Ah, okay - I was actually wondering if part of the storage need was for offloading shots in the field. That makes perfect sense.
I'm also skeptical of watching video on a 2" (or even 3.5") screen - apparently it's not bad at all, according to many reviews I've seen, but... I dunno.
Now, given that the entire line also does video *out*, that's not too bad. But.
I'm not that sure about the video out either--my understanding (limited though it probably is) is that you can only play video that matches the iPod's screen resolution of 240 lines. Not exactly high-definition.
"Note: Component video output to television is supported by iPod nano (third generation) and iPod classic at 480p or 576p resolution, and by iPod touch at 480i or 576i resolution."
From the component video-out cable page at the Apple Store.
Yeah, seems like it would be more hassle than it's worth to maintain two featuresets; can external playback really be important enough to drive product differentiation?
I think it's more to the point that the Nano/Classic is one platform, and Touch/iPhone is another*. I suspect the codec uberchip in the former is capable of perhaps a bit more than in the latter.
*The Nano and Classic are essentially just flash and HD based versions of the same product now, with the same custom embedded OS, UI, etc, while the Touch and iPhone are OS X based. It's really two distinct product families at this point, being sold under one name. Well, three, with the Shuffle.
Ah. That also makes sense. Wonder if that means we'll see more convergence of platforms downb the road, 'cause if they're going to keep pushing features to down-level platforms, they're going to have to either converge hardware or continue to maintain multiple OS codebases.
Even Microsoft figured that one out, though it took them three full revs of the OS to get it barely functional.
Yeah, right now the Shuffle, Nano, and Classic are the only significant products* Apple sells that aren't running OS X: iPod Touch (ARM), iPhone (ARM), AppleTV (Centrino), iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro (all Core 2 Duo), XServe (Xeon) are all running the same OS from the same code.
Not too shabby.
I can't see the Shuffle ever being anything but a custom OS. I mean come on, it's... minimal. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Nano and Classic, or their successor products, moving to OS X on ARM within two years though. God knows the Classic has the space for it. :D
*Airport Extreme and Airport Express, keyboards and mice not included. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
I'm also skeptical of watching video on a 2" (or even 3.5") screen - apparently it's not bad at all, according to many reviews I've seen, but... I dunno.
Now, given that the entire line also does video *out*, that's not too bad. But.
no subject
no subject
From the component video-out cable page at the Apple Store.
no subject
no subject
o_O
no subject
no subject
*The Nano and Classic are essentially just flash and HD based versions of the same product now, with the same custom embedded OS, UI, etc, while the Touch and iPhone are OS X based. It's really two distinct product families at this point, being sold under one name. Well, three, with the Shuffle.
no subject
Even Microsoft figured that one out, though it took them three full revs of the OS to get it barely functional.
no subject
Not too shabby.
I can't see the Shuffle ever being anything but a custom OS. I mean come on, it's... minimal. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Nano and Classic, or their successor products, moving to OS X on ARM within two years though. God knows the Classic has the space for it. :D
*Airport Extreme and Airport Express, keyboards and mice not included. :)