Advertisement

(3 replies) #1 Posted by rocks1985 on 18 Jul 2004 - 08:52

maybe the next revision will have a color screen...

#1.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:09

Hope so!

#1.2 Posted by moloko on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:02

An ipod stays in your pocket most of the time. What use would a color screen be then? Besides more battery usage. while it would be cool to have color screen for album covers and stuff like that. I rather have 12 hour battery life.

#1.3 Posted by Jstphish on 19 Jul 2004 - 04:33

QUOTE

An ipod stays in your pocket most of the time. What use would a color screen be then? Besides more battery usage. while it would be cool to have color screen for album covers and stuff like that. I rather have 12 hour battery life.

I completely agree. A color screen is just about as useless as media player skins are. Personally, I'd rather have it last longer than know what the cover of the album that the current song that is playing looks like.

(1 reply) #2 Posted by Adster on 18 Jul 2004 - 08:57

Looks kinda interesting...

Isnt the 'centered headphone port" on the current 3g iPods? It is on mine...

#2.1 Posted by configure on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:06

You know what? That's right. What was those guys at Engadget talking about then? :/

(3 replies) #3 Posted by Zetter on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:05

sweeeeeet
imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!

#3.1 Posted by inziga on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:42

QUOTE (#3.0)

sweeeeeet imagine a beowulf cluster of these things!

Uh...Wrong website. I think you're looking for this

#3.2 Posted by Zetter on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:53

I think I go there to much

#3.3 Posted by inziga on 18 Jul 2004 - 18:49

(1 reply) #4 Posted by The Napster on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:09

Great, i find the ipods get uglier. I liked the look of the last one.

#4.1 Posted by configure on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:10

Me too.. I like the idea of intergrating buttons into the wheels but the colors are awful

#5 Posted by jymi on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:34

hate the look of the new ipods, and it makes me jealous 'cause i just got mine.

#6 Posted by TranceSphere on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:35

#7 Posted by pctuk on 18 Jul 2004 - 09:59

This is not a flame, but I've never really thought the original iPods were that great, design-wise. Sure, the wheel is a great innovation, but it just doesn't look good. The mini-iPods are a big improvement, the colour is much needed.

#8 Posted by R-Style on 18 Jul 2004 - 10:24

Cool Picture of Steve Jobs.....

(4 replies) #9 Posted by Schmoove on 18 Jul 2004 - 10:44

Brushed steel scrollwheel?? Yuk
Maybe if they make a whole iPod in brushed steel it would look good, but not on the white plastic.

#9.1 Posted by digistil on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:14

i couldn't agree more....it looks incredibly cheap. Which is ironic as it's one of the most expensive mp3 players available.

Apple come on, is this a joke? Get John Boy outta there...he's lost his touch.

#9.2 Posted by jerry on 18 Jul 2004 - 18:47

I think Apple is heading towards turning the iPod completely into the Brushed Metal look. Then it wouid go nice with the powerbook and the new displays. Maybe some time down the road, iPod may also be divided into two categories like white entry-level (similar to iBook look) and Brushed metal (for Powerbooks).

It dunno why you guys simply negate anything before we even have a good enough picture. Did you guys buy an iPod recently ? BUUURRRRNNNN !

#9.3 Posted by [moribundi] on 18 Jul 2004 - 22:50

I'm waiting for the iLump...just a solid chunk of brushed steel with an Apple logo on it. It'd sell like hotcakes.

Oh, and white earbuds...just because.

#9.4 Posted by mister_eman on 19 Jul 2004 - 03:57

now a completely brushed steel ipod would fit in with....let me see...power book, displays, power mac, and by the sounds of it the new imac, also maybe the ipod mini (thats metal isnt it?). it seems that apple is heading away from white and into a brushed steel world.

#10 Posted by bingham. on 18 Jul 2004 - 11:31

I want to see a colour picture

(12 replies) #11 Posted by ~*McoreD*~ on 18 Jul 2004 - 11:55

Come on Apple, you gotta support WMA.

#11.1 Posted by kitchenutensils on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:20

... or not

#11.2 Posted by RickF on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:26

Why would they want to support WMA?

#11.3 Posted by angrybrit on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:13

Support for WMA in unnecessary. Just like support for OGG audio files. Very very few people needs those file format support.

