Backstage: iPod Photo initial impressions | iLounge Backstage


Backstage: iPod Photo initial impressions

picApple’s more than used to the haters by now - people who proclaim each of the company’s new products a likely flop based on price, or grouse about another company’s product that’s almost but not quite the same. But time and experience have given Apple another benefit: the opportunity to see their haters proved wrong. Often repeatedly.

Having played with the 60GB iPod Photo a bunch, it’s fair to say that the haters have at best a 30% chance of proving right on this one. Apple made at least three mistakes with the device - making its photo features less than intuitive to use in iTunes; seemingly requiring a potentially lengthy initial “optimizing” process for photos to be iPod-ready; and pricing it at a unfriendly $599.

But they’ve done at least as many things right. Very right. The iPod Photo’s new screen is wickedly beautiful, turning on quite unexpectedly with a vivid blue Apple logo (right) and using an interface that’s half iPod, half Mac OS X. (The familiar abstract sun/clock “processing” logo appears on the screen, and subtle grey touches with colorful non-interactive icons recall Apple’s Aqua interface.) Higher resolution, an even better white backlight, and the use of the Myriad font seriously improve the iPod’s look and feel - much more readable text can fit on screen, too, and long song titles now scroll in lists, not just when playing back.

Photos look very good on the screen, and are far more identifiable in thumbnail view than one would expect. TV playback of the photos is reasonably easy, too, though it could be even better, and users can create slideshows on the fly using the iPod’s interface. Keeping your photos and music synced with the iPod should be a real snap once the initial transfers of your libraries are done, too.

The only issue in my mind remains the one I identified in advance of the iPod Photo’s launch: do people really want to carry around their photo collections? Is that feature worth an extra $100 over the standard 4G iPod, absent the ability to transfer photos from a digital camera direct to the iPod?

There’s much more to say, and I’ll be saving much of it for our official review, but I like the iPod Photo a lot so far. It reminds me that Apple always has its eye on the future - one future, at least - even when the majority of its fans are very happy with what they already have.

Photos of iPod Photo

« Backstage: Hands-On Oakley’s Thump MP3 Sunglasses

Backstage: How Marware caught my eye »

Related Stories



I’m a very happy 2G iPod owner (and a little less-happy-about-the-lame-paint tiBook owner), so no hater here, but i still have some doubt about the new iPod Photo. actually i share most of the doubts you already expressed…
beside the price tag (especially in europe where you have to shell out 679E (that’s a whopping 850$!!!) for the 60gb version) the main issue is the lack of a way to directly download pictures from a camera. i guess the Belkin iPod Media Reader is one of the smartest accessories ever devised for the iPod (the only useful one in a sea of stupid ideas, i dare say) and it should have been a mandatory addition to something like the iPod Photo. I don’t know many people that would carry their picture collection around just for the sake of showing them to friend. but i surely know a bunch of photographers who would gladly buy a 60Gb extension to their flash cards. sure, you can buy the aforementioned reader, but that would add another 129E to the price tag, bringing it in the 1000$ range.

i’m not saying the iPod Photo will be a failure, i’m sure it won’t be, but its concept does have a big flaw.

i see it as something incomplete.


(and about having an eye on the future, well, archos did it first, with quite an edge on apple ;) surely, apple does it with style ;))))

Posted by Marcello on October 28, 2004 at 12:52 AM (CDT)


Well, yes I have to agree…
I own a 3G iPod and an iPod mini.
And my next iPod won’t be a 4G or iPod Photo. It will be an iPod Video.

Something many people are having currently on their mind is something like “WHY THE **** doesn’t the new iPod support video playback???”

Wouldn’t it be a PIECE OF CAKE to program the iPod to play Videos?...
Well yes of course it is an ease…

“The People don’t have video content therefore don’t need video playback!” Jobs said…
Hey, can’t you download or at least watch Music Videos on iTunes?
Or “will the people only have Video contents” when Apple invents the iVideo-Recorder?
Or they have to give iTunes the ability to copy any DVD to your iPod and then connect the iPod to any TV.

