[MacMan4000]

This thing is AMAZING!

Its the Epson P-2000
Click the image for Epson page

quick list of tech specs / features

* View, share and store photos, videos and music
* Large 3.8" Epson Photo Fine� LCD
* Portable 40 GB hard drive
* Download from leading digital camera memory cards with built-in slots
* Transfer files to and from your computer with a Hi-Speed USB 2.0 interface
* Connect to a TV or projector with an optional third party video cable
* Rechargeable Lithium Ion battery with AC adapter

It can play .mov and .avi movies, mp3s, AAC, and most picture formats... including RAW files!

My dad is borrowing one from work and I can't stop drooling.

The screen is beautiful, huge, and the highest resolution I have ever seen.

By the way... its the same price as the cheeper iPod Photo, $500

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Damn, can you download images directly from your camera to it?

This is what the stupid iPod photo should have been.

[mixin visuals]

looks hot!

[paully dub]

wow, I want an iPod that can do all that!!!

And Epson isn't even a brand I absolutley detest. Hmmm...

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Damn, can you download images directly from your camera to it?

This is what the stupid iPod photo should have been.

not directlyfrom the camera, it has card slots (compact flash and SD cards)

[Busemann]

That thing look huge..

"Is that an Epson P-2000 in your pocket or are you just very happy to see me"

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
looks hot!

New Hot_ _ _ _!

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
This is what the stupid iPod photo should have been.

Don't worry. Apple is just crippling it now, so that they have stuff to add to it in the future.

iPod hard drive upgrades may have been the dominating feature distinguishing the line-up in the past, but they will need to be clever from this point on, in order to capture and maintain consumer interest in this product.

In time, over the course of many iPod Photo revisions:

-quicktime movie capabilities
-cheapo camera
-SD/CF card reader
-etc

Hard drive upgrades alone can only capture the average consumers interest for so long. I doubt 120GB iPod Photos are much more appealing than 60 GB iPod Photo's. Throw in a cheap camera on the back of the unit and Apple will have a marketing bonanza on their hands...

Noah

[Luca Rescigno]

You can also get an iRiver H320... 20 GB storage, color screen, photo capability, radio, mic and line in recording, and even movie playback (with a hack). $300. A friend of mine got one but he ended up returning it because he needed the money. The interface of course isn't as good as the iPod, but all the features make it very attractive.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Busemann:
That thing look huge..

"Is that an Epson P-2000 in your pocket or are you just very happy to see me"

It is bigger than an iPod, but smaller than I expected. The epson pictures make it look big.

Quick and dirty size comparison

[Busemann]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:

In time, over the course of many iPod Photo revisions:

-quicktime movie capabilities
-cheapo camera
-SD/CF card reader
-etc

I don't think (and really don't hope) we'll see any of that in an iPod. Lower prices, sleaker enclosure and more capacity is where it's at!

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
Don't worry. Apple is just crippling it now, so that they have stuff to add to it in the future.

Ya I am worried. Apple has the trait of sticking to the one thing it does and that is it. For example if the iMac had a TV tuner I am sure it would sell even better. The iPod photo should be able to download images directly off a camera without an expensive add on.

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by Busemann:
I don't think (and really don't hope) we'll see any of that in an iPod. Lower prices, sleaker enclosure and more capacity is where it's at!

You're right you won't see any of that in an iPod. We are talking about "iPod Photo".

Noah

[MacMan4000]

another Quick and dirty size comparison

[Superchicken]

Is it easy to use? Epson's generally not a brand I associate with break out products... I doubt it will kill the iPod. We'll see competition though which is good. I agree though the iPod photo should have a different look than the iPod. Perhaps a large wide screen, with a smaller scroll wheel either on the right or left. Possibly a built in 3 Megapixel camera as well.

[Sherwin]

NM

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
NM

heh what you said before was funnier than "NM"

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by MacMan4000:
heh what you said before was funnier than "NM"

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
Hard drive upgrades alone can only capture the average consumers interest for so long. I doubt 120GB iPod Photos are much more appealing than 60 GB iPod Photo's. Throw in a cheap camera on the back of the unit and Apple will have a marketing bonanza on their hands...

