Walt Mossberg Loves iPod Photo, Dislikes iRiver H320

[Kent Pribbernow]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20041103.html' target='_blank'>http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/solution-20041103.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Our verdict: The iPod Photo was just as easy, and satisfying, to use with photos as it is with music. It's a winner, if a little pricey. But the iRiver player is complicated and clumsy, designed by techies for techies."</i><br /><br />Yeah, I was shocked too. Mossberg is such a hard critic of Apple products. :roll: Although I think iPod Photo probably is the better of the two in terms of usability, the iRiver is very impressive. A recent trip to Best Buy gave me a glimpse of some of the iPod's competition, and I must say the offerings I sampled are looking better and better. And the latest iPod introductions seem like ho-hum incremental upgrades to me. But I'll wait until I actually see them up close before I slam the gavel down.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/PJ-AD269_MOSSBERG_Ipod11022004192803.jpg" />

[Gary Sheynkman]

I hate it when Jobs in his Keynotes says that Walt is such a hard critic...yet he never not likes apple products! iPod photo is a joke. It is a novelty for brainwashed customers. For anyone with a brain a photo jukebox should at least have a memory card slot and the ability to view those uploaded pictures. The only way to view pictures on the iPhoto is to go through iTunes everytime! What a joke! :evil:

[Kent Pribbernow]

I hate it when Jobs in his Keynotes says that Walt is such a hard critic...yet he never not likes apple products!

You caught that too? :lol: His Apple product reviews couldn't be more glowing if Phil Schiller had reviewed them himself. Hard critic indeed. :roll:

[Mojo Jojo]

The only way to view pictures on the iPhoto is to go through iTunes everytime! What a joke! :evil:

Not sure I follow that, could you explain?

My impression of the iPod Photo was that you could view it on the iPod screen (of course), connect it to a TV to view pictures, you *COULD* use iTunes to see what is there, you could also have it sync with a folder (and just look in the folder with ANY image viewer), you could have it take certain albums in iPhoto if your on a Apple, and lastly you can browse through the device once it is mounted just like any hard drive to see the pictures...

...so... I am not following in the part where you can only see photos with iTunes.

[Gary Sheynkman]

The only way to view pictures on the iPhoto is to go through iTunes everytime! What a joke! :evil:

Not sure I follow that, could you explain?

My impression of the iPod Photo was that you could view it on the iPod screen (of course), connect it to a TV to view pictures, you *COULD* use iTunes to see what is there, you could also have it sync with a folder (and just look in the folder with ANY image viewer), you could have it take certain albums in iPhoto if your on a Apple, and lastly you can browse through the device once it is mounted just like any hard drive to see the pictures...

...so... I am not following in the part where you can only see photos with iTunes.


no problem...

to put it simply...even if you DO buy the card reader (which should have been a part of it) to transfer your photos on the go, you cant view those photos on the iPod. Instead, they are saved on the "hd portion." Thus the only way to get viewable photos is to go through iTunes which now has a utility which creates thumbnails for ipod photo and resizes the original pics before sending them out.


what a joke :roll:

[Phoenix]

Gary, I agree completely. For anyone to suggest that this thing might actually prove to be popular just because they shoved in a crappy color screen, IS a joke.

Many of the points I make are no different than what I've heard/read other people saying...

The screen is too small and of low resolution - no better than anything you'd find on the average digital camera. How is anyone supposed to really view anything on that? A photo viewer must have a screen at least 3-4", otherwise, it's pointless.

Very, very few people, I believe, will justify the expense of buying one of these (they're very expensive - $500-$600, yeah, right!), especially considering its design flaws. And besides, most people probably just got done upgrading to the 4G's recently, anyway.

You're on the right track when you ask "Where's the SD or CF card slot?" What's up with that? And having to utilize a computer and iTunes, everytime you download photos just to be able to view them on this thing? Those are HUGE design mistakes.

IMO, there was little consideration afforded in designing it. I hardly think it's wise to take something that was clearly not designed properly, bring it to market, and then expect consumers to pay an arm and a leg for it.

