Monday Geek Out: New iPod Gets a Camera, So What?
With that being said, I am going to attempt to be as impartial as I can when discussing the newest rumored change from Apple for it's monster iPod brand. A camera.
On the surface, for those who are not familiar with how many Apple rumors get started, this may seem a little farfetched. The news that the iPod and iPod Nano will now feature a camera did not come from Apple. It came from third-party manufacturers in China who have begun making new cases for these next generation iPods. (For more on the story that broke this rumor, as long as more photos visit Cult of Mac.) What exactly does this mean? It means that (possibly) Apple has listened to the consumer once again. Just as they fixed many of the complaints with iPhone, they may have addressed one major iPod complaint while (most likely) using the same editing programs that they have already developed for the iPhone. They can (hopefully) keep the cost down on the consumer end by using a similar camera, and the same video and photo editing software that was released with the iPhone 3GS.
The mind of someone who loves technology and gadgets is a complicated thing. On one hand, we want to be able to have all of our favorite gadgets with us all of the time, being able to use them right when we need them. We want to listen to our music, take pictures, shoot a video, write an email, and surf the web all while we are walking down Liberty St. with our Soy Chai Tea Latte. This used to mean that we needed our iPod, a digital camera, our Blackberry, a laptop and (as of late) a Flip cam. This is in direct conflict with the other side of the tech lovers brain, we don't want to actually carry all of these things, that is too clumsy and doesn't exactly look cool. Even AnnArbor.com's fearless leader, Tony Dearing, has come over to the Flip cam way of thinking as of late (capturing this impromptu video with me after our blog training)
With these rumored changes, will the iPod now be able to take on the Flip? Early reports are starting to pit these two against each other. In my theory, they should both be small, compact, point and shoot cameras used for recording small videos for use on the web. In this scenario, the Flip's advantage will be that it is only a camera. It isn't trying to be everything to everyone. It would do one thing and it do it well. This may also turn out to be the Flip's demise. Hopefully, the iPod will not only be able to shoot the video, but be able to edit it and post it to the web with a few swipes of the finger.
The Verdict: As per usual, I am happy with the rumored change that Apple has made about a product the I already love. This is only a rumor at this point (as the comment board was able to point out) but in my own opinion (and others), it seems to have some legs to stand on. . I do think however, that Apple would be best suited to send me a rumored new generation iPod to test out to make a more informed decision. :)
What do you think? What have you been geeking over lately? Let me know, I'd love to hear about it. Photo Courtesy of: CultOfMac.com
Kyle Stuef KStuef [at] GMAIL.COM @2911Kyle www.linkedin.com/in/kylestuef www.facebook.com/kylestuef
Comments
Mumbambu, Esq.
Wed, Jul 29, 2009 : 1:37 p.m.
Ed, this story is primarily about iPods not iPhones. Try to stay on topic per the moredators' guidelines! KIDDING :)
theodynus
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 4:41 p.m.
Stefanie, Thanks for your response. My only two thoughts before letting this die are: A) I'd be interested to know why my comments were axed while other off-topic comments weren't, and B) When we're talking about news, personally I think "on topic" is wherever the discussion takes us. Sometimes, what's interesting about the story is not what you'd expect. That's why I'd urge you to implement a more lax moderation policy, or a community controlled one. I realize that, as a corporate entity, that lack of control seems crazy, but chaos and community control are part of what makes blogs function. I can always scroll past drivel, or mark it with a thumbs-down if I'm given the option, but I can't read stuff the mods remove from the public record.
Kyle Stuef
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 4:08 p.m.
@Trek: I've only had a few posts so far, but I think that maybe my introduction post at http://www.annarbor.com/entertainment/the-deuce/my-hello-world-post---kyle-stuef/ I'm sure my topics and focus will change as this goes along, but this is the working plan thus far. Thanks for reading man.
Matt Hampel
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 2:52 p.m.
@Trek -- I like the feel of having a local discussion spot for things that are un-locatable. Of course, I won't stop reading TUAW on my own, but there's something different about also having a discussion on a site that has local participants.
