iLounge

1

Um, “guaranteed”? “Flash”? Riiight. I guess he’s one of the 5 people looking forward to that. And great work on the prediction for the video iPod. I didn’t see that one coming. ::snicker::

Posted by Sam on January 3, 2004 at 9:01 AM (PST)

2

Uhm… The 1” drives that I would assume Apple would use are not flash ram. They are actual hard drives, that come in 2 and 4 gig flavors. Why do people keep saying flash when they predict the use of 2 and 4 gig sizes when 2 gig of flash would make the cost astronomically more than the supposed 100-200 price range?

Whatever.

Posted by Caleb on January 3, 2004 at 10:34 AM (PST)

3

this man’s word, whoever he is, is gospel.

Posted by dave on January 3, 2004 at 11:23 AM (PST)

4

um….. NO.

Sorry buddy, but once again your foolish predictions are wrong. Like the others have said why have flash when you can have the same storage for half the price. Sure theres always the issue of moving parts, but evedently that hasen’t been a problem for Apple. Also, why would Apple make a mini flash based mp3 player if it has already been done thousands of times. If i dont recall, Apple’s slogan is, ThinkDifferent.

Let me get this straight, the video iPod will be used to watch movies or to store movies,

1. Who wants to watch Matrix on a 2 inch screen.

2. Who wants to watch those movies in black and white.

3. The ipods are already expensive enough, we dont need to add a colour screen that will surely raise the price tag up by 200 dollars.

Come on people, Apple is smarter than that. Use your head a bit more

Posted by luke on January 3, 2004 at 12:47 PM (PST)

5

Srry people,
I miss understood this man.

Yes it would be nice to hook your ipod to your camcorder for extra storage.

But this is becoming less and less of a problem whit these video cams that use dvd’s to store. Also how is the ipod going to communicate with the camera. It will need drivers. Note the ipod is not a pc. It can;t explore a decice. therefore we will need a way for the ipod to explore another devices hardrive.  OK SO HE;S SEMMEY RIGHT SEMMY WRONG

Posted by CALEB on January 3, 2004 at 12:55 PM (PST)

6

...wishful thinking i’m afraid.

Posted by Jeffrey on January 3, 2004 at 1:49 PM (PST)

7

Hmmm, two Caleb’s. Hah.

Posted by Caleb on January 3, 2004 at 2:11 PM (PST)

8

i think his quicktime camera is more along the lines of what apple will do than a vidiPod. i just don’t see the advantage of a mp3/video combination [like the archos]. who wants to watch movies on a tiny little screen? unless they come up with a way to make the screen big, theres not much point.

Posted by Harrison in Melbourne, Australia on January 3, 2004 at 3:47 PM (PST)

9

The point to a video iPod (for me at least) isn’t watching movies on a little screen.  It’s for hooking it up to a regular TV or using a video headset.  Sure they’re expensive now, but will be cheaper eventually.  And it would be handy to bring my video iPod and an a/v cable with me to a friend’s house instead of a case full of DVDs. 

Posted by me on January 3, 2004 at 3:55 PM (PST)

10

me has a point. i wouldn’t use it to watch movies on the screen, you would link it up to a television through the firwire port(?), as it is too small. however, if i was travelling on the train i wouldn’t mind watching an episode of the simpsons or family guy; just to pass time.

Posted by silver_haze20 on January 3, 2004 at 4:08 PM (PST)

11

sure, when you look at it that way sure, i would buy one, if it had a way vor a/v out. and a/v in. that would be sweet

Posted by luke on January 3, 2004 at 5:57 PM (PST)

12

Flash memory is WAY too old, and would raise the price a couple hundered $. as for the Video pod? i saw something like that in a Wired magazine to do list; along side the Safari for windows(Ha! like that would ever happen!) and the “iPhone”

Posted by Thomas on January 3, 2004 at 6:18 PM (PST)

13

For a mere $500 you too can avoid ever having to buy another $15 MiniDV tape again! 

Seriously, why would anybody buy an iPod for digital video storage?  It’s not like it’s something that could be casually done, it would require the majority of an iPod’s storage space.  Storing digital photos is one thing, but video is a whole other issue.

Posted by cool name on January 3, 2004 at 7:18 PM (PST)

14

Quoting: “While I was correct that there wouldn’t be a significant act of high-tech terrorism in 2003, I was wrong in my mysterious prediction of a new electronic way to foment social change.”

I had to give this guy credit because he write so self-importantly, but I think the Dean campaign is an instance of fomenting social change electronically.

But at the end he should have said “Check back 366 days from now.” Ha Ha!

Posted by Big D on January 3, 2004 at 7:41 PM (PST)

15

Quoting: “While I was correct that there wouldn’t be a significant act of high-tech terrorism in 2003, I was wrong in my mysterious prediction of a new electronic way to foment social change.”

I hate to give this guy credit because he write so self-importantly, but I think the Dean campaign is an instance of fomenting social change electronically.

But at the end he should have said “Check back 366 days from now.” Ha Ha! Take that, jerk.

Posted by Big D on January 3, 2004 at 7:42 PM (PST)

16

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

Posted by the other 'me' on January 4, 2004 at 2:30 PM (PST)

17

ya…who does he think he is? a tad too sure of himself if i may say so myself.

Posted by adam on January 4, 2004 at 3:39 PM (PST)

18

haha I would have to agree with the other ‘me’ and adam.

I posted a long entry on my site about what I think Apple will do - but again it’s all speculation. We have all got it totally wrong a million times before. I personally think the majority of the predictions are silly. If Apple were going to do anything to the iPod, I think they would add a radio tuner - but even that is a long shot.

Flash media - NO WAY! I really can’t see them implementing this. If they do, then I’ll run across the sydney harbour bridge naked!

Posted by Katharine on January 4, 2004 at 8:46 PM (PST)