Apple pipes in new iPods
Posted by malebolgia on 23 February 2005 - 16:20 · 87 comments & 9513 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by Netrack on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:25
- Apple still cranking out new ipods....soon they will be free with a tank of premium gas
so do the mini's have a color screen that was mentioned before?
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by lotus22 on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:25
- what about color
-
#3 Posted by thefunkymunky on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:28
- No they don't. No colour screen on the Ipod Mini's. Not yet anyway. See www.apple.com for more info.
-
(10 replies)
#4 Posted by threedaysdwn on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:29
- Looks like no color this time around.
Kind of surprising, since Creative is supposed to launch the Zen Micro 6GB with a color screen soon. -
#4.2 Posted by nekrosoft13 on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:22
- thats why i hate the ipod
instead to make a one good decent ipod
they make 5-10 diffrent models, and keep release new one with minor changes.
-
#4.3 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:52
- Yeah choice is bad.
You want less choice for price/features? -
#4.4 Posted by threedaysdwn on 23 Feb 2005 - 18:02
- I think he's complaining about Apple's "one feature at a time" approach. And when they release something new, the old version (like the original 4GB mini) is discontinued completely.
I know I'd feel like crap if I bought a Mini in the last few weeks. -
#4.5 Posted by tRr on 23 Feb 2005 - 19:35
- I wonder how you manage to buy anything without feeling like crap. From cars to clothes to houses, it's all a matter of when you buy, and sometimes you might end up getting the short end of the stick.
I don't keep my eye on the competition too much, but I imagine they only update their products after they have been on the market for at least more than one year, right? The mini was introduced in Jan ’04 after all. -
#4.6 Posted by nic on 23 Feb 2005 - 23:25
QUOTE I don't keep my eye on the competition too much, but I imagine they only update their products after they have been on the market for at least more than one year, right? The mini was introduced in Jan ’04 after all.
I don't remember it being that long ago. I think it was the summer when the mini was released or in the fall. If it was way back over a year go, then man... my life is waisting away... holy crap.-
#4.7 Posted by jagedEdge on 24 Feb 2005 - 00:00
- Yup, it was really released in January/February of '04.
-
#4.8 Posted by threedaysdwn on 24 Feb 2005 - 00:17
- Well the Mini was due for an updating. I feel worse for anyone that bought the original iPod Photo.
-
#4.9 Posted by Zenith on 24 Feb 2005 - 07:31
- for info about when mac products including ipods are due to be upadate check out http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
new minis look pretty cool IMO. cheaper, bigger HD, 18 hour battery
...i want one -
#4.10 Posted by shao on 24 Feb 2005 - 11:32
- because we all know that apple can be trusted on their battery life estimations.
18 hours.. what's that? 18 hours of just browsing the playlist, without the backlight on, and without playing any tunes, and with the scroll click turned off, and without any alarms set, and without headphones plugged in??
-
(8 replies)
#5 Posted by SFalcon on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:35
- Weak. I was sold on a 6gb color screen mini. I'll keep shopping around I guess.
-
#5.1 Posted by soloredd on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:40
- Same. I have a 3G 20GB but I was really looking forward to the color mini.
Oh well, it's innevetable sooner or later. -
#5.2 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:34
- Check out the iRiver H10 - http://www.iriveramerica.com/
Forget the iPod, this is what you're looking for
-
#5.3 Posted by jagedEdge on 23 Feb 2005 - 22:02
- No, it's not. I want something compatible with Protected AAC files and that works with iTunes. I guess the iPod photo 30GB is for me then.