Trek Glowacki
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 1:58 p.m.
I agree Phil and Traci - there needs to be some distinction between news and other stuff. That said, and no offense to Kyle (since I'm sure this is a cool gig), but why is this the sort of thing being posted on annarbor.com at all? I guess I don't really understand the target audience.
traci
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 1:16 p.m.
I think an important point that's being missed here is that AnnArbor.com is supposed to be an interface for delivering both these types of content, right? Both verified news and blogging are being presented in an identical visual context with no interface component or highly visible labeling being done to distinguish the difference in the quality or type of information being presented. You wouldn't present someone's comments on this website on the homepage in the same visual context as a piece of verified news because it would be grossly misleading and it would do serious damage to your credibility. When the content of a blog can be more in line with the content of a user's comment regarding factual accuracy, it seems critical that the interface and labeling used be considered and made markedly different.
Kyle Stuef
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 1:12 p.m.
Phil and Trek, Thanks for the feedback. As we're still finding our legs here at The Deuce we need watchdogs to let us know when we've slipped. I agree that I was a little lazy with the grammar and unclear that this was my reaction to a rumor as opposed to a news story. I hope that the changes to the post and make this more clear. I'll keep this in mind in the future as I move forward with more writing.
Kyle Stuef
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 12:57 p.m.
I'm sorry, let me place a much needed disclaimer on this post. I need to be more clear. This is not a verified announcement from Apple. The current reports are that Apple will not be making new product announcements (the last I was aware of) until September of this year. This was not meant to be a news article discussing the latest Apple announcements, it was a commentary on the latest Apple rumor to get me excited. I'm sorry for the confusion. I will go through and review my wording and make the needed changes. Thank you for your attention to detail guys.
Phil Dokas
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 12:45 p.m.
Stefanie, my concern is that there is no differentiation visually, stylistically, or otherwise to separate your apparent distinctions of "blogging" and "journalistically valid news". This article has been on the homepage all day with no indication that it mistakes fact and rumor. If credible journalism is going to be mixed with completely unverified or fact-checked (and, in this case, sadly unedited, e.g. "that Apple has made about a product the [sic] I already love.") it absolutely must be distinguished. What about this article should tell me that it's not intending to uphold your style guidelines and represent your credibility? It looks like a news article, it walks like a news article, and it quacks (grammatically or no) like a news article. How are we supposed to know your intentions?
Trek Glowacki
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 10:33 a.m.
I actually went to apple.com to see the specs on the new camera. Should have realized that there was, of course, no actual *news* items on annarbor.com
Phil Dokas
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 9:59 a.m.
P.S. I really wish I could edit my previous comment to try and get my line breaks showing up as I had entered them.
Phil Dokas
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 9:58 a.m.
Excuse me, but this isn't news, these are completely unsubstantiated, unqualified, unverified rumors and you repeatedly insinuate Apple has in fact announced and released new iPods with cameras when in fact they have done nothing of the sort. "the newest change from Apple for it's [sic] monster iPod brand" No, this is the latest rumor from unverified sources. For all we know these are photoshopped images from teenagers in Hoboken. "It means that Apple has listened to the consumer once again." No, it means that unverified sources are producing imagesand only possibly actual physical casesto tease our minds. This paragraph goes on and keeps up the incorrectly assigned actions. "The iPod will not only be able to shoot the video, but you will be able to edit it and post it to your website of choice with a few swipes of the finger." No one can prove any proposed camera would also shoot video instead of simply photos because again, this product doesn't exist and none of this is verifiable. "I am happy with an announcement that Apple has made about a product the I already love." There was no announcement.
Mumbambu, Esq.
Mon, Jul 27, 2009 : 9:45 a.m.
Mac rumors are great. I'm presently interested in the apparent suicide of a Chinese manufacturer employee after he was "roughed up" following a discovery he'd misplaced a 4th gen iPhone prototype. Don't mess with Jobs!