Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Vivisects A Video iPod
phaedo00 writes "The guys over at Ars Technica have put together another one of their infamous reviews. This time they tackle the video iPod and give it a proper review, complete with vivisection and a discussion of the guts." From the article: "It wouldn't be an Ars iPod review without a dissection (or in this case, a vivisection since the patient survived) and discussion. Talking about what changes were made on the exterior of the device is fine and well, but the real interesting stuff--to me anyways--is found within. As the old adage says, 'it's what's on the inside that counts.' With that, I'm dismantling this iPod in the name of science. All went well: I was able to put to back together and it's working fine." An interesting counter-point to previous coverage.
/. disects a server........with a hatchet
my ipod isn't a living animal. i think dissection would be a more appropriate word.
a vivisection since the patient survived
Vivisection means you cut on a living animal. Not that it survived the process.
Just sayin.
... it may be working now, but I think they may have invalidated the warranty (^^)
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
You have chosen to open "video-ipod.ars" which is an unrecognized filetype. Save to Disk?
Actually, dissect is a synonym for "analyze," which in this case is appropriate; however, when we say dissect, we usually wish to evoke images of tissue and high school biology. The definition of dissect has no reference to anything dying. Vivisect, on the other hand, means "to cut a body open while still alive," which means that it has to be alive in the first place. Given that the video iPod was "dead" for a part of the procedure (can't run it while it isn't connected to battery, for example), dissect may be more appropriate. However, given that this is a gadget and not a living being, I would have chosen "disassembles" or "takes apart." Vivisect just sounds cool, though. That said, was anything learned that wasn't in apple's literature? Have we now any enjoyable hacks for the video iPod?
I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
Your browser should ignore the file extension and instead look at the content-type header.
/reviews/hardware/video-ipod.ars HTTP/1.0
A la :
cmd> GET
cmd> Accept: image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, */*
cmd> User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows 98; DigExt)
cmd> Host: arstechnica.com
hdr> HTTP/1.1 200 OK
hdr> Connection: close
hdr> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:00:44 GMT
hdr> Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0
hdr> MicrosoftOfficeWebServer: 5.0_Pub
hdr> X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
hdr> X-AspNet-Version: 1.1.4322
hdr> Cache-Control: private
hdr> Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
hdr> Content-Length: 16964
I think that the stress testing in Ars technica's iPod nano review should be done on the video iPod as well. I clicked that link expecting to see an ipod getting run over and all I get is it being pulled to pieces.
This is what I call a proper review.
I must've skimmed over that fact in all the previous video iPod announcements, so ignore this or mark redundant if you feel so inclined. Ars seems to attribute it to decreasing the amount of space needed for the FW chipset. I'm glad Apple's still working to decrease the size, and I KNOW it's not that vital... but losing firewire seems a little sad.
Yes I know there's no rational reason for that (and they had good reasons to move on), but hey, there it is. Maybe it stems directly from my original experience with the 2G iPod (my first one) where you could just jam any old cable into the huge built in FW port on the device.
http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review3298.html
These guys actually posted their last night, worth a read too.
Instead of fostering discussion about the Video iPod, in which I get to hear bitching that it doesn't play Xvid/Divx/Grand Ogg Tarkin, I get to hear semantics arguments about why the word "vivisection" is not appropriate. Boo.
For more information, click here.
You're making Dvorak cry!
Can't you write about, I don't know, tabs in IE7 or something? Who wants to hear about the multi-billion selling iPod? Isn't there another Windows vulnerability you can write about? Maybe another non-functioning "PlayForSure" device or removed Vista feature that already exists in OS X?
I knew it! You're clearly biased!
"Sufferin' succotash."
..... is the this Vivisection of an iPod complete with a cost breakdown of the components and an estimation of what Apple makes off of each iPod.
d f
https://jefferies.bluematrix.com/docs/pdf/31086.p
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
You can ride and bike or walk listening to music from an iPod but you can't do those things with video. I am not so sure this is the right format for video.
Vivisect? They took the device apart while it was powered on? I think not, so it was dissected.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
you guys are slashdotting my community (Ars). simmah down now!
werd to yo motha, muh nizzle.
The article mentions that the iPod's video codec chip is capable of decoding 640x480 MPEG-4-SP, not just the 480x480 that Apple has claimed.