No… Not yet.
There is no demand for something like that right now.
Till now every small new function has been sold as an absolutely fabulous-never-seen invention. (Think about the 4G… it’s “smaller” and has a revolutionary brand new - but unfortunately senseless shuffle function (what about just clicking the Play Button and turn shuffle on? would you buy a NEW iPod just for that?)

However… until there is no demand for something like video playback we will have to wait till Apple “generates” this desideratum. (Either by adding a DVD-Rip function to iTunes or, relatively unlikely, bring out a video recording device.)

I’m very sure Apple will release an iPod Video in at least a year.

Just thinking about the price for it…
Someone from the Executive Management Team during a meeting: “Now, the price for the new iPod Video. By the way, whose idea was it to add video ability to the iPod? The people don’t have any contents!?”
Steve: „Of course they have!”
A random senior vice president: “Ok, let’s say 700 Bucks.”
Steve: „No, video is cool and trendy: 750$!”
Another random senior vice president: “750? But is has a new Tetris Game!!”

Posted by Mark on October 28, 2004 at 4:50 AM (CDT)


I already has a Belkin reader. The question is: will images tranferred to the iPod Photo be viewable or do they have to be “processed” through iTunes first?
The second question is that I have my images on my Al and my tunes on my iMac. Will the software allow me to grab my tunes from the iMac and my images from the Al?

Posted by Dave on October 28, 2004 at 5:19 AM (CDT)


I wish they’d made the screen larger. When Archos brought out their “Multimedia Jukebox” a few years it was roundly and rightly condemned for using a tiny color screen the same size as that on earlier audio only players.

Archos seems to have learned from its mistakes and their new AV handhelds use almost the entire horizontal surface of the device for the screen.

i guess two things are constraining Apple here - the first is obviously that a larger screen costs more and would eat into their profit on these devices.

i think the other is the attachment to the scroll wheel/click wheel. It’s central to the iconic representation of the iPod and so on the current photo device “forces” the screen to be so small.

But it doesn’t have to remain like this. They could make the screen larger in one of two ways. Or use both.

Either make the screen itself touch sensitive and use a software representation of the click wheel to simulate its operation.

Or use one entire side of the iPod for the screen, and put the wheel on the reverse.

Anbyway, I predict the future evolution of the iPod will somewhat parallel that of the Archos, ensuring a future generation of the device will feature a larger, more usable screen.

Archos first attempt at color multimedia device (2002)

Archos current multimedia device (2004):

Posted by bigger screen on October 28, 2004 at 7:37 AM (CDT)


why would they put the screen on one side and the click wheel on the other?thats just silly. and a design flaw that apple jsut wouldnt make.
Have you noticed Archos hasnt done very well with these devices?they are poor executions of concept. Apple would probably come up with something so funky and original we woudlnt even guess what it could be.
I dont get why people are complaining about the price?sure, the price of the 4G is relatively cheap…but remember, it doesnt come with a dock etc. Ipod Photo comes with every you need.
Last year, i paid a hefty £400 for my 3G 40GB ipod here in the UK. I was fine with that. If i’d have ordered from USA i could have got it a lil cheaper…but i was fine with it. And so were alot of people that payed this price before apple started getting realtively aggresive on pricing.
In the apple store fgor the UK, the photo iPod is £349. That s a blooming bargain compared to what i payed. and probably compared to alot of pre-4G users too.

It’s quite obvious that apple will be releasing a new iPod next year. how much u wanan bet it will have a colour screen?a 60GB or bigger HD? better battery life?yet it’ll be marketed as jsut a normal iPod. NOt an iPod photo. Apple needs to realise ppl arent as dumb as they think. Alot of ppl will buy the foot, but alot will hold off cos theycan see what Apple are doing. SO far, the 4G, 4G iPod photo, or the U2 ipod have NOT tempted me. As far as i’m concerned at the mo….the 3G looks so much better than the 4G, and its annoying apple backtracked in the design.
Hopefully the 5G wil make me eat my words.
p.s: keep up the good work on this awesome site!