Apple can do much better than this - and I think we've come to expect it.

My .02.

[Gary Sheynkman]

Unfortunatly the iPod Photo will sell like hot cakes :cry:

Come on...honestly.... people are sheep. With the ipod sold because Apple payed for marketing...and payed a lot. Yeah the wheel and uber easy interface are great. But feature wise even the regular iPods are lacking.

A photo iPod is a great idea....but for a company that seeks to appeal to the creative market (not just pro) their products are getting simplified to the point of mediocrity. The new iMac is a joke. The G5 needs liquid cooling to run at 2.5ghz 8O , and now this garbage.

I was seriously considering to get the next gen powerbook (I'll be making big tech purchases this comming summer prior to college) but I think they are crossing the elegant vs. simplistic line here. As long as MSFT releases Longhorn in the near future, not even the cleaner OS structure and operation will save Apple.

I dont mean to bash the company here. They will make a believer out of me as soon as they change the iPod line (or provide a version with a nice feature set) as well as the iMac line. Yeah it look cool...but come on.

I really hope that Apple bounces from this stage. Their ideas changed the way our PCs look and how truly great integrated software can be. They now know that they will sell just about anything and this mentality has got to stop. I almos wish there was another Mac manufacturer...maybe not as diversified as PCs are...but to provide more competition for their own product line.

/rant

[Mojo Jojo]

no problem...

Ahh. I follow you now. When I first read your comments I wasn't sure where you were coming from. I think when I see the iPod Photo my thoughts were more aligned with what Apple envisioned this iPod to be.

I think when Apple made the device they focused on elements that would appeal to a much broader audience. I don't think the general public would actually bypass the computer with say a digital camera to take pictures then to directly place it on the iPod Photo.

I would argue that most people would take photos and then transfer them to their computer, THEN move them to the iPod Photo.

Perhaps if you were on the road and you needed more storage and wanted to transfer them off of the camera's card... that type of function could be useful. But then you can argue size of device to add a card reader (or reduce battery size), then you would have to choose the right card type (CF, SD, MemoryStick, ect) , and then the extra components would raise the cost of what some already say is too expensive.

I think transferring files directly to the iPod Photo without a computer resides closer to the W?BIC camp then a function that would be used by the general public. Just an opinion and why I didn't see the angle you were coming from and debating that the lack of function was somehow a loss.

[Gary Sheynkman]

W?BIC would be putting a remote control, wifi, and BT into the iPod. The ability to view your pics on the road without having to bring your computer with you is a whole another idea. No matter how "general" you want the product to be it should not take away from the purpose of the product. Its like giving someone a car with the fanciest audio deck on the market but throw out the speakers... only worse

[Mojo Jojo]

I am afraid I have to disagree, and that is probably where this discussion ends, and that is fine. You have a different desire/need for your portable player and there is nothing wrong with that. So the iPod Photo isn't for you, fair enough.

I'll still debate however that what you wish to do isn't a commonly shared desire. I could also be wrong. So no worries.

[James Fee]

I personally think the Photo iPod will be a minor player in the market. Apple will eventually figure this out and get the software side right and those with the 1g Photo iPod will be left in the dust.

[Gary Sheynkman]

I am afraid I have to disagree, and that is probably where this discussion ends, and that is fine. You have a different desire/need for your portable player and there is nothing wrong with that. So the iPod Photo isn't for you, fair enough.

I'll still debate however that what you wish to do isn't a commonly shared desire. I could also be wrong. So no worries.


fair enough :wink:

[Phoenix]

Unfortunatly the iPod Photo will sell like hot cakes :cry:

On this point, I would have to agree with James. I don't think Apple's going to do very well with this.

I just don't see very many people choosing to spend $500-$600 on this thing, which is what it costs. I think people are smarter than that. You can go out and buy a much more capable player for less.

You never know, but I don't think we'll be seeing too many people carrying these around.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

A photo viewer must have a screen at least 3-4", otherwise, it's pointless.


And high resolution please. More the merrier. And the ability to display many many colours too. 24bit is good.