Apple set top box = iPod dock

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
The pinout on the iPod dock has lots of room for future i/o on the iPod. I expect the apple dock to evolve to have more than line out, and the iPod become a digital hub in and of it's own. Save iDVD projects to disk on machines without Superdrives? Home on iPod? put 'em on you TV before burning to give it a test run...
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 43
    dude thats an awesome idea, i hope they see that.
  • Reply 2 of 43
    Yes, you do have a point here. Could put all sorts of plugs on the back of the iPod Dock ? the possibilities of its use could be dramatically increased.



    Perhaps even mirroring the iPod display on a TV while listening to music through it ? that would be cool. m. 8)
  • Reply 3 of 43
    just like i said in an earlier post, steve seems to be quietly setting these things up brick-by-brick and then later the end result shows. ipod has a "dock" what do you do with a dock? just like the one on the desktop, you add things to it...
  • Reply 4 of 43
    I have been thinking along similar lines. Imagine an Airport Extreme Basestation with a 160 GB hard drive, an iPod Dock, and s-video in and component out.
  • Reply 5 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Michael Wilkie

    I have been thinking along similar lines. Imagine an Airport Extreme Basestation with a 160 GB hard drive, an iPod Dock, and s-video in and component out.



    I think I'd rather have them all seperate. I'd keep the basestation near the jack coming into my wall, the harddrive on or in my comp, the dock on my desktop and the S-video in in my desktop
  • Reply 6 of 43
    Nah, the iPod has a dock, for the same reason as so many other MP3 players or MD players - to recharge and sync with the thing nicely stood up. Even some digital cameras have these. I wouldn't read anything else into it.
  • Reply 7 of 43
    that would be awesome!!!
  • Reply 8 of 43
    corbucorbu Posts: 40member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eupfhoria

    I think I'd rather have them all seperate. I'd keep the basestation near the jack coming into my wall, the harddrive on or in my comp, the dock on my desktop and the S-video in in my desktop



    I disagree. I would like any set top box device to have a HUGE upgradeable hard drive. I am pissed enough that I have to have a duplicate of all my iPods music in my laptop as well as on the iPod itself. Shouldn't there be one, stationary repository for all of your music, images and movies...? A set top box would certainly be large enough to handle that, not to mention it would certainly be stationary. It would kind of be the "media server" for your whole house.



    Let your computer store applications and documents, not media.
  • Reply 9 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by corbu

    ...

    Let your computer store applications and documents, not media.




    I have to disagree with that one. Computers are devices used to control digital media. You started off with moving calculations to digital electronics, followed by electronic versions of documents. If you are migrating your audio and video technologies to the digital format, it is only natural that computers should be used to manipulate / control them.



    On the topic of duplicate storage, I personally think every house should have something similar to a firewire 800 based wireless SAN with all devices interlinked to it.
  • Reply 10 of 43
    corbucorbu Posts: 40member
    I am speaking of STORING not MANIPULATING movies music etc... When in my house, I want to manage my music and movies from my livingroom where my TV, component stereo and large amplified speakers are. I will always have some music on my laptop (but mainly my iPod) so I can take it on the road. But I have have a 40 gig HD on my laptop, and a 40 gig iPod and 45 gigs of music. Right now my only solution is a remote firewire drive.



    Soon, we will all be storing movies too. Can you think of a better place to store all these huge media files than a set top box...? Maybe someday we will all have a few terabytes of networked storage in the basement. Until then, I will take a 250gig drive in my set top box please.
  • Reply 11 of 43
    iPods will only keep getting bigger and bigger. The settop box should not have it's own disk imho. Then you start having to copy and sync files. The settop box should access content shared on computers, or your iPod. The only chip it should have is mpeg encode/decode (and possibly comething to support mounting network shares). Encode a show directly onto your iPod, sync it onto your mac. Manipulate it on your mac, sync back to iPod, dock the ipod on the set top box, and play. Media should not be duplicated, and since the Mac is the only place to edit, the originals should stay there. Syncing twice would be very annoying (mac to ipod, ipod to STB). One sync, one place for data (mac), keep the cost of the settop box very low to sell lots. All it needs in an mpeg encode/decode chip, if even that. Yes, s-video should stay on your laptop. But component out will not arrive on laptops in current form. the iPod dock wouldsupport s-video, but it's real opportunity is HDTV. The iPod dock could have optical and component outputs. Once again, the STB would just be dock, with maybe mpeg encode/decode functions. With video iPods on the way, the iPod can handle the pretty and simple GUI a STB would need, and maybe even the encode funcitonallity, albiet possibly not high res HDTV.



    If apple could sell this for $99-149 , this would be ideal. heck, even have an adapter to hook an ipod up to that phillips STB that supports WiFi and rendevous, and sell that for $49...
  • Reply 12 of 43
    Many of you see the drive-based set-top box as something that will "duplicate" information. I tend to think of it as a back-up. Do you really want to trust a portable computer and an iPod to save all of your data. They could easilly be lost or stolen and there goes all of the music you've ever downloaded from iTMS, all your digital photos, etc. What should consumers do...use Retrospect or Apple Backup and buy yet another device that will have "duplicate" data set anyway in addition to the set-top box?
  • Reply 13 of 43
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Apple wants to sell Macs. Period.







    You want a centralized server for all your media files? That's what your Mac is for. You can back it up, edit, store, whatever... it does it all.



    A set-top box would be for *viewing* them remotely. Why on earth would you insist on having the storage with the device in your living room? Why not have a machine on the network that handles all the actual server work (which is already built in to MacOS X quite nicely), and just tap into it? Seems to be a much better option, and one that is doable today. Want more storage? Add it to the server, not the set-top box. The STB is just an access point. Witness the iPod - you store on your Mac, you organize with iTunes, you access with iPod 'remotely'. If the iPod were on a 24/7 network, streaming would be doable instead - a STB has that option that an iPod doesn't.



    Apple will go with pushing the devices that give them the strongest long-term strategic advantage, and highest profit margins. Those are Macs, ultimately.



    Now, if the STB had a FW port for adding an external HD for storage as an option, that might fly - you would still need a Mac to get things *onto* it, but once you did, you could have it be standalone. Mac still need = happy Apple.
  • Reply 14 of 43
    With all this talk about an Apple Front Projector, a set top box, and an iPod dock, it got me thinking about how Apple could really get the whole home entertainment thing integrated with the Mac. I figured the best way would be with a set top box, but with an important difference: How about actually making it something useful?



    Imagine, if you will, an Airport-connecting, Rendezvous-enabled, iApp-integrated set top box.



    Just plug it in, and hook it up to your TV (and other home theater equipment), and it will instantly connect to your Airport Extreme network (or to your ethernet network, for the wire-bound). Using Rendezvous, it searches out any Macs (and later, PCs) with appropriate iApps loaded, all with no user configuration required. Here's where the iApps come in:



    iTunes: Accesses your iTunes library and playlists, letting you play your entire music collection on your big stereo, all without extra wires or clunky "Media Center PC" sitting right there. Plus, if desired, song information and iTunes visuals can play on your TV.



    iPhoto: Accesses your iPhoto library and albums, and lets you show slideshows on your TV, with an iTunes-supplied soundtrack, of