A color iPod will mean a PC version of iPhoto

[chevy]

Here is the reason why I think so:

1) iPod with color screen cannot be only for music... and movie on such small screen are of no interest, the only reason for the (far) future color iPod is to display still pictures (and a 40 GB HD will be a good extension of any still picture camera).
2) iPhoto is not only a picture viewer, but also a link to several services (mostly print services)
3) I am quite sure in a near future is will also be able to buy images from iPhoto on the iPIS (iPhoto Image Store)
4) and therefore the $$$ will ask for a PC version of iPhoto

QED

 

[twister]

You have many good points!! I could use stock photos in iPhoto too. That'd be sweet!

 

[chevy]

With a small high resolution screen, good contrast...

 

[fbp_]

worst idea ever.

 

[chevy]

why ?

 

[fbp_]

because the ipod is a music player

because anyone with a digital camera already has a little screen to look at their pictures on

because there are too many storage formats out there for an ipod to accept pictures from a camera without extra accessories, which already exist

because itms is a vehicle for selling ipods and only works because of the drm, if your 'ipis' images were only viewable on the ipod the concept doesnt make sense

I can probably think of more

 

[twister]

iPhoto store would be great when I need stock photos for a job at work!!

 

[chevy]

because the ipod is a music player

because anyone with a digital camera already has a little screen to look at their pictures on

because there are too many storage formats out there for an ipod to accept pictures from a camera without extra accessories, which already exist

because itms is a vehicle for selling ipods and only works because of the drm, if your 'ipis' images were only viewable on the ipod the concept doesnt make sense

I can probably think of more

I was thinking about a screen the size of a regular picture print (10x15 cm2).

Most camera can download to iPhoto through USB, so either one use iPhoto like iTunes and the reference library remains on the Mac, or the iPod can USB connect with the camera to download the image as an intermediate storage.

DRM exists for a long time for images (maybe even for longer time than on music).

 

[cfleck]

couple of things wrong with this idea...

- the itms is a response to the demand for online music downloads spurred by napster. there is no similar interest for photos like there is for music.

- the idea of looking at pics on your ipod is pretty (for lack of a better word) lame. small screen, essentially useless compared to (as mentioned before) the screen on your digicam. need to carry and transfer pics? you already can, or get a flash drive.

- how does this benefit apple? sell more ipods? hardly. make money selling photos? unlikely. go through another (probably high) cost to port iphoto and then sell(?) it to windows users? yes.

 

[bobbo]

professional people who need photos can get them easily online anyway. I can't see ANYWHERE near as many people saying "hmm, why not get a 99cent photo of someone I don't know or some landmark or something" as "Why not get a song for 99cents much easier than I can anywhere else". There isn't enough demand for photos at all.

 

[chevy]

Check:
www.vraweb.org
www.tssphoto.com
creative.gettyimages.com
www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/imagesales/

 

[cfleck]

no one said that such things dont exist, simply that the demand is small. take for instance, the fact that you had to show us those.

ok everyone who has been to these sites before, raise your hands. hmmm, not many...

 

[chevy]

Professionals do. It's much less expensive to buy a good image than to take the time necessary to shoot it.

 

[cfleck]

thats fine. so make an ipod for less than 1% of the population. it just doesn't make sense on a grand scale.

 

[chevy]

This would fit the traditionnal Apple market, no

 

[twister]

Aren't macs popular in graphic design firms? Don't graphic design firms need a lot of stock photos? Sounds like a good idea to me even if it's just 1%. I think apple should partner with getty or veer on that idea.

 

[cfleck]

not only does it sound like a good idea, but you know who they should partner with? apple employee huh?

think this through, the itms, makes NO MONEY, but sells ipods because HOARDS of people buy & listen to music. the itms sells iPods! now, for pictures. nary a soul buys pictures online, but apple should set up a store for this to make NO MONEY and sell ipods to a scant few, who arguably, listen to music and are hence already targeted for sale of the ipod anyway?

i assume you folks are also of the opinion that apple should start a movie store and the ipod should play movies. or maybe incorporate a camera into the ipod? or allow the ipod to be a pda replacement! or make the ipod a phone! or a remote car starter! or a gameboy! good god, the possibilities are endless! the ipod to rule them all!