Besides, why have a color screen on the mini? It's just going to go to waist. It's such a small screen, that no matter how high you pump the resolution, you'll still barely see your photo or movie. -
#5.4 Posted by divertom15 on 24 Feb 2005 - 03:40
- the H10 is f*cking hot
-
#5.5 Posted by shao on 24 Feb 2005 - 11:45
- now if only APPL£ would open up itunes to other players. you know, if only it would be the open and unmonopolistic company that it wants us to believe it is. but then, if you didn't realise that by buying in to itunes you'd be in APPL£'s pocket for ever more when it comes to portable playback of songs bought via itunes, and purchased music from them, then you're screwed. you'd be much better off buying from a microsoft powered online music store, and using any one of a multitude of playforsure potable juke boxes; cheaper songs, better quality, more choice of hardware playback, and you're not stuck in the pocket of apple for eternity. Or better yet buy songs somewhere which doesn't drm their tunes.. eg.. from a cd shop, and rip them to a decent format such as ogg and not AAC or WMA (proprietry, drm'd, and not that great sounding)
iriver h140 owner here.. and exceptionally happy with my jukebox.. same can't be said about the ipod i owned before. I rip all my cd's @ 5.5 quality aotuV'd ogg and it sounds as near as dammit cd quality @ average 175kbps.
and yes, the h10 looks very nice. :-) -
#5.6 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:16
- I don't get the iPod fascination at all.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I wouldn't like an iPod, but I don't have an endless supply of cash (most unfortunately), and if I was going to drop that much on a new mp3 player (even though last I heard, the iPods don't even play mp3s), there's so many players far cooler than the iPod in the same price range.
I personally really like the iRivers, but it's not like they're the only ones better than the iPod, just about EVERY player that I look at in that price range beats the iPod hands down imo, especially iRiver and Sony, (now that they've stopped being asses like Apple and support mp3 on their player). Even if I didn't take into consideration the fact that every single CD I own, I have already ripped to mp3 long ago (just over 100GB worth), even if the iPod did play the popular formats, it just isn't that great.
I'll take one if they're giving them away, and I'll consider it if they cut the price in half, but for now, I can get a much nicer overpriced plastic piece of crap from practically any other manufacturer without having to pay some kind of tax for the "Apple" name. That said, their iPod in ear headphones are great, ordered a pair online a couple of weeks ago, and they sent two, and only billed for one. -
#5.7 Posted by SOOPRcow on 24 Feb 2005 - 19:06
- Man, I don't know where you got your facts but the ipod has always played mp3 files.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Steven on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:36
- 40GB 4th Gen iPod is now discontinued.
-
(4 replies)
#7 Posted by thefunkymunky on 23 Feb 2005 - 16:53
- But your getting a 60GB Ipod photo for less than the original price of the 40GB model.
-
#7.1 Posted by Ron21 on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:21
- Thats because they removed the dock, av cable and firewire cable...
-
#7.2 Posted by daze369 on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:40
- i thought the 40gb model was $399. if the 60gb model is $449, how is that less?
-
#7.3 Posted by jagedEdge on 23 Feb 2005 - 22:04
- The 40GB iPod photo was $499. The 60GB iPod photo was $599. Now the 30GB iPod photo is for $349 and the 60GB iPod photo is for $449. That's a $150 price cut.
-
#7.4 Posted by AeronPrometheus on 25 Feb 2005 - 11:05
- " Thats because they removed the dock"
The 60Gig Photo still has a dock.
-
#8 Posted by dolby71 on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:07
- "Apple pipes in new iPods" - I wouldn't exactly call it "new iPods" LOL, But ok...
-
#9 Posted by jerry on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:18
- lol, out of all the rumors, the one Neowin posted a few days back turned out bogus
http://www.neowin.net/comments.php?id=27163&category=main
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by eminem213486 on 23 Feb 2005 - 17:27
- That news.com link is misleading., just link to apple.com. the caption and title on the page says Apple+splashes+color+on+iPod+Minis WTh? I was getting extatic over here.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by AshMan on 23 Feb 2005 - 18:18
- Screenshot? LOL right!
-
(4 replies)
#12 Posted by Porp on 23 Feb 2005 - 18:27
- One word for this, gay. It's really really stupid.. Im getting an iPod Shuffle.. I will be using Windows Media Player with it (XPlay from MediaFour.com).
I think the 'new' iPod's are stupid, how are you supposed to buy a lanyard for the iPod Mini and then hang it around your neck? Hmmm?
It will now start, Apple iPod's will soon start to die. 