Posted by Spooky2k/Dan on October 28, 2004 at 10:58 AM (CDT)


“thats just silly. and a design flaw that apple jsut wouldnt make.”

Notice that I listed it second, the implication being that I suspect that an on-screen software simulation of the click wheel is the only way forward for an all-screen iPod.

By sticking slavishly with their existing audio-only design, Apple made the same classic backwards-thinking mistake as Archos and limited their player to a tiny postage stamp sized screen.

A determination to keep a non-screen clockwheel on the “front” of the iPod means that either you are stuck with this tiny screen for *ever*, or you have to elongate the iPod, making, either displacing the clickwheel further south or alongside the screen. Neither option would keep the iPod’s aesthetically pleasing shape dimensions.

A third option is to go with a rocker touchpad using the synaptics hardware, as Creative has done recently, and to place the rocker along a thin edge of the iPod. But then you lose the wheel motif completely and I think Apple has invested too much in this to let it go.

What’s your solution to the problem of the photo iPod’s minute screen? How would you make it larger while keeping the iPod “feel”?

Posted by alternatives on October 28, 2004 at 4:03 PM (CDT)


Well, I just picked up my iPod Photo this afternoon and I have to say that it is wonderful. The idea of carrying the 2,546 photos that I have in iPhoto pushed me over the edge. I connected to my 42 inch Mits TV and was blown away by the quality of the compressed images on the iPod. Why carry a laptop to show photos of my two girls and wife to family and friends home? I just need the iPod and the wacky cable, and I’m good to go.

Before you hate on the flaws of the product remeber that I it the first generation (think Windows 95) and the entire guts of the iPod is software that can be updated with ease by Apple. Just give it a few months and you will see Apple, and talented hackers, upgrade the iPod Photo to the next level.

One other thing to remeber is that there is a pretty juiced up processor under this hood. The reaction time brisk conpared to my 1G iPod and even my 4G. I hope that Apple will release a collection of tools to publish books to the notes section that can include photos from the Photo section. I feel that the iPod would make a wonderful tour guide or museum host with its new, very impressive, color screen.

James Harris
Elemental Interactive

Posted by james Harris on October 28, 2004 at 11:27 PM (CDT)


Think about this:  A 40/60 gig device that stores photos that can be synched with
sound and displayed through a projector opens up a whole
realm of educational and business applications for the new iPod.
Everything from PowerPoint presentations to university lectures
to “how-to” demonstrations to sales presentations to real estate
listings etc, etc. etc. can now be presented. Very cool. The
music and snapshots are just gravy.

Posted by dbooker in Tallahassee, FL on October 29, 2004 at 1:23 PM (CDT)


i did notice you listed it second.
I like your first idea of having it ‘on-screen’, it could shrink down toa task bar icon when ur watching movies or listening to songs.

My solution?well, the iPOd has has sometype of ‘wheel’ since its first incarnation. So i think that should be kept.
Isnt the click wheel on the mini samller than the 4G click wheel?(help me out, i’ve yet to see them side by side,...i’ll check foto gallery now). bu tyeah, couldnt you jsut make the click wheel smaller bu tmake the screen a little bigger?
Though, i still protest your ‘software’ representation of it is what i think could be the way forward too. :)

Posted by spooky2k on October 29, 2004 at 3:07 PM (CDT)


> Have you noticed Archos hasnt done very well with these devices?they are poor executions of concept.

I disagree with your assessment of the success, or lack thereof, of Archos. It’s a different kinf of company from Apple, a tight French operation barely a hundredth the size of Apple, and has built a reputation for being first to market with new media devices.

By proving new hardware markets Archos is a genuine innovator, and as such is bound to suffer from “beginner” mistakes that larger, more established and conservative companies such as Apple and Dell generally learn from when they bring their copycat products to market several years later. Companies like Archos jump head first into new markets (such a hard disk audio handhelds back in 2000), establishing a viability that larger companies can then take advantage of with their later products (like Apple in late 2001 with the iPod).