No...they'll have a great mp3 player with a crap camera added in.

Whoop. Dee. Doo.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Ya I am worried. Apple has the trait of sticking to the one thing it does and that is it. For example if the iMac had a TV tuner I am sure it would sell even better.

Okay, now think fifteen seconds further:

WHAT KIND of TV tuner? Analog? Most people have that, but its death knell has just been sounded here, with the first regions going digital terrestrial. So you include a DVB tuner - S, or T? Or HDTV? If you do that, you alienate 80+% of the market, who might think of wanting a TV tuner, but don't actually have DVB or HDTV.

1. So you need variation. Hardware variation is the single most expensive aspect of a product palette. Throwing in different documentation or software, or power adapter thingies, can be done by hired help. Hardware variation has to be during production - and any changes during production are tremendously expensive.

2. Also: the only really decent video-in solutions are the elgato boxes (and one PCMCIA solution that's damn good, I forget which), and there's like five of them - for all the different TV sources - and they're somewhere up near $300. We don't sell anywhere *near* the number of eyeTVs as we do iMacs - and that's including the fact that Hamburg has just (as in ten days ago) switched to DVB-T television broadcast, which means non-cable/non-satellite people *need* a digital receiver of some sort. I doubt we'd sell as many iMacs if they were only $200 more expensive.

3. What possible use could it be to have the iMac sell even BETTER right now? The damn thing's back-ordered for over three weeks over here! They're already selling more than they can make!

-s*

[turtle777]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
I doubt 120GB iPod Photos are much more appealing than 60 GB iPod Photo's. Throw in a cheap camera on the back of the unit and Apple will have a marketing bonanza on their hands...

For Pete's sake: do we really need a farkin' camera built into everything ?

-t

[Link]

instead of dealing with TV tuners, why not give the imac a set of video inputs? Or better yet make the vga/svideo/composite dongle a VI/VO function. Said and done, no worrying about all that crap.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by turtle777:
For Pete's sake: do we really need a farkin' camera built into everything ?

-t

Well, for something that's called iPod Photo, it might make sense. I agree, though, that it would be added bulk, but added bulk seems to be the iPP's raison d'être anyway.

This Epson device certainly makes more sense than the iPP for photos, though, since it actually lets you import photos from a camera's flash card. I don't know what Apple are thinking by not allowing that on the iPP.

[Superchicken]

What Apple should do is make a video Firewire accessory. Which would let you turn your mac into a PVR with the right software, and record video. It would only need to have coaxial in and composite in. S Video if you really want. But VCRs manage fairly well I don't see why Apple couldn't.

[wdlove]

Cool

[Evan_11]

Yeah the Epson is totally what the iPod photo should be. Apple as someone else said tends to get stuck on "what works". That's fine but they are being eclipsed by the competition right now. It won't hurt them this Christmas but watch out next year.

I think they need to impliment a touch screen within the next revision and probably loose the scroll wheel. Cries of blasphemy I hear but the current scroll wheel could be replaced by a 'dashboard'. I also think it would be cool if they put a 'pinhole' camera on the back chrome surface. The photos would be same aspect ratio as the iPod.

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
No...they'll have a great mp3 player with a crap camera added in.

Whoop. Dee. Doo.

Damn you're a prick.

Why not include a camera. Apple could do it right. I guarantee a lot of people are looking at a iPod photo thinking "well that's neat but kind of expensive without the camera". It's no different than Apple including the ability to record audio, which they have. The current iPod photo is lacking, definately. Instead of designing something useful it's more or less a novelty.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
It's no different than Apple including the ability to record audio, which they have.

you had to go and say it didn't you?

t-minus one hour until CharlesS gets in here.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Yeah the Epson is totally what the iPod photo should be. Apple as someone else said tends to get stuck on "what works". That's fine but they are being eclipsed by the competition right now.

Nice choice of words. Looking at that size comparison picture the iPod is truly being eclipsed.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
you had to go and say it didn't you?

t-minus one hour until CharlesS gets in here.

Please LOCK THE THREAD BEFORE THAT!

[Evan_11]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Nice choice of words. Looking at that size comparison picture the iPod is truly being eclipsed.