Has anyone actually tried getting a 640x480 video to play on one of these?
I see that ASP.NET conversion worked out real well for them...
There are the iPod, iPod nano and iPod shuffle. It just so happens that the biggest ones also play video.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
Dang Ars is getting destroyed! Hangin in there but at the slowest I have ever had it load. Silly slashdotters.
Mod +Inf Insightful/Funny/Whoop Ass
---- Didn't RTFA...
The reviewer on Ars tested video output on a standard definition CRT.
My suspicion is that output from an iPod on a modern hi-definition TV will be somewhat worse due to the upsampling that almost all modern TVs use to play back their programming at the TV's lowest native resolution. This lowest native resolution is still higher than standard definition TV.
My two cents worth - probably an inflated value.
It is clearly labelled this way in the Apple Store, and everything Apple has released states it "now supports video", not "video is our new bag, baby!"
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
'I would have chosen "disassembles"'
No disassemble. Number 5 is alive.
I could almost stare at it forever and keep finding new and interesting things to say about it.
The Firewire protocol was designed for video
Pretty much every test shows Firewire 400 outperforming USB2, despite the 400 vs 480 Mbit theoretical speed difference
The performance difference is significant (at least 10%, and often more), and it goes up with bigger files, like video
You would think that a video iPod would be the place you would definitely want Firewire, at least as an option.
My daughter is getting ready to buy herself an iPod, and I may have to tell her to look for one of the previous generation - her desktop at home is a hand-me-down G4 466 MHz, which has Firewire but no USB2. Yeah, I can shove a USB2 card in it, but still...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I'd like to point out that it is still an iPod, and a good music player. You can still use it for audio when running or on your bike, or like me when you put your bike on the front of the bus and board it you can now watch video while on the bus. Once I get back to the dorm I can hook it to my TV and stereo system. But the point is it is still a music player, just now one that can play moving pictures with sound.
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
Apple should have instead installed a video camera or digital photo camera instead. Maybe both.
Check out the Olympus mrobe Mp3 player with 20 gig., 1.2 Megpixel camera and 3inch screen. $199 at some stores on sale. Some have seen it for $150.
Trying again to find an answer to this one.
If anyone has an iPod with video please give this a try and let me know if it works.
In QT Pro copy and paste a selection from a movie into a new movie. Save it as the smaller option at the bottom (Reference movie in QT7, it had a different name before). Then on the iPod test that both movies play fine. The reference is sort of like a bookmark into the other movie. I have a few thousand of these and the new iPod would be very useful if it supports this.
Thanks.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Anyone who doesn't think the iPod video is cool can kiss my ars.
Right... the new iPod will sell 20 times the volume that the Olympus mRobe (what the heck?) will sell, but making it was a mistake. :)
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
They should take apart a PC. I've always wondered what's inside.
Finance tutorials and more! Understandfinance
The biggest tradeoff with this first-gen video ipod, imo, is the lack of firewire I/O. While it does allow the unit to be thinner and have a longer battery life, not to mention a lower production cost, it also reduces its appeal for Mac geeks by removing the ability to boot your Mac from it. The real-world file transfer rate of USB 2.0 is also about 10-15% slower than FW400. Mac-specific utility has apparently taken a back seat in iPod design priorities. Not what I would call a disaster for Mac users, but it points to an unfortunate, but also possibly an inevitable, sea change in Apple's tradition of treating Mac users as first-class citizens vis-a-vis the PC lumpen.
It's just a fifth generation iPod with video. Video is not its primary function, if it was, then it'd be an iPod video. God damnit, people need to stop spreading misinformation on things.
Since the patient survived, it clearly was operated on when it was living. Therefore, it does logically follow that the patient surviving implies that the operation was a vivisection. Your statement is correct, but the OP's statement was as well.
Thanks for rendering my AirClick useless.
Even better, thanks for making USING the iPod on the go inconvenient. Now just to pause or switch tracks I'd have to pull my iPod out of my pocket, instead of just hitting a button.
Thanks for slowly stripping away every nice addon for it, and charging $40+ for small ones.
My iPod upgrade is perpetually on hold, until they add a remote control option (preferrably wireless) back.
"Slashdot vivisects Ars Technica"
Spoon!
An alternative meaning...
2 : minute or pitiless examination or criticism
As soon as I figure out how to sync it with my TiVo, I'll be set.
Speed and security is your goal, for the speed test visit our new optimized site at: http://www.arstechnica.com/
We're now just over halfway through the Apple Product Cycle!
"Nerd porn threads appear in the Mac forums. Some lunatic with too much time and money on his hands disassembles the new device down to the bare, soldered components and posts pictures."
Possible Slashdot poll: what will be the "minor, rarely occurring flaw" that affects the video-playing iPod?
o Bad battery life
o E-Z-Scratch screen
o Doesn't play video
o Causes every molecule in your body to explode at the speed of light
o CowboyNeal
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Can someone tell me whether the TV episodes in iTMS are country restricted, or are they available to all countries that iTMS have a storefront for?
-- Hot User Submitted deals, Discounts and Coupons
But wouldn't it be cool if I could take a consumer-grade video camera and record straight to my iPod? One reason I don't do more home video is the annoying import-from-camera-tape-at-real-time step. I hope Steve is keeping that capability in mind for future video iPods - an iPod camera connector would be something I'd pay extra for.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever do stuff like this?
HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
I was be able to put to back together
too bad he wasn't be able to put to english together
DRM, lack of WMA compatiblity, ITMS files can't play on other players, "this here no name plastic player from China is cheaper and plays Ogg and... yadda yadda yadda".
OK, sit down, shut up and pay attention.
The overwhelming majority of people who buy iPods and KEEP buying iPods don't care a fat rat's ass about ANY OF THAT. Not one little bit do they care.
They want something that simply works. They don't care about ITMS DRM. They DO care about the fact that they can get music they want right now for a modest sum. They know they'll get a quality file.
They buy iPods because the interface is simple and it works well.
They buy iPods because they are small, sturdy and hold an amazing amount of music.
The overwhelming majority of the buying public is who Apple is targetting the iPod line to.
Not you smelly Linux hippies with your handmade machines and having to config it. And then you have to write some shell scripts. Update your RPMs. You have to partition your drives. And patch your kernel. Compile your binaries. Check your version dependencies. Probably do that once or twice.
Just to install an MP3 player.(and after all that, you STILL don't have more friends!)
You are not the consumer Apple cares about.
You have never been the consumer Apple cares about.
You will never be the consumer Apple cares about.
Get over yourself and welcome your new, Jonathan Ive designed overlords!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
While the loss of firewire is no doubt tragic to some people, to the overwhelming majority it's really no big deal -- comparable transfer rate with USB 2.0, and virtually any computer built recently has loads of USB 2.0 ports.
IMHO, the greatest misfeature of iPods is their continued lack of a user-replaceable battery. This has been a problem since the first-generation model, and still hasn't been addressed on the fifth. The "send us your iPod and we'll replace the battery for you" solution is mighty inconvenient and expensive, especially for those of us who don't live in the US.
Besides the advantage of being able to zip over to the local electronics store for a new battery when the original one stops holding a charge, it would also allow people to own more than one good battery, thus providing a simple way to extend the effective battery life... battery died? Just pop in a fresh one.
This seems like a huge value-add that would be really easy and inexpensive to implement. I know I won't be buying an iPod until they do.
Frankenstein was sewn together. Not cut apart.
Umm, Frankenstein's Monster was made of random body parts, not the Doctor himself!
Poor old Peter Cushing...
I have a question for anyone who has tested this on an HDTV (40" or larger). Is the video even remotely good? I presently have one of these attached to my TV, since it support 1080i it looks rather good most the time, even with videos with lower resolutions and compression it often destroys watching my shows that only air on SDTV.
I have been wanting to upgrade to a new iPod (own a 30GB 3G) because of the click-wheel and for some more size. However, I was interested in the quality of video on HDTV because of the low resolution allowed and the composite and s-video outputs. While it would not get much use on my own HDTV, it would possibly see use on some of my friends TVs and the like.
Btw, anyone who is looking for a media device to stream video, I recommend the Buffalo device I discussed above. The support for 720p and 1080i is very nice (component outputs) and it has proven to even decode surround sound streams in encoded videos. My only complains were lack of WPA support for wireless and no DVI/HDMI output, but hey at least it plays nearly everything I have with some very minor exceptions (trouble with some subtitles in anime, but that is more how my TV displays images a bit below the screen at times to save from burn-in).