-
#12.2 Posted by jagedEdge on 23 Feb 2005 - 22:07
- How are you supposed to buy a lanyard and hang an iRiver H10 around your neck? The whole iPod series is not meant to be used in the same was as the iPod shuffle. The iPod shuffle and iPod mini are for workouts and smaller times out (and I'd even say the iPod mini is better suited for a workout since it has an armband). The iPod and iPod photo are portable jukeboxes. Very versatile. Take it to a party and crank out 60GB of music, or listen to it on your morning and afternoon commutes.
-
#12.3 Posted by Zenith on 24 Feb 2005 - 07:44
- lol u can get a lanyard for the mini, if u really wanted that
(the price is $29.00 in Australian dollars. thats probly about $20 US) -
#12.4 Posted by Rock on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:16
- I think that the Shuffle is gay. "Hey, let's make a small flash MP3 player like every other brand out there and slap the iPod logo on it and market the fact that it has a freaken shuffle function. The idiots who buy this thing will forget that the original protable CD players in the 1980s had a freaken shuffle function!"
-
#13 Posted by Jedimark on 23 Feb 2005 - 18:30
- They'll release a colour screen version in 6 months time after everyone has bought this new one...
-
(3 replies)
#14 Posted by ThunderRiver on 23 Feb 2005 - 18:31
- When will they ever implement crossfading feature..
-
#14.1 Posted by rusonjitsu on 23 Feb 2005 - 19:33
- ....as soon as theyve got gapless playback working! lol.
I hate on albums where tracks fade into each other and the ipod puts a nice second or so gap in between. Excellent!
RJ -
#14.2 Posted by aristotle-dude on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:57
- Why not rip those albums to lossless? Problem solved.
-
(10 replies)
#15 Posted by meamog on 23 Feb 2005 - 19:02
- The really, truly, honest-to-God good news is the battery life of the new minis (and yeah, even though they still offer a 4 gig, they're both the second-generation hardware). Can't be long until that kind of life is in the full size models. The photo is close with 15, but man, from 8 with the first gen mini to 18?! That's nice. Also, I can almost rationalize including only USB2 with the new mini, it's not like it takes that long to sync up 4 or 6 gig of tunes. Still, I don't get why the iPod photos don't still have firewire cables included - it's more space, more speed would be great.
-
#15.1 Posted by nic on 23 Feb 2005 - 19:51
- you're post confusses me. But I'll respond with what I got from it:
USB2 is 480mbps
Firewire is 400mbps
-
#15.2 Posted by Sir Gawain on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:08
- But Firewire sends data at a more constant speed while USB2 sends in bursts, so the Firewire ends up being faster when sending a large amount of data. (Sorry I couldn't be very technical there. Search for it if you want more info.)
-
#15.3 Posted by Jstphish on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:50
QUOTE But Firewire sends data at a more constant speed while USB2 sends in bursts, so the Firewire ends up being faster when sending a large amount of data.
Exactly. Firewire sends data faster because it sends data at a constant 400mbps while USB2 reaches it's 480mbps in bursts (that's just it's theoretical max speed anyway). So for audio and video, Firewire is faster.
-
#15.4 Posted by nic on 23 Feb 2005 - 21:46
- hmmmm... i'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any since. Why would they rate USB2 as 480mbps if it doesn't really deliver this? Must be creative marketting, or something. In anycase, if it is rated as 480mbps, then that should mean that in an hours worth of time the transfer was moving at 480mbps on average (so that would mean it would have to be greater then 480 in some cases to account for the low times).
Even if it does move in "bursts" doesn't "buffering" mean anything? If you are just transfering data, including audio and video, then 480mbps > 400mbps. AND if you are streaming audio/video 480mpbs > 400mbps still, even if 400mbps is more consistent and 480mbps is an average of bursts, because of something called "buffering."
Not that I don't doubt what you guys are saying about firewire > usb2. Its just that if it is rated to be 480mbps, then that should be the average transfer rate, period. If it is just the maximum at moments, then it really shouldn't be what it is rated as. Is IEEE responsible for this? Who came up with this standard, anyway?
