years have been releasing good products. I would be more surprised if Apple released a very poor product. I think the guy probably has IBM Good and Apple Bad idea stuck in his head from the 80s
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I agree about watching videos on the computer. I have no intention to my a video iPod, but I'm using iTunes to catch up on episodes of some TV programs. The quality on my computer was great.
I'll probably delete the episodes soon to reclaim the space. I'll just write it off as rental price.
The joke is I can already do this on my palm Zaire only better. If it wasn't for battery life I could hold two movies on a 1 gig memory card. I already have trailers to the movies I shot and my CG reel on it. Not to mention my portfolio and several hundred stills and I haven't begun to fill the one gig memory card. The screen is larger than a video Ipod and has a good quality image. I wish they'd come up with an add on battery pack for them. The sound isn't bad through head phones. I'd love to be able to load a couple of films on a memory card for plane flights. Ipods are convienent but I like Palms for flexsibility. I even find myself using the built in camera quiter often. Handy devices.
I submitted a story yesterday (rejected :( ) about this article by Gary Krakow which tempers some of the iPod hysteria. I've met a number of folks (some of whom were musicians) that have bought iPods for their "cool" factor without examining all the features, limitations (no 16-bit 44KHz audio recording unless you install Linux), or the competition's offerings.
Archos has had a portable media device that records video/audio from analog inputs for a number of years now.
Nothing interesting to say...MUST...NOT...REPLY...ohtheheckwithit.
I can forgive Apple for discontinuing Firewire on the new iPods, but I can't forgive them for not including the charger in the box. I understand that the USB cable doubles as a charger, but I want to charge it in a hotel room, friends's house, etc. How much could that little charger possible cost Apple? 2-3 bucks? I'll stick with my 3rd gen until it dies, then I hope my existing accessories will still work on the newer iPods.
Can it play divx's/xvid's?
.m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
Nope.
From http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html
H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in
Even the Wall Street Journal editors think nothing of downloading and sharing TV shows. I think this pretty much reflects the average person's stance: it's just not a big deal.
IP owners sure have a tough battle ahead of them.
there's more than one way to do me.
For $399 plays videos such as Xvid, Divx. Can do pictures as well.
Official Site
Digital Life TV Review
Might be a worthy rival to the iPod.
"A diplomat is a man who always remembers a woman's birthday but never remembers her age." -Robert Frost
Maybe I really am crazy, but the article mentioned Quicktime Pro 7, and "various other encoders" as a means to create iPod playable video. The iPod plays H.264 Mpeg 4 video, would pspVideo9 not work just as well as QT Pro? If you encode a video into a 320x240 resolution clip, with a bitrate not higher than the 768KB per second, then wouldn't it work? I cannot test this idea yet, as my 60GB 5th gen iPod hasn't arrived yet, but it seems likely to work. Correct me if I am wrong. And also do you think VBR H.264 would be a problem for the new iPods?
This video format and conversion problem is a mess that will hold back the video iPod unless Apple fixes it by incorporating free, reliable, and easy video conversion in iTunes.
He's got a point. Quicktime Pro is a $30 upgrade no user should have to pay for just to do this job. iTunes can easily convert between MP3, AAC, WAV or AIFF -- it ought to do the same for MPG and MOV videos.
Apple should also include a stand with the video iPod, to get around the problem of holding the thing in viewing position for long periods.
This comment I don't get. It's supposed to be a portable video viewer, not a comfortable one.
If you can't afford a cheap notebook, you shouldn't be spending $300 on an MP3 player. The one is more important and has more utility and more bang-for-the-buck than the other.
An iPod Video is pure luxury. A notebook is, for many people, at least part necessity. It also has a potentially longer life, performs many more functions, etc.
If it comes down to (a) spending $300 on an iPod or (b)spending $999 on a notebook, and you can't afford (b), the best option is (c) IF YOU DON'T HAVE $999, YOU CANT SPARE $300.
You know, I've seen this high school student comment more than once. WTF? The only time I had in high school to do anything was at lunch. Don't you go to class? Study? Interface with people? Or is it this much vaunted "video iPod rulez" syndrome that makes it so great, even though it isn't?
--ngoy
Ask it this way: Seeing as how it's essentially teh same design that ALL iPods use, why does the Nano suffer exceptional scratching?
A: Because people stick it in their pants pocket with keys and change.
Sure, the iPod line has always been prone to cosmetic damage, that's by far my biggest gripe with the units. But the reason the nano was particularly suspect to thise was not because of construction, but becuase of form factor. Same reason my tablet PC gets teh screens scratched to hell; not because it's not scratch-resistant (it's far more so than many laptop screens), but because it's designed to be used with your palm resting on it and a pen tapping on it for hours at a time.
The iPod could compete with the PSP by replacing the screen/touch wheel version with a full sized touch screen.
t ml )
The touch screen could approximate the 16:9 format of HDTV.
The iPod 'Wheel' could be displayed when you touch the screen in a certain location. You could see a display of the original formatted screen/wheel.
After selecting a video to view, the wheel vanishes and gives you the whole side of the iPod in Widescreen mode.
They would need to boost the size of the battery by a couple of millimeters of thickness to get some more playtime with the bigger screen.
In addition to the widescreen format touch screen, the actual display elements could be Organic LED (OLED) if that would help produce a brighter picture and clearer display.
(See Epsons OLED: http://www.epson.co.in/aboutus/newscentre/OLED.sh
Some touch screen technologies could be even more sensitive than the current wheel technology.
Also, a icon list of videos (like in the new iTunes 6) could scroll down the screen in landscape mode, and then the user could touch the little icon to begin playing Christina Aguilera or the next episode of LOST, or watch Toy Story in it's original format.
That's the next logical step for the iPod, then it could simulate an HDTV type experience on a 4" screen.
Now, if they would only up the resolution to 1080p and add a Universal Dock to HDMI adapter, you could take your favorite movie over to your friend's house and watch your iPod play connected to their 42" Plasma HDTV!
But aren't divx and xvid just MPEG-4 video in an AVI wrapper
DiVX and xvid are the DiVX codec and the xvid codec (in an AVI wrapper)
What's that you say?
Did I stutter??? It's an iPod with Free Video Capabilities.
If you don't like the video aspect of it and just want an iPod that plays music, guess what? It still plays music! Just don't download any videos to it and you'll be fine.
People are missing the point that the new generation iPod is an improvement altogether: Thinner case and improved battery life.
THAT is crazy, I did NOT read that article either, but using pspVideo9 to create iPod videos is something that I have been wondering about for a while, and amazingly, I was right! It is possible. Awesome, free (LEGAL, as apposed to stealing QT7Pro) ways to make iPod vids.
Hopefully this will push QuckTime to be the standard format for internet video, like on websites and such. After all, if you are going to post content wouldn't you rather it be available on the most popular portable media player? If I never have to view another .WMV on my Mac I'll be happy.
Can it play ogg theora...?
Yes, Divx and Xvid are MPEG-4. H.264, however, is not the MPEG-4, as least not as you know it. H.264 is different, and far more complex than MPEG-4.
You'll have to re-encode videos, and H.264 encoding is very slow.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Watch your language kid. This is a sophisticated blog.
The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity....Calvin
On my iPod Mini, the songs are automatically synced the moment I plug it in the computer. No need to drag files around.
Well, I can unmount the Mini by dragging it to the Thrash. Or I can hit the nifty "Eject" button in Finder or iTunes. Or I can right-click the icon on the desktop and choose "Eject" from there. How else would you like to do it? There's already 4 different methods to remove the removable device.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
The only downside is that you don't get those trendy earbuds and...
Oh god, those earbuds. I cannot explain how much I loathe them. What is it that people find so aesthetic about them? Personally, I've taken to wearing the earbuds that came with my Samsung YP-MTetc-etc instead of my normal headphones just so that the blackness and more, shall we say, professional looking design of them can contrast with all the oddly cheap-looking white ones everyone else has attatched to their iPods.
At least the newer stuff since the minis have been partially-coloured (they still look like someone just put a plastic plate of colored plastic overtop of a fundamentally white iPod, though the nanos finally overcome that). Before, with the all-pure-white ones, it really showed off the mass-production monopoly thing. It felt like early Ford Motors inverted; I can just imagine Steve Jobs saying "They can have any color, as long as it's white."
I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!
but it supports Apple Lossless so if you care about quality rather than ideology you're fine. if you care about ideology then you'd find some other reason not to buy one anyway.
Have you tried to remove a removable device on a PC (say, an USB memory stick)? You need to go to a tiny icon on the task bar, use a contextual menu, and two crazy screens show up with non-intuitive options, etc. Ridiculous.
At least the MacOSX option is consistent.
Not if you don't want XP to spend the next five minutes whining at you for not wading through three different popup menus for the "Safely Remove Harware" wizard. Clicking Eject in iTunes is lovely in comparison.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Well, let's hope that there weren't any pending operations in the filesystem when you pull your device. Especially if your device is formatted with a non-journaling filesystem! Say good-bye to data integrity.
Filesystems always need to be unmounted before physically removing them. I hope there haven't been too many times when you've lost data and blamed it on the hardware (or you haven't discovered it yet).
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)