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
A HUGE feature IMHO that Apple and others are leaving out is that these new ipods record high quality stereo from a mic, into wav files. After recording, simply mount your ipod then drag the file to your desktop.
Voice recording settings:
Low (22.05 KHz, mono)
High (44.1 KHz, stereo)
Not you smelly Linux hippies with your handmade machines and having to config it. And then you have to write some shell scripts. Update your RPMs. You have to partition your drives. And patch your kernel. Compile your binaries. Check your version dependencies. Probably do that once or twice.
Chris Tucker-
You seem to know a bit too much about this techncal bumbo-jumbo for someone that's suppose to be cool. I don't think you're one of us, you're just a smelly hippy in mac-cool clothing! Get out of here, poser.
Apple now has a certification program. All accessories that have a "Made for iPod" logo on them will work with all iPods Apple ever makes. Apple gets royalties. Creative has a similar certification program which is free. But in any case, this problem should not occur in the future as long as you buy certified accessories.
The video out is 640x480, but only photos can use the full res.
Videos can be up to 480x480 if they are MPEG-4 (although some other combinations work too, like 640x336), and are output at the resolution they are encoded at, not just at 320x240.
Also, it's not wider. It just plain isn't. It's easy to verify, it's ridiculous that someone would do a review and get that wrong.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
608x352
and
640x336
at MPEG-4 simple profile (QT compatible).
Both work great both on the LCD and on the video out, and are not downsampled to 320x240 for the video out.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You need to get a better HDTV.
There is no good reason that video should look worse on an HDTV than on an SDTV.
SDTV looks quite good (well, as good as SD gets) on my 1368x768 HDTV.
Early HDTVs did a terrible job rendering SD signals, but that was just becuase they sucked, not because it can't be done well.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Discounting HDTV, the "Widescreen" DVD's are still technically formatted at a 4:3 aspect ratio on the disc. The only difference is that video is "squished" down from the 16:9 widescreen ratio. Video material that is flagged as widescreen and sent to a widescreen TV will be "unsquished" by the TV and stretched back out to fill the screen without black bars. On a standard aspect tv, the playback device must do this unsquishing itself and add the black bars to bring it back to a 4:3 ratio. The purpose of this setting in the iPod is probably the same as it is in a DVD player -- to tell it whether it should pass the video and flag is is (Widescreen = yes), or unsquish, add the black bars, and strip the flag (Widescreen = no). On programming that already is the standard 4:3 ratio this will make no difference.
It was clearly just a joke moron. Don't take it literally.
Uncompressed video is usually at least 250Mb/s (720*576 (resolution) * 25 (frames pr second (PAL)) * 8 (bit) * 3 (colors)).
- jeps -
Low resolution video will not be as clear on HDTV sets as it is on normal CRTs.
Thanks for stating the obvious.
Check out the Olympus mrobe Mp3 player with 20 gig., 1.2 Megpixel camera and 3inch screen. $199 at some stores on sale. Some have seen it for $150.
Too bad it doesn't do video, either recording or playback. And from what I'm reading online, the 1.2 (cellphone quality) megapixel camera isn't much more than a gimmick. If Apple were to stick a camera on the iPod, they'd want to make it a quality one--and there's not much room left on an iPod to do that.
Other miscellany - Screen lock.
"The first new application is the screen lock, which will be useful to those of you who are reluctant to store your entire schedule and contact database around where anyone could steal a peek."
Or naughty movies.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not an Apple-hater -- far from it. I use a Mac at work (designer) all day long, and you'd have to to pry my PowerBook® from my cold dead hands and all, but anyone that thinks it's earth-shattering is more than slightly behind the times. I've been watching video (divx, xvid, you name it), listening to mp3's *and* oggs for almost 2 years now on my Treo 600. It's also my cell phone, calendar, addressbook, yada-yada... I can even use it to ssh, vnc, ftp, or connect to Samba shares on my server at home and run several game console emulators on it (NES, GB, SG, etc.). The video iPod does have more disk space (although I've never had problems filling up my Treo's 2 Gig expansion card -- which card I can swap out for more space, if I ever *do* need it). Another key advantage is that my Treo 600 is also a digital camera and can even be a video camera. I use it to take short home movies of my kids when we're at the park or fair, or whatever and then export to mpegs. Not that the video iPod isn't cool and all, I'd just like to see more honesty in reporting the originality of the feature set.