I have read, however, that this 480mbps transfer rate is shared amongst all devices on the bus. Firewire, on the other hand, provides 400mbps to all devices on the bus regardless.
I'll have to read up on this. Thanks for pointing it out. -
#15.5 Posted by GT on 24 Feb 2005 - 02:12
- Quick google search reveals that firewire is indeed faster than the overrated USB2.0
-
#15.6 Posted by bogd on 24 Feb 2005 - 04:41
- Correct me if I'm wrong and I;m too lazy to Google.
But doesn't firewire use its own processor and thats why it gets the constant rate while USB 2.0 uses the system's processor and that's why it varies? -
#15.7 Posted by Zenith on 24 Feb 2005 - 07:51
- the lack of a firewire cable in the iPods now is great for people in my situation, where the imac only has USB 1.1 (12 MB/S) and firewire 400 :sarcastic:
but yeh, i can see that people with windows boxes may not have firewire, and that the cable will stay in its packaging for life... maybe the cables should be an option from the online store -
#15.8 Posted by meamog on 24 Feb 2005 - 16:55
- I have a PC and firewire, and haven't taken the USB 2 cord out of the box
-
#15.9 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:26
QUOTE that just doesn't make any since. Why would they rate USB2 as 480mbps if it doesn't really deliver this?
It's a simple concept, but I'll try to explain it in terms you can understand.
Imagine that you're driving a car in a race, your car can reach speeds of 120mph for short periods (maybe it overheats and has to slow down), but spends most of the time doing 60mph. Your opponent is driving a car, which while it cannot get to 120mph, it can stay at 110mph for the entire duration of the 500 mile race (or if you like NASCAR, turning left for 500 miles, wooo exciting).
So, although your car has a top speed of 120mph, and your opponent's only goes to 110mph, your car averages 70mph when you balance out the time spent at 120mph and the time spent at 60mph. Your opponent's car has an average speed of 110mph, since it spends the entire duration of the race at 110mph. Who is going to get there first?
Let me put it another way - imagine you and a friend were both trying to get somewhere by foot from the same place, you sprint for some of it, but then I break your kneecaps with a rusty hammer and you have to crawl the rest of the way using only your hands. Your friend doesn't sprint, but maintains a brisk walk for the entire journey. He is going to get there first.
Beginning to make sense? Ah, I can almost hear the cogs turning.
Last edited by 8585 on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:34-
#15.10 Posted by nic on 24 Feb 2005 - 22:44
QUOTE Beginning to make sense? Ah, I can almost hear the cogs turning.
wow. i love it when people spew a bunch of crap when they haven't even read my entire post. I never said I didn't understand how it was working, i stated i didn't understand how they could justify the rating when it was false.
grow up and stop being a jack-ass, honestly.
-
(4 replies)
#16 Posted by nic on 23 Feb 2005 - 19:54
- i feel like being an ass, even though i always criticize other with they are being asses. So I guess i'll be an ass and a hypocrite when i say:
That screenshot looks a lot like a photo. Is that a screenshot of a photo in photoshop or something?
-
#16.1 Posted by Sir Gawain on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:10
- Who cares? Photo. Screenshot. They both show you a picture of what something looks like.
-
#16.2 Posted by tibi08 on 23 Feb 2005 - 21:07
- ^^ No, not at all. A screenshot shows a shot of what the screen displays. A photo is taken with a device capable of image capture, e.g. a camera, and represents whatever the image capture device was aimed at. In this case, it's a picture of an ipod, which is not a shot of the screen of anything and is hence not a screenshot.
-
#16.3 Posted by cashman on 24 Feb 2005 - 02:28
- ^^ Well technically, the picture does have a shot of the ipod screen
-
#16.4 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:29
- Actually, to try and trump the starter of this thread on assness, I think you'll find that it is actually a 3D render, which unless it was transferred to print, and then transferred back to digital, could be considered a screenshot.
Apple have plenty of 3D models of their iPods, not just for use in advertising, but also from the design phase, and it's a lot cheaper to just pose them on a white background, throw in a light, and render than it is to hire a photographer, set up a studio, and wait for the 500 shots the photographer has to take to get the single good one.
-
#17 Posted by robpears on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:11
- it appears that the 4g 40bg is no longer for sale
-
#18 Posted by neufuse on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:38
- wow glad i didnt buy the 4GB mini when i was going to a little ago for my sisters bday... $50 price drop is nice... now can buy it cheaper
-
#19 Posted by Adamb10 on 23 Feb 2005 - 20:47
- I am SO glad the new minis don't have a color screen! It makes it not worth selling my old mini for the new one.
-
(1 reply)
#20 Posted by FatCat on 23 Feb 2005 - 21:05
- what new colors? Pink? wasn't it blue green pink gold silver before, so confused, the blue does look slightky different though.
-
(1 reply)
#21 Posted by center15 on 23 Feb 2005 - 21:24
- So are these the new Ipods for this year? Or are 5th gen ones still coming out?
-
(1 reply)
#22 Posted by King Rilian on 23 Feb 2005 - 22:02
- Hmm. 4GB iPod Mini with display for $200 vs. 1 GB iPod Shuffle without display for $150. Gee, I wonder which one's better.
-
(4 replies)
#23 Posted by Liquid on 23 Feb 2005 - 22:25
- I will never buy another Apple product as long as I live. My battery does not last more than an hour and its one year old, and they want me to ay $179 CAD to replace the battery... Or I could get an iRiver H10
-
#23.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 23 Feb 2005 - 23:17
- There are places to buy batteries for less than $30 (US). You are just lazy and haven't really bothered to look. Either that or you are a troll (my guess).
-
#23.2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 23 Feb 2005 - 23:33
- If you provide the battery, will Apple open the iPod for you and replace it?
-
#23.3 Posted by Zenith on 24 Feb 2005 - 07:56
- if its less that a year, u could get it done under warranty.
or maybe ur just over-using it eg backlight, changing playlists all the time, playing Music Quiz
i think its unfair to boycott apple because of one product. if you bought an iMac, you would never return to Windows again
-
#23.4 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:31
- hmm....iRiver H10, sexay.
-
(1 reply)
#24 Posted by SS-19™ on 24 Feb 2005 - 00:34
- I am sick of these ipods crap to be honest (I have one, don't even try). Enough is enough! heh unless people stop buying them they'll stop making them ey?
-
#25 Posted by Taliseian on 24 Feb 2005 - 05:56
- Been waiting for this....
Just ordered a 2G Silver Mini 6g
Can't wait.....
T
-
#26 Posted by MarkMS on 24 Feb 2005 - 06:59
- apple is soooo sexy!
-
(1 reply)
#27 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 24 Feb 2005 - 10:37
- thats so effing expensive.....
-
(1 reply)
#28 Posted by Rock on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:18
- The Creative Zen Micros still kick the Mini iPod's ass!
-
#28.1 Posted by AJCrowley Esq on 24 Feb 2005 - 18:32
- I'm hard pressed to think of a competitor in the same maket that doesn't kick the iPods' collective asses.
The company introduced a higher-capacity, 6GB Mini, along with new 30GB and 60GB iPod Photo models, which can use an adapter to connect directly to digital cameras and display photos. The Minis also feature a boost in battery life. The new models expand the range of Apple's popular hard-drive-based music players and increase the product line's capabilities in digital photography. A $29 camera adapter for the iPod Photo answers the call for connecting the player directly to cameras without the need for a computer as a go-between.
Along with bringing out the 6GB Mini, which costs $249, Apple lowered the price of its 4GB Mini to $199. The 4GB Mini had debuted in January 2004 at $249. The 30GB iPod Photo costs $349, while the 60GB device costs $449. Previously, Apple offered a 40GB model for $499 and a 60GB version for $599. Apple has been on a low-price tear recently in an effort to reach more consumers. In January, it introduced the flash-based iPod Shuffle, which starts at $99, along with a Mac Mini desktop PC designed to appeal to bargain hunters.
What's new