So the iPod is superior because of it's size? That's as lame of marketing as advertising that the original Powerbook G4 was only 1" thick. Yeah it's great that it's thin but what does .5 of an inch really matter? Plus the Epson has a bigger screen.

Honestly the size of the Epson doesn't bother me. I would be buying it to use for my business and not showing pictures to friends at a bar where the iPod's smaller size would be handy for keeping in my pocket.

Again the I think the iPod photo is more of a gimick to entice those who might be considering going with an alternative brand of player because it offers more for the same money.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So the iPod is superior because of it's size?

Yes.

To elaborate: Pocket devices has to actually fit in my pocket. The smaller the better. There is however a balance between features and size and that balance is individual to everyone. For my laptop I love my 17" PowerBook. For my iPod I need at least 20GB, but I sure wish it was in a mini-form factor.

[im_noahselby]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
Well, for something that's called iPod Photo, it might make sense. I agree, though, that it would be added bulk, but added bulk seems to be the iPP's raison d'être anyway.

Apple could easily implement a cheap camera into the back of the iPod Photo with little if no added bulk. It would be similar to the quality seen in camera phones. I know a lot of you think it would be pointless, but believe it or not, those camera phones are flying off the shelves these days, everyone has to have one, they're all the rage, and the "cameras" in them cost next to nothing.

Noah

[Lancer409]

Originally posted by MacMan4000:
not directlyfrom the camera, it has card slots (compact flash and SD cards)

I would argue that this is better .. no cords to carry!

no usb cord for the camera to this player.. AND it saves the camera's battery. it's way better this way! wow i'm impressed... wonder what the reviews will say

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
you had to go and say it didn't you?

t-minus one hour until CharlesS gets in here.

I'm already in here, if you hadn't noticed.

I don't really give a crap about this thing since I couldn't care less about an MP3 player that displays photos. If it had audio recording, it would be more useful, but still priced too high given that there are cheaper MP3 players that can record out there. But for what it's intended to do, view photos, this thing looks like it does a much better job than the iPod Photo.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Link:
instead of dealing with TV tuners, why not give the imac a set of video inputs? Or better yet make the vga/svideo/composite dongle a VI/VO function. Said and done, no worrying about all that crap.

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Okay, now think fifteen seconds further:

WHAT KIND of TV tuner? Analog? Most people have that, but its death knell has just been sounded here, with the first regions going digital terrestrial. So you include a DVB tuner - S, or T? Or HDTV? If you do that, you alienate 80+% of the market, who might think of wanting a TV tuner, but don't actually have DVB or HDTV.

1. So you need variation. Hardware variation is the single most expensive aspect of a product palette. Throwing in different documentation or software, or power adapter thingies, can be done by hired help. Hardware variation has to be during production - and any changes during production are tremendously expensive.

2. Also: the only really decent video-in solutions are the elgato boxes (and one PCMCIA solution that's damn good, I forget which), and there's like five of them - for all the different TV sources - and they're somewhere up near $300. We don't sell anywhere *near* the number of eyeTVs as we do iMacs - and that's including the fact that Hamburg has just (as in ten days ago) switched to DVB-T television broadcast, which means non-cable/non-satellite people *need* a digital receiver of some sort. I doubt we'd sell as many iMacs if they were only $200 more expensive.

3. What possible use could it be to have the iMac sell even BETTER right now? The damn thing's back-ordered for over three weeks over here! They're already selling more than they can make!

-s*

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Evan_11:
So the iPod is superior because of it's size? That's as lame of marketing as advertising that the original Powerbook G4 was only 1" thick. Yeah it's great that it's thin but what does .5 of an inch really matter? Plus the Epson has a bigger screen.

Honestly the size of the Epson doesn't bother me. I would be buying it to use for my business and not showing pictures to friends at a bar where the iPod's smaller size would be handy for keeping in my pocket.

Well, then, I suppose you are not the iPod market.

OF COURSE the iPod is superior because of its size. The iPod mini is selling like crazy, in case you haven't noticed. Yeah, that's the one that's the drastically worse deal, GB-per-buck.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Damn you're a prick.

Thanks for the flowers - especially coming from you, they make me all tingly inside.

Originally posted by Evan_11:
Why not include a camera. Apple could do it right. I guarantee a lot of people are looking at a iPod photo thinking "well that's neat but kind of expensive without the camera". It's no different than Apple including the ability to record audio, which they have. The current iPod photo is lacking, definately. Instead of designing something useful it's more or less a novelty.

The audio recording thing is a third-party add-on that's useless to most people except as a dictaphone. High-quality recording can't happen because of the iTunes Music Store. Much as I hate that fact, it's just the way it is.

A digital camera built into the iPod would be like building an iTalk into the iPod - crap quality barely acceptable for snapshots, or at least vastly inferior to ever cheaper digital cameras that people who are interested enough in photography to want an iPod photo for the image capabilities ALREADY HAVE. I'm sure "Apple could do it right". After all, they built the first consumer digital camera way back when. But I'm just as sure that Apple couldn't do it better than what's already out there, let alone at a price that the market will bear.

Have Griffin build a crap camera as an add-on, for all those three people that don't already have crap cameras built into their phone.

Also: Lose the scroll wheel, and the device is not an iPod.

-s*

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by im_noahselby:
Apple could easily implement a cheap camera into the back of the iPod Photo with little if no added bulk. It would be similar to the quality seen in camera phones. I know a lot of you think it would be pointless, but believe it or not, those camera phones are flying off the shelves these days, everyone has to have one, they're all the rage, and the "cameras" in them cost next to nothing.

Noah

You are forgetting the very reason why people put up with crap quality cameras in phones. It's because you can send them of to people with ease. Without the sharing aspect, why would you want a crap camera in your iPod?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Okay, now think fifteen seconds further:

WHAT KIND of TV tuner? Analog? Most people have that, but its death knell has just been sounded here, with the first regions going digital terrestrial. So you include a DVB tuner - S, or T? Or HDTV? If you do that, you alienate 80+% of the market, who might think of wanting a TV tuner, but don't actually have DVB or HDTV.

And it's the exact same problem with memory cards. Either you have to just pick one, or be willing to include 2 or 3 different slots. Can you imagine an iPod with 3 memory card slots on it?

It makes so much more sense to just download them from the computer. Then you just keep the same Firewire/USB 2 cable that you use for music. And, I believe you can buy external card readers for the iPod if you really want to. That way the 95% of the population who wouldn't use it don't have to pay for it.

[Hawkeye_a]

it's an iPod photo killer for sure imo. maybe lacking in UI design and style, but as far as functionality, it's nailed it.

[ReggieX]

Originally posted by Link:
instead of dealing with TV tuners, why not give the imac a set of video inputs? Or better yet make the vga/svideo/composite dongle a VI/VO function. Said and done, no worrying about all that crap.

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
Ya I am worried. Apple has the trait of sticking to the one thing it does and that is it. For example if the iMac had a TV tuner I am sure it would sell even better. The iPod photo should be able to download images directly off a camera without an expensive add on.

You can get a USB tuner from ATI, or a PCI tuner from Miglia. There's no real reason for them to be standard equipment.

[TheJoshu]

Looks nice! How long does the battery last?

[Link]

Originally posted by ReggieX:
You can get a USB tuner from ATI, or a PCI tuner from Miglia. There's no real reason for them to be standard equipment.

I never specified tuner, and the USB/firewire video devices are pretty laggy

Many current video chips actually DO support this too

[rambo47]

This is fast and dirty, but nearly to scale. Note that the Epson P2000 has a black border around the screen that makes it look bigger than it actually is. Still, 3.8" is pretty sweet. The thing that really sticks out for me is the weight: 1 pound! In a backpack - no problem. In your pocket - whoa.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by rambo47:
This is fast and dirty, but nearly to scale. Note that the Epson P2000 has a black border around the screen that makes it look bigger than it actually is. Still, 3.8" is pretty sweet. The thing that really sticks out for me is the weight: 1 pound! In a backpack - no problem. In your pocket - whoa.

http://homepage.mac.com/rseijas/.Pictures/epsonipod.jpg

The screen is not quite THAT wide... Its still 4:3 I think. but you get the idea.

[SamuraiDL]

Hot