You want a glimpse of what kind of hardware Apple and other larger, more hidebound companies will be releasing in a year, check what Archos released last year. There are a whole slew of tiny hardware manufacturers (many of them Korean or Taiwanese) that are bellweathers for the tech gadget industry, but you probably aren’t even aware of them because you are not a bleeding edge adopter.

I think this current iPod Photo is far from perfect and although it has obviously benefitted from analysis of earlier multimedia players, especially in the looks department, it has some huge usability flaws. Being forced to use iTunes to downsample all images is a huge PITA. No support for animations or video is another. And as others have noted, the screen is really, really small.

Just like Archos, however, Apple’s next version will get better and, being Apple, I suspect much, much better.

Posted by carpe carp on October 29, 2004 at 3:12 PM (CDT)


the statement: ‘Have you noticed Archos hasnt done very well with these devices?they are poor executions of concept.’
is based on the fact that all archos has ever done is just jump on the band wagon without thinking. it’s pretty obvious the devices they release arent going to do well.they seem to function fine. but they’re VERY lacking in the looks department.
I did a huge case study on archos as part of my A-level project. They appear to be innovators, but when u think about it, they’r enot at all. only trying to make money form blatently obvious concepts that no other manufacturer has gotten round to making yet…because the larger companies know they will not sell very well.And the only media plyaer iPod photo has beniffited form is…well, the iPod. and anythign that cma ebefore the 1st gen ipod. Every update is purely looks wise (ok, maybe smallermp3 players influenced it to become smaller). but archos was certainly not as big a player in all this as your making out.
You say ‘reputation for being first to the market’...wot does that achieve?if anything, they should learn form their mistakes an develop their products first instead of jsut launching themselves into the market headfirst with nothing to show off.

Posted by spooky2k on October 29, 2004 at 4:25 PM (CDT)


I wouldn’t have thought there was much need to cart around your photo collection.
But, in the UK at least, the popularity of camera phones with people showing off pics they have taken on the teeny phone screen I suspect this might prove very popular if marketed correctly.

Posted by HardRockCamaro on October 29, 2004 at 5:26 PM (CDT)


“all archos has ever done is just jump on the band wagon without thinking.”

Dude, Archos brought out their butt ugly yet functional devices years before Apple even considered making equivalent iPods.

It’s tough to be first - it’s a lot easier to see what people have done before you and to improve on them.

“I did a huge case study on archos as part of my A-level project.”

Oh, I stand corrected. An A-level project? Well, I guess tghat makes you around 6 when the first mp3 players came out. I am glad to have someone of your experience to set me straight.

“They appear to be innovators, but when u think about it, they’r enot at all. only trying to make money form blatently obvious concepts that no other manufacturer has gotten round to making yet”

Well I think you have just described the raison d’etre of all corporations. It’s a question of knowing when it’s the right stage of a market to deploy your resources. Archos functions best at very early stage, Apple at a slightly later stage, and even larger companies like Dell and HP at a much later stage.

Maybe if you get beyond school homework case studies you will begin to understand this.

“And the only media plyaer iPod photo has beniffited form is…well, the iPod”

The PixOS - the basis of the iPod’s UI, came from developers who worked on Newton and General Magic.

The firmware/hardware combo, the PortalPlayer guts of the iPod, came from developers who worked on the original hard drive mp3 project, Compaq’s PocketJukeBox or PJB, in the mid to late 1990s.

The original mechanical scroll wheel came from the Diamond Rio 600 mp3 player series from 1999-2000.

The rectilinear proprortions of the iPod are obviously shaped more like the Archos players of 2000 than the competing Rio and Creative players of that era.

Seriously, you’re just a kid. Palo Alto and Silicon Valley is a small place and I know many of the engineers involved and, unlike you,they are happy to give out props to the earlier work done by others.

