“The iPod Photo is living proof that a device can’t serve two masters. The color screen is great, but the iPod can’t really offer a great photo experience with its small screen, recycled music interface, lack of a camera and poor photo-management features. Our advice? Stay focused on music. Keep the color screen–and keep enhancing digital music with iTunes Music Store franchises, podcasts and music subscriptions,” Ted Schadler and Josh Bernoff, Forrester Research Analysts, write for CNET News.
We’ve been living with iPod Photo for three months now. At first, we loved the addition of photos to the music player–the wow factor alone was reason enough to upload photos. But the more we carried the device around, the more we realized two things:
1. The color screen does make the iPod music experience better. Let’s face it: Everything looks better in color. And so does the iPod. Text, navigation and album cover art look great and extremely familiar to those used to working on a PC or Mac. The color screen makes menus more readable, photos displayable and the music experience more delightful.
2. Alas, a color screen by itself does not a great photo experience make. Though the iPod Photo is a fine way to drag a bunch of pictures around to show friends, it’s clear Apple Computer kept the focus on music–not photos. There’s no camera, the screen is tiny, the iTunes synchronization is clunky, the lack of on-the-go photo album creation is annoying, and (for power users) the file structure is tedious. Of course, you can plug the iPod Photo into a television and click through a slide show, but you’re limited to the slide shows already on the device–and you can’t edit them without going back to your computer.
Schadler and Bernoff write, “Instead of adding myriad photo features to the iPod Photo to try to overcome its multifunction challenges, Apple should keep the color screen and basic photo functions; revamp the iPod Photo advertising to emphasize how photos enhance the music experience; and get on with the business of improving the digital music experience.”
Schadler and Bernoff present five ideas to kick-start things in Cupertino in their full article here.
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple updates iPod photo packaging, de-emphasizes ‘photo’ – February 24, 2005
Where is the MacDailyNews witty comments?
If they’re saying this about the iPod photo, I think we can only imagine what they’re saying about the portable media center devices.
Ironically, my secret word was ‘music’. What are you hinting at MDN?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”tongue wink” style=”border:0;” />
Well Eric, someone has to start them. It could have been you. Then again, maybe you did…
—
Magic word: likely. “It’s likely that Apple will continue to tweak the iPod line to maximize sales and profits.”
If you’re using the file structure to view/organize pictures, you’re not a power user, you’re an idiot.
Makes sense. I have no interest in an iPod photo except to see the album artwork. I use my iPod for music and only music.
although, priced at $350, it’s like you’re paying $50 for an additional 10Gb of memory and getting color and photo capabilities for free. Even if many don’t use the photo part of the iPod, I think sales are going to be pretty big, at least for the 30Gb version.
“I don’t like the iPod photo because it’s not a camera.”
“I don’t like the iPod photo because it doesn’t use iPhoto to load up images.”
“I don’t like the iPod photo because iPhoto software isn’t available for windows.”
“I don’t like the iPod photo because, like the iPod mini needs a computer to make new playlists, the iPod photo needs a computer to make new slide shows.”
“Oh yah, and the iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store experience needs a lot of work too.”
Exactly how much is Microsoft paying these guys to dis the iPod experience? Show us a better example boys.
Right king_alvarez!
And a (hobby) digital photographer, like myself, can now ’empty’ his camera onto his iPod – that’s a useful bonus; because it’s convenient and you can save money on memory cards for the camera.
But it’s the music that’s still the thing, and Apple should drop the ‘photo’ name.
“Alas, a color screen by itself does not a great photo experience make. Though the iPod Photo is a fine way to drag a bunch of pictures around to show friends, it’s clear Apple Computer kept the focus on music–not photos.”
If you think this is all an iPod Photo was meant to do, are you in for a surprise later this year.
Charko….
I think the Belkin Media Reader is a better idea than the Apple camera connector. Unless you have the time to take a break from shooting everytime to download images off the camera instead of the card….UNLESS of course you have 2 camera’s. Do you? I have more memory cards (they are cheaper than camera’s)
It is said that by using the camera as the media reader you are doing wear and tear on the camera’s life. There was a reason for those dedicated VHS rewinders…they extended the VCR’s life by putting the duty of rewinding to the rewinder rather than the VCR…the rewinder was a bonus if you needed the VCR right away.
I think it will be even better if you can buy ANY card reader and connect it to the iPod it will immediately download the images off the cards.
Just a thought.
Apple bit off more than they were prepared to chew, the market showed them that, and they are now listeing. I’m using mine to show off my new wedding pictures, but bought my Photo specifically for the 60gig and color interface.
The new price points are fabulous and once the mini is color, the competition will be crying in their oatmeal.