---
[I won't even get into the semantic debate that has raged in this thread already]
I was rather dissappointed by the lack of detailed images, and details, that resulted from the taking apart of the iPod. The reviewer described his awe at how nicely it all fit together, and the innovation that went into getting all that technology into such a small package. But, aside from a listing of the major ICs, and a couple of unmarked images showing snippets of PCB, it was really difficult to get a sense of how much and how well the circuitry is crammed in there.
The original iPod had the Wolfson 8721 which cannot record at all.
Other iPods had chips that could record, but no reason to believe the lines were even hooked to anything.
So, I would say that just because you say the hardware supports it doesn't even mean the components inside support it, let alone them being hooked up so that the hardware even actually supports it.
Also, Apple so far as only unlocked 16-bit monaural 8KHz WAV recording, not "low-quality 22.1kHz" (you meant 22.05KHz, BTW) recording.
1. 40-60GB capability in the ipod mini format 2. 24h+ REAL battery life 3. FM Radio and transmitter built in 4. Wireless connectivity so I can use said iPOD as a remote control for itunes on my pc when I walk into the house (and of course sync wirelessly). Other than that I adore the little bugger. Take it with me every day. The video features IMHO are unecessary for 90% of users. This just follows the incredibly stupid trend of companies assuming consumers will pay good money to watch shows they can get for free on TV on a screen the size of a postage stamp.
What a worthless review. Ars Technica once again shows us its commitment to the trivial side of technology:
My first impressions upon seeing photos of the new iPod was that it looked, well... awkward. For some inexplicable reason, the iPod looked wider than ever and I kept thinking to myself, "How could Steve sign off on such a weird diversion from the tried and true look of the original iPod?"
OH NOES! The Video ipod has a much larger screen that will improve the video watching experience... BUT IT LOOKS WEIRD! I CAN'T BE SEEN WITH THAT!
Yeah, so, pretty much as we all expected. Ars Technica reviews fashion accessories, not technology. They should call themselves Ars Fashionista.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
IMHO, Apple made one huge mistake with the video playback on the new iPod. ANYONE can tell you that 4:3 video is on it's way out, and 16:9 (and up!) video is already VERY popular.
Even now, while TV shows are still being broadcast in 4:3 over analog, the feed from the cameras, and the (H)DTV broadcasts are 16:9 for practically all shows. In addition, the pictures from digital cameras made in the past several years tend to be closer to a 16:9 aspect than a 4:3 one, making a widescreen better for viewing still pictures as well.
It seems that Apple is planning for the past, not the future... not even the PRESENT!
If I was behind the iPod, the dial would have dropped all the way to the bottom, and it and the screen would be rotated 90 degrees, to be operated horizontally. Then, widen the screen to a 16:9 ratio. THEN it would be a practical portable video device.
How does it more comfortably fit in your hand, vertically or horizontally? It's certainly more stable when standing on it's own (eg. on a table) if it's horizontal, rather than vertical.
Of course, this is just IMHO. I wouldn't even consider buying one of these for video, because cheap laptops have better capacity, FAR larger screens, play practically any video/audio codec, and can be used for more than just playing videos.
Music playback... is debatable.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
All video ipod looks good, but I wish people could only get their hands on one. ... nothing there. A day later, the reference finally shows up on thier site ... stating they received it a day after Apple say they received it ... something isnt right. Hold on a sec, it says 'next day delivery' ... woohoo again. The next day arrives and it doesnt turn up. I wait another day...nothing. Its time to phone the delivery company to see what happened. Turns out the shipment is actually coming from China and its going to take a week to get here! ... its easier and quicker!
I ordered a 60gb version as soon as they appeared on the apple site (uk)...I had 5-7 days to wait. A few days later I get an email to say it shipped...woohoo. Woohoo indeed, until I noticed it was TNT that was shipping it...not my favourite courier.
I go ahead and check the shipment on the couriers site for tracking information
I think I'll just buy from Ebay next time
ROFLcopter..... definitely ROFLcopter.