When marketing gets involved, however, they like to describe “innovation” as springing fully formed from the incredible minds of executives like Steve Jobs, infant terribles and auteurs. But the real truth is that we all benefit from a continuum of shared technological progress, competition, and cooperation. And people are forever job hopping, taking their ideas from one startup to another.

Posted by first mover on October 29, 2004 at 5:39 PM (CDT)


wotthehell?just cos i was porbably 6 when the first mp3 player was released, doesnt mean i can’t do RESEARCH. Obvioulsy didnt do enough, as you obvioulsy proved me wrong on the whole ipod influences thing (which i gladly accept).
But i stand my ground on Archos. I’m not saying they’re poop, i was gunan buy the jukebox till i got to actually use an ipod. Bu tto say they innovated?!no no and no. common sense is what its called.
And whats this about ‘archos works better at an early stage’?!they seem to not be doing very well, so obviously they dont work better at this stage.
Just cos u know som eengineers, doesnt mean you know how their business is represented anymore than i do, or anyone else for that matter. a quick google search wil tell you that. Archos is consistent in their reviews with average ratings, and ‘not quite good enough’ comments. its pretty clear to me what people think.
U say ‘school’ homework?You say the word ‘kid’?excuse me, i’m a 19 year old studying in university. hardly a kid. and A-Level is hardly school. A bit harder infact.
I’m gunan try not to us epersonal comments here, as your obviously *wise beyond your years* and although i say that, you do seem to know SOME of your stuff.

Posted by SPooky2k/Dan on October 29, 2004 at 6:54 PM (CDT)


Without the ability to offload images from my Canon Powershot I’ll pass. I don’t want to carry an extra device to do it either. If I could tether them together I would be on board in a second. I will say that integration that is just getting rolling with car stereo has some new possibilities though.

Posted by mntbighker on October 29, 2004 at 8:24 PM (CDT)


THE IRIVER h340 IS MUCH BETTER!!!! it has been doing all the things the “new” ipod photo can do, and its significantly cheaper, and easier to use. It doesnt have any propietry software and it has been in the market for way longer than the ipod. Ok, the only bad thing, is the firmware. Ipods are fashion items, and people are getting sick of them and stretching out into the market to find something that actually works. and that thing is the iRiver. It may not play games, have a calender and notes, but does anyone really need them? I have a Phone for games, notes and calender. The iRiver is a much better alternative. The only thing it doesnt do is output to TV, but is anyone really going to use this in the mainstream, and pay a $100 premium just to do so?? NO!  And the iRiver has USB OTG, so i can transfer pictures straight to it.

Ok, Most of you live in the US, with the Crappy stripped down version of the iRiver h3xx series, but the International version is much more useable, maybe in the US people will buy the iPod just in smite of iRiver becuase they cut the H3xx series down to not include USB OTG and to include DRM which takes along time to transfer songs. If you want to get the iPod Photo, i beg of you to consider the alternatives - The iRiver H340 is not an alternative, but an answer!!

Posted by Al Misk on October 30, 2004 at 12:47 AM (CDT)


I have owned an ipod since they first went on sale. I was amazed at how apple changed my original 5gb device over the first few years with software updates. A host of features were added. Video and storage of keynote presentations can all be added to the photo ipod in this way. I think its a great starting point :-)

Posted by hairybeing on October 30, 2004 at 1:37 AM (CDT)


by the sound of things, what you’re all saying is mirroring the comments made about the original iPod. Too expensive,, who wants all their music in their pocket etc etc. How wrong all the knockers were is now part of mac folklore.

Ofcourse the next versions of the iPod will be better.. how foolish would you be to think otherwise. That on its own, is the reason we are now talking about colour screens and images on something that was born to play music and double as a hdd.

no-one up to now complained that they had to purchase the media reader to transfer images from camera to iPod, but now that it’s colour, for some reason you expect Apple to build it in.