The “photo” will deserve its name once it has a camera and included (mac/pc) iPhoto software.
Dan
Giofoto,
You’re probably right about the life of the camera being affected by using it as a media reader, but I think the main advantage of using the camera connector is that you can view images immediately after downloading. With the Belkin media reader, I think you have to connect to a computer first.
In regards to memory cards, the benefit for me would be that I would only need to take one memory card with me on vacation. At the end of the day load the pictures onto my iPod and then go shoot the next day. No need for multiple cameras or memory cards. Although, for a photography enthusiast, it probably would be a hassle to download whenever the memory card gets full, which I suppose could happen a lot when you’re taking a lot of photos.
Either way, I think there is a lot of potential with the iPod photo (even if it’s not the best solution for serious photographers) and I look forward to getting one now that it is reasonably priced.
Uhhh.. The iPod photo is for holding pictures and showing them to others. Not taking pictures with it. It is not a camera. It is not meant to be a super duper way to display pictures either. It’s just convenient and fun and portable. I think that’s what Apple was going for. And above all it is the best MP3 player out there.
It would not surprise me if Apple was rewriting iPhoto as we speak to work with the iPod Photo. I’m surprised it wasn’t that way from the start. (assuming the article is right, I haven’t purchased or used an iPod Photo, yet)
It would be a natural way to work.
How a bout a Pod-Cam?
Would it be possible for some company to come out with a snap-on zoom camera module (without batteries or memory) for the iPod photo and use this combination as a camera?
Of course, some software on the iPod would be necessary to control the camera. The iPod already has the color-monitor and the click-wheel to control the camera so it should work.
Why go through the hassle and transfer the photos from a digital camera to the iPod if you can take the photos right away with the beefed-up iPod?
Question:
If “a color screen by itself does not a great photo experience make”, then how could “album cover art look great” ??
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”question” style=”border:0;” />
4. Improve AirPort Express with multizone and remote control features.
5. Extend iTunes to help consumers manage their music libraries.
Yes, and yes … oohhh YESSS!! I can understand the KISS principle nixing suggestions 1, 2, and 3, but 4 and 5 I’d kill for.
I love my iPod Photo. I’ve never been one to carry pictures in my wallet. When I’m with friends or family that I haven’t seen for a while, I take out my iPod and show them pictures of my puppy, or the improvements to my neighborhood (in Detroit), etc. I always have my iPod with me and I mostly (95%) use it for music. But, it’s a wonderful bonus to have images of the things that happen in my life to share. I now carry pictures in my ‘digital’ wallet.
I am holding off until they get an iPod I can download a movie on to and then play it through a TV.
Or wrap around viewing goggles that are lightweight and look like sunglasses. Full screen anywhere!
Digital cameras were designed to write to and read from memory cards. It won’t degrade or harm your camera in any way. The memory cards themselves, however, do have a finite number of read/write cycles, but it is in the millions.
Unlike VCRs, using your camera as a media reader has no moving parts to wear out. The camera is acting as a conduit for the data to move.
The theory with the VHS tape rewinders was to save wear and tear on the drive motor in the VCR (the mechanical parts).
I am sure I am in the minority on this, but I am selling my 40GB iPod and am getting the 60GB iPod photo BECAUSE of the pictures.
Being that I have kids in school, currently I make digital flashcards with Keynote, and send them to my Tivo so they can study in the mornings in front of the TV. The ability to carry this on the iPod photo now allows them to study anywhere, including hooking it up to the portable monitors in the car.
Of course I still listen to music on my iPod, but this is just another great use for the photo part.
the photo part of the iPod Photo seems to be a niche utility right now. I think that’s fine – I’m totally for Apple making inroads into such markets right now. A couple of folks above clearly value the photo capabilities of their iPod photo, though most still use theirs for music or file transfer. That’s totally cool. It’s good for Apple to have that product introduced to acquaint consumers with, to make improvements based on their feedback, and improve their device with technology.
One of the strengths of the portable HD device is the ability to cater to many niche markets simultaneously (small genres of music, out of print CDs, MacDust’s use of the iPod photo, etc) without having to modify the hardware at all. While such uses will never outstrip the main function, they will at some point add up to a major portion of the use. That’s why I believe Apple is right in making the iPod using basically HD functions and not adding on a mic or radio. Let 3rd parties sell those to the people that want them and not charge the additional $30 for features only some people want.
I thought with the newest photo versions you could make an on-the-go photo playlist to view on the iPod. It’s just TV viewing that needs to be prepped on a mac/PC first…
am I right?
iPod photo means one device can’t serve two masters… this is what you’re saying?
Okay.. cuz.. you know.. these same analysts think the PSP is going to take on the iPod..
Hypocrites