I'd prefer them to add FM Radio instead (so that people could listen the game when coming home from work.)

#11.4 Posted by bogd on 18 Jul 2004 - 20:07

why support the enemy?

#11.5 Posted by [moribundi] on 18 Jul 2004 - 22:53

Maybe because it might be a selling point for some people? Covering all the bases, especially for a company with such a meager market share of computer sales would be a wise thing. Even more so when you consider how substantial a revenue source the iPod is for Apple. More like an iLifepreserver.

#11.6 Posted by STV on 19 Jul 2004 - 01:55

If apple opened support for WMA on their iPod, I would save up to buy one. i have all of my music encoded in WMA. I guess until then, my ViewSonic Pocket PC (and 256MB SD Card) will have to do.

STV

#11.7 Posted by mister_eman on 19 Jul 2004 - 03:59

apple will already let you convert unprotected wma to mp3 or aac with itunes 4.6 so whats the point?

#11.8 Posted by STV on 19 Jul 2004 - 04:36

i dont like aac or mp3. i like wma. its that simple, plus, I dont want to re-rip all of my songs to mp3 or aac. i like them the way they are.

STV

#11.9 Posted by Himosan on 19 Jul 2004 - 05:10

I ain't buying it. No one I know can consistently even tell the difference from aac and wma (not "those are different" but "that is a wma encoding".

Being attached to a lossy format is just ...

#11.10 Posted by macrosslover on 19 Jul 2004 - 06:47

i'd buy an ipod as well if they supported wma, but let them shoot themselves in the foot.

and people need to stop referring to MS, wma, and everything else non-Apple as the enemy. it's 2004, all that childish crap is over. everybody else can be professional about things, why can't you all??

IMO there's not a valid business reason that Apple can give that prevents them from supporting WMA. they can't say it would undercut out itunes sales because people would then buy music from the wma stores. since they really make no money on the store anyway, it wouldn't be a huge loss, plus that doesn't happen now. people are already paying higher price for the ipod and going to the itunes store as well, why would they simply up and leave if the ipod support wma.

if they support wma, they could make the claim (which would be true this time) to be the first player to support every format...even ogg if that add that. that's a great business selling point IMO

#11.11 Posted by slysy on 19 Jul 2004 - 09:08

QUOTE (#11.10)

if they support wma, they could make the claim (which would be true this time) to be the first player to support every format...even ogg if that add that. that's a great business selling point IMO

Iriver already support MP3 WMA and Ogg

#11.12 Posted by superfula on 19 Jul 2004 - 09:29

Get back on topic or warnings will be liberally handed out. Take the wma discussion elsewhere

(1 reply) #12 Posted by Major_Tom on 18 Jul 2004 - 11:58

Here are 3 pages from the new Newsweek
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5457432/site/newsweek
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5457472/site/newsweek
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5457473/site/newsweek
Enjoy!

The new ipod article!!!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5457434/site/newsweek/

The top of the line (40 gig) is going to be 399 and there is no mention of a 60 giger. There will not be any colors.

#12.1 Posted by ..i on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:28

Those links aren't working anymore,
Did anybody mirror the pages?

#13 Posted by iomayho on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:25

i really like the new look of the ipod...., much nicer than the 3rd gen design..

(3 replies) #14 Posted by Toxikk on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:27

i hate how they always make it better after the last time it got better.

leave it alone for a few years so that people can use them before they are obselete.

#14.1 Posted by iomayho on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:34

that is true...!
i'm afraid of getting one a new one because of that reason....!!

#14.2 Posted by Jason on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:36

Just because a new one is out doesn't mean you have to have it or yours stops working.



Last edited by 9969 on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:43

#14.3 Posted by bogd on 18 Jul 2004 - 20:08

QUOTE

Just because a new one is out doesn't mean you have to have it or yours stops working.

oh, believe me, it does.

(6 replies) #15 Posted by absolutemaxpayne.co.uk on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:32

http://www.spymac.com/gallery/show_photo.php?picid=200466

RAHHHHHHH!