Posted by George on October 30, 2004 at 2:30 AM (CDT)


Of course it would have been brilliant for them to build it in though. Possibly also some kind of bluetooth or wireless stuff aswell.

Posted by ipodphreak on October 30, 2004 at 9:01 AM (CDT)


Many fine points here, and I fine myself surprisingly in agreement with many. Awed initially, I am now looking at the iPod Photo differently. Video does seem to be the next step regardless of Jobs’ statement. The more I think about it video would have been a better step forward. But not the video Jobs is thinking of, movies which is already corrupted by piracy; its Music video integration with iTunes that would be preferable. Imagine having the capability to play the video with it’s song. Then to bring that functionality to the iPod, as with Visualizers. Such features would truly knock the socks off the competition, 256 Mb mp3 players and Win Users. Add to that iPod Photo’s already incorporated the projector/monitor/tv interface… A video/music DJ on the go.

Until then, sucker that I am, I will purchase the 60 Gig iPod Photo and utilize it’s larger capacity to hold my entire music library instead of picking and choosing, back-up more files; maybe even some photos which I will spare my friends from having to view. Which undoubtedly they have seen before and I believe background music, sideshows would not improve the experience enough to see again.

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Posted by Julien Francisco in NoWhere, Florida on October 30, 2004 at 12:06 PM (CDT)


I ordered an iPod Photo instantly. I’ve been waiting for just this device.

Why? Because I work daily with a huge variety of business images that I must share with others… from business graphs, to new product renders and design images, to sales presentations. None of these requires the bulk or power of my Powerbook. Yet, I either (A) must anticipate when I would want to show some of this content to someone, and be sure to have my Powerbook with me, or (B) let a moment pass where showing an image would have been very beneficial.

Having the iPod Photo in my pocket will solve both problems.

Thank you, Apple!

Posted by Jack Campbell on October 30, 2004 at 8:25 PM (CDT)


Follow-on comment:

Until this product, I was an extremely happy 3G 10GB owner. I only have about 800 songs in iTunes, and that model would likely have held me for another couple of years, without even considering the newer/faster/better upgrade path.

The iPod Photo was compelling enough to see me snatching my wallet from my pocket and fumbling for my credit card, to eagerly part with an unplanned $600 expenditure.

I doubt that I am alone.

Posted by Jack Campbell on October 30, 2004 at 8:30 PM (CDT)


I think the iPod Photo is a great product. Expensive now, but the price drop should be swift. Steve’s right about no one having significant video footage they want to cart around, but I can see how piping out video from a visualiser like the one in iTunes could be entertaining. Gives new meaning to guest iPod DJ-ing!

Posted by Ben Lawson on October 30, 2004 at 11:30 PM (CDT)


I bought the 60G yesterday. I don’t want this iPod to be any bigger than it is. If I want/need to transfer photos straight to it, I’ll get the Belkin device. Most of the time I am carrying it to show photos and to play my music, be an alarm clock while traveling, and hold a copy of my calendar and address book if needed. I don’t want to have to get 2 devices, one for photos and one for music. I am pleased that it is the size it is and that I have the option to add a device that will allow me to download my photos straight from my camera (at least I believe it will work, if not someone will make one that will). I am thrilled with the quality and what it is capable of doing.

I don’t recall who commented that he had no need to put the photos on a TV, but that is a wonderful feature along with the slidewhow with music.

I have a 20G 2Gen iPod in need of earphone connector repair. So, it was time. :)

Posted by Caseytoo on October 31, 2004 at 1:18 PM (CST)


“I don’t want this iPod to be any bigger than it is. If I want/need to transfer photos straight to it, I’ll get the Belkin device.”

The Belkin device is just insanely large. I think Belkin wants you to feel ood about paying so much money.

They don’t have to be this big. The Gminis have multi-format flash media readers built-in, and large screens, and they are the same size as a regular iPod.

I think Apple could easily add a tri-format media reader to the iPod with no appreciable increase in volume.

Posted by Demosthenes on October 31, 2004 at 8:41 PM (CST)


Good thoughts all round, although whoever said that people won’t use the TV display function is wrong, people love to show off their photos, and would muchg prefer to show them off on a big TV sized screen than a 2 inch iPod one, especially if they’re showing them to lots of people. The other advangate the iPod photo has on this front is that people already do this, except they do it with their digital camera. Unlike a camera which might have say, a 512MB flash card and will only show your most recent photos, the iPod photo can hold ALL your photos, and play music through your TV (as i understand it at the moment, please correct me if I’m wrong.)

Just a thought, what’s the bet that the review of the iPod photo will coincide with the release of the buyers guide?

Posted by Nuke666 in Melbourne, Austalia on November 1, 2004 at 2:14 AM (CST)


I for one DO want my photos with me. That alone is worth $100—and I love the new UI too.

I’m always showing photos on my PowerBook—often to TV with music. I also show photos on my camera’s 1.6” screen. We’ve all done that—it’s not ideal but it’s there. 2” with clickwheel ease-of-use is better yet.

It will be so nice not to need my PB with me, and worry about it being stolen etc.

Of course not EVERYONE wants photos with them. That’s why this is just ONE of the iPod product lines.

And re a slow initial photo synch (making all the thumbnails)... of COURSE that one time is very slow compared to later when you just synch the newest photos. And by making those thumbnails in advance, your iPod can show them faster every time. Sounds like a great system to me.

I do wish it would synch with iPhoto 2 though instead of needing 4. (I plan to upgrade iLife when a Tiger-enhanced version is out, and not before. So until then I’ll have to synch a folder and not have my albums. I’ll deal for a few months.)

Posted by Nagromme on November 1, 2004 at 9:03 AM (CST)


Also remember that people are talking about TWO different photo purposes:

A) Unloading your digital camera. The Belkin reader is for that—the iPod photo is NOT.

B) Showing your library—THAT’s what iPod Photo is for.

If you want A) and not B), don’t let the name “photo” confuse you. You are not the market for the iPod Photo’s feature set.

Two DIFFERENT purposes.

The iPod Photo does integrate both in one way: if you tell it to synch full-res copies along with the smaller viewable ones (good as backups or for transferring to another computer), they go in the same place, apparently, that the Belkin reader puts ITS images.

And that points out why the Belkin and photo-display functions are separate: the iPod uses scaled-down, faster-loading copies of images for display. Your computer prepares those copies when you synch. The Belkin device does not do that.

Posted by Nagromme on November 1, 2004 at 9:08 AM (CST)


“I’m always showing photos on my PowerBook—often to TV with music.”

Your friends must love you.

2300+ articles written by you about the iPod. And I’m willing to bet I would have to look incredibly hard to find a single one that was in any way critical of the iPod or of Apple.

Keep up the objective criticism!

Posted by Demosthenes on November 1, 2004 at 1:58 PM (CST)


lol, maybe nanogramme is steve Jobs’ alter ego

Posted by Nuke666 in Melbourne, Austalia on November 1, 2004 at 3:03 PM (CST)


Review is up - in the Buyers’ Guide.

Posted by Jeremy Horwitz in East Amherst, NY, USA on November 1, 2004 at 6:41 PM (CST)


“Until this product, I was an extremely happy 3G 10GB owner. I only have about 800 songs in iTunes, and that model would likely have held me for another couple of years, without even considering the newer/faster/better upgrade path.

The iPod Photo was compelling enough to see me snatching my wallet from my pocket and fumbling for my credit card, to eagerly part with an unplanned $600 expenditure.

I doubt that I am alone.”

You, sir, are not alone. I saw this, and I had to have it. I was also a 10GB 3G iPod user.

Posted by Farmer Jim on November 4, 2004 at 12:03 PM (CST)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods or accessories, or if you sell or market products, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators. Wondering why we're talking about something other than iPods? Check the Archives: Backstage has been here and kicking it since 2004.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
iLounge Weekly

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2019 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy