Vincent Oberle’s blog
Does the iPod Photo miss its main use case?
Some, including myself, have been disappointed by Apple and their decision to not include a memory card reader in the iPod Photo. It would make the device slightly bigger, but it would really solve a problem with digital cameras and fill an important use case: Where to store the hundreds of pictures when going in holidays for many days and not having a computer around? Personally this would be my first reason to have an iPod that can store photos.
I can’t actually imagine the smart guys at Apple forgetting this. Some other hard-drive based players already include memory card readers. Does Apple play too much on the iPod brand? By being more expensive and having less features than competitors, they run into the risk of seeing the product being commoditized by brand-less products.
Now at this price point it’s not like the iPod Photo will be a big seller compared to the cheaper iPods, especially since the value added by the photo viewing functionality is not that important. Maybe it is a classical pricing strategy, i.e. it only exists to make the other prices look reasonable by comparison.
Or maybe they are just being patient and trying to do right one feature at a time. As with video, I’m sure it will ultimately arrive.
October 28th, 2004 05:13
Belkin (IIRC) sells a digital camera memory card reader that plugs into dock-connector iPods. I suspect Apple would not have wanted to add the size & weight of the reader into the core iPod product. But it’s not as if they are against the idea of transferring your photos to the iPod while traveling; that has been available for a while now, even before iPod Photo.
October 28th, 2004 06:00
Aftermarket.
October 28th, 2004 06:05
Well, the device you linked to has an SD slot, but my camera uses CF cards. It’s therefore useless to me.
For memory card capabilities to make any sense, Apple would have to add slots for each kind that’s out there. That’s a good portion of the Belkin media reader’s total size, and that’s a big chunk compared to the iPod’s diminutive size.
October 28th, 2004 06:18
If Apple added a memory slot, you’d want one that wasn’t added - if Apple added 8 slots, you’d want a 9th different one - oh man, it’s useful without the XXDF 2006 slot - only a fool would not choose that one! (it’s much better than the XXDD 2005 slot anyday!)
Just buy the add on device to add your memory card data - much better for the rest of us who do not want to carry around a 20-slot MP3 PLAYER.
October 28th, 2004 10:33
I wouldn’t have expected Apple to add a reader for each possible format, on the contrary, I think they would have helped the consummer by supporting only the two cheapest / most popular (CompactFlash and SD) and therefore, thanks to the iPod market share, pushing the camera manufacturers to stay with these two formats instead of inventing a new one every week.
It is possible to make a reader that with one slot would support SD and CompactFlash. And I’m sure it would have made the iPod only slightly bigger.
As I wrote, I love the iPod, but if Apple doesn’t innovate it will get commoditized in the long term by cheaper brand-less alternatives. But I’m sure they will and we will see a video iPod before too long.
October 28th, 2004 20:40
Here is a player that has a multi-format memory card reader and is not much bigger than the iPod. I’m sure Apple engineers could even do a better job.
November 21st, 2004 22:24
Surely if this is causing this much hassle people are just wanting to complain about something, either way people would complain at least the final design is smaller and easier to use for those who have accessibilty to be a SD slot, so be happy with what you have got or you will loose the lot!