#15.1 Posted by indiedude on 18 Jul 2004 - 12:56

ah, now that's a nice picture of it, although what are apple thinking with that backlight?! a marine blue, it looks disghusting. A nice soft blue like I have in my iPod would be best, I got mine when it first came out and my backlight is only tinted blue and i love it, much nicer than my friends most recent dark blue LED's. I wonder if old ipod users will get a software/firmware update... probly not.

#15.2 Posted by brn2prgrm on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:00

Sorry guys, but if you had any decent common sense, you would realize that is not the real thing, just a photoshop mock up, just like everything else on SpyMac nowadays.

#15.3 Posted by absolutemaxpayne.co.uk on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:01

If that looks like everything else that has been posted then who cares?

#15.4 Posted by Sim31 on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:28

Yeah, I dont care either, if its supose to look like that on the revised one then I dont care either!

#15.5 Posted by indiedude on 18 Jul 2004 - 18:32

err, if YOU had any common sence you'd realise that the image there isn't photoshopped. it's far too lifelike.

#15.6 Posted by brn2prgrm on 18 Jul 2004 - 19:08

Just because it looks lifelike doesn't mean the darn thing is real, believe it or not, there are some creative people when it comes to photoshop. Oh, still don't believe me? Then read this page: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=939357

Last edited by 2494 on 18 Jul 2004 - 19:14

#16 Posted by aaron901 on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:15

looks like i'm gonna get myself a new iPod.

(1 reply) #17 Posted by Confuser on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:33

I ain't gonna buy an iPod for this reason: The battery only lasts 8 hours. I preffer to use a portable disc player with mp3 support. The one I use is 50 hours battery life and when the batteries are down I simply change them and put them in the charger. To listen to my music I use CD-RW so I can change my playlist as I wish. So on one CD I'm good for hours of music.

With this you don't need an iPod (I paid $120 CAD), altough I am a Windows user my main mp3 player is iTunes. I like it a lot.

#17.1 Posted by jasondefaoite on 18 Jul 2004 - 23:05

May or may not help you, but the new iPod's battery life is rated for 12 hours.

#18 Posted by Confuser on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:37

I ain't gonna buy an iPod for this reason: The battery only lasts 8 hours. I preffer to use a portable disc player with mp3 support. The one I use is 50 hours battery life and when the batteries are down I simply change them and put them in the charger. To listen to my music I use CD-RW so I can change my playlist as I wish. So on one CD I'm good for hours of music.

With this you don't need an iPod (I paid $120 CAD), altough I am a Windows user my main mp3 player is iTunes. I like it a lot.

(2 replies) #19 Posted by brn2prgrm on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:44

Well guys, according to an article on Newsweek, the new iPod will last for 12 hours, thanks to new power management and efficiency.

#19.1 Posted by meamog on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:47

I think that just sold me.

#19.2 Posted by callanish on 19 Jul 2004 - 06:25

So, if the only reason the battery life has been improved is because of software management and not larger battery related, then why can't they apply that same efficiency to the other ipods or the mini to get 12 hours out of them?

(1 reply) #20 Posted by aoeu on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:45

Drop the price, then I'll consider buying it.

#20.1 Posted by configure on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:48

They did, by a hundred dollars.

(1 reply) #21 Posted by Zimbo on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:49

Drop that damn price and i might consider ignoring it a bit less

#21.1 Posted by sadatkarim on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:58

Read the article dammit!!

(7 replies) #22 Posted by JohnO on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:56

# Longer battery life (50%) through more efficient method of power conservation.
# Increased averaged play time, now at 12 hours.
# Multiple On-The-Go playlist support
# Ability to delete songs off the playlist
# Users will now be given a choice to play their tunes at 25% slower or faster.

if we dont have a few of those ill be mad

especially the power

#22.1 Posted by icecaveman on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:52

Sounds like you own a Creative player, AFAIK they are the only ones that have "time scaling" You should wait for Nomad Touch.

#22.2 Posted by kagaku on 18 Jul 2004 - 18:06

QUOTE (#22.0)

# Longer battery life (50%) through more efficient method of power conservation. # Increased averaged play time, now at 12 hours. # Multiple On-The-Go playlist support # Ability to delete songs off the playlist # Users will now be given a choice to play their tunes at 25% slower or faster. if we dont have a few of those ill be mad especially the power

Gasp! I should upgrade!

Oh wait, my Rio Karma already does all that, with a 16-18 hour battery life and OGG Vorbis/FLAC support to boot.

Well, maybe not the 25% slower/faster feature, but who honestly uses that?

#22.3 Posted by Adster on 18 Jul 2004 - 23:07

QUOTE (#22.2)

Oh wait, my Rio Karma already does all that, with a 16-18 hour battery life and OGG Vorbis/FLAC support to boot.

Woah! The Rio Karma does ALL THAT? Seriously, do you know how many people reading this thread care? After scientifically calculating it I've come to the conclusion of zero.

Go troll somewhere else.

#22.4 Posted by Wolfy_nailedyourmother on 19 Jul 2004 - 02:28

welll... since this is a thread about new portable audio technology, players, and their features, then someone mentioning a rio karma (along with what is can do) hardly qualifies as 'rtrolling'

#22.5 Posted by Adster on 19 Jul 2004 - 03:03

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion here was the new iPod and it's features.

#22.6 Posted by kagaku on 19 Jul 2004 - 04:57

QUOTE (#22.5)

I was under the impression that the topic of discussion here was the new iPod and it's features.

I'm just pointing out that these features and more are available elsewhere.

#22.7 Posted by Soleen on 19 Jul 2004 - 18:55

Thank you Kagaku, I will check out Rio Karma as well. Since i am choosing an MP3 player for myself.

#23 Posted by sadatkarim on 18 Jul 2004 - 13:57

Cant wait till theyre released!!

(1 reply) #24 Posted by chacho on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:15

looks good, but i dont need 20g of storage...15 or less would be fine, depending on the price. some people just dont have that much music..

#24.1 Posted by sadatkarim on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:54

mini.

#25 Posted by bingham. on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:24

Well they said its not a better battery, its just a different way the battery saves energy

(1 reply) #26 Posted by vilent_ape on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:32

damb!!!!!!! i just orded my ipod 2day

#26.1 Posted by configure on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:44

cancel it?

(4 replies) #27 Posted by Joseph_01 on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:43

$399 for 40GB, and $299 for 20GB???

Still overpriced!

#27.1 Posted by Bling3k12 on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:06

the 20 & 40GB both dropped $100.

#27.2 Posted by Dayon on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:08

Personally, I'd rather get the Zen Touch <drools all over the keyboard>

#27.3 Posted by angrybrit on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:17

The new iPods starting at 299$ US is a bargain. The competition is not even in the game.

Cheaper, more storage and better battery life. I want one.

#27.4 Posted by kagaku on 19 Jul 2004 - 04:59

<!--NeoquoteBegin--><center><table width=90% border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=1><tr><td><font class=darkfont>QUOTE (#27.3)</font></td></tr><tr><td><table width=100% bgcolor=white border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 style="border: 1px solid #90A0B0"><tr><td>The new iPods starting at 299$ US is a bargain. The competition is not even in the game.

Cheaper, more storage and better battery life. I want one.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></center><!--NeoquoteEnd-->
Rio Karma

The competition is $50 cheaper shipped and has more features. Longer battery life too.

#28 Posted by Hills420 on 18 Jul 2004 - 14:55

pretty sweet. You can always use the extra storage as HD space. I copy files to my ipod all the time.

(1 reply) #29 Posted by [M] on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:02

im saving up for an ipod, but im waiting till it gets better, but im afraid that wehni do get one, a better one gets released soon after

#29.1 Posted by absolutemaxpayne.co.uk on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:13

Just technology i'm afraid. I got my P4 'B' revision like 1 month before the 'C' revisions were announced. I was a bit n00b then unfortunately.

(1 reply) #30 Posted by briangw on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:13

No thanks, I'll take my 16 hour iRiver with LCD remote. Much cheaper, anyway.

#30.1 Posted by Wolfy_nailedyourmother on 19 Jul 2004 - 02:30

Amen. I love my 40GB version. Mmmmm,,,

#31 Posted by rhaleuk on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:32

So when will these be released? Actually on Monday?

(8 replies) #32 Posted by QuantumTrickery on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:33

iRiver was the biggest mistake I ever made. Yeah it was cheaper, and it felt like it. Extremely clunky, poorly built, and lasted just as long. Went through 3 units before I gave up on it. I'll be picking this up for sure. Looks like Apple's complete dominance of the hdd based players will continue, and for good reason.

#32.1 Posted by briangw on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:37

I've had mine for close to a year now. No problems and it does everything it says it does. Maybe you had refurbished models?

#32.2 Posted by tomaras on 19 Jul 2004 - 01:35

My iRiver HP140 works great. In addition to a 16 hour battery life it allows me to record uncompressed wave and MP3 which I use professionally as a back up recorder and it supports WMA9 which comprises my large library of ripped CD's. Another plus is the iRiver's headphone amp kicks butt over the existing iPod headphone amp. I use they Etymotic Research ER4 canal phones and the iPod doesn't have enough poop to drive them. So, in summation, the iRiver is a better sounding unit with longer battery life and more file format versatility.

#32.3 Posted by Wolfy_nailedyourmother on 19 Jul 2004 - 02:31

I too have the 40GB version, and am very, very, very happy with it. Supports all the formats I want it to, operates just like a removable usb2 HDD in winxp, and the quality is fantastic.

#32.4 Posted by Adster on 19 Jul 2004 - 03:00

whoops, wrong comment

#32.5 Posted by Jstphish on 19 Jul 2004 - 05:26

One of the biggest selling points of the iPod is the ease of use. Ultimately, I want to listen to music not EQ everything (that's what I have iTunes for) or record music (although that could be useful).

#32.6 Posted by superfula on 19 Jul 2004 - 09:31

The news story has nothing to do with the iRiver. Take it to another discussion arena please.

#32.7 Posted by briangw on 19 Jul 2004 - 12:08

Yes it does. We're comparing different models. Nothing wrong with that

#32.8 Posted by superfula on 19 Jul 2004 - 21:06

There's nothing in the news article about comparing mp3 players. That belongs in the forum. The topic here is the new iPod.

#33 Posted by Korgun on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:46

i wonder about the physical dimensions of it

usually ipods have 2 sizes

the lower end ones are usually noticeably thinner than the high end one....

is the 20/40 gonna be the same size, and when the 60 comes out is that one gonna be a little thicker? hmm

or is the 20 gonna be small, 40 & 60 gonna be thick?

hmmm

#34 Posted by Korgun on 18 Jul 2004 - 15:47

btw i'm running on the assumption that right now we'll have 20/40 and in a couple of months the 60 - when toshiba has supplied enough to apple....

(2 replies) #35 Posted by bingham. on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:09

"So when will these be released? Actually on Monday?"

I would like an answer to this aswell

#35.1 Posted by Major_Tom on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:26

I would think within the week, as it would seem pretty dumb to have this HUGE PR boost then make people wait weeks/months

#35.2 Posted by Adster on 18 Jul 2004 - 19:10

Actually Apple is known for their delay after announcing a product.

The iPod Mini's were announced in the beginning of January. they didn't start shipping untill the end of February. I'm wondering the same as well...

(1 reply) #36 Posted by jami_welch on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:32

so how much will a 20gb cost in the uk?

#36.1 Posted by Test Zero on 18 Jul 2004 - 19:45

I'm gonna guess £250.

(3 replies) #37 Posted by handsome on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:34

I like the 3rd generation ipods better...maybe this mean the 3rd generation will come down in price?

#37.1 Posted by oqwarrior on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:55

They will most likely be discontinued.

#37.2 Posted by Sim31 on 18 Jul 2004 - 17:50

Dang, I think the iPods that are out now look best, What do you think oq? I thnk the new ones look good but the others look better.

#37.3 Posted by bluarash on 18 Jul 2004 - 21:17

I hate the 3rd generation iPod, the buttons on the front remind me of a geek wearing suspenders. I think a return to the classical design of generation one and two ipods is a move in the right direction.

#38 Posted by bingham. on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:35

In the UK i would say that the 20GB will be £200-250

#39 Posted by jami_welch on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:38

sweet, i wonder if as the 20gb is the lowest, they'll still inlude the dock etc...

(1 reply) #40 Posted by bingham. on 18 Jul 2004 - 16:43

knowing apple, no.

#40.1 Posted by em_te on 18 Jul 2004 - 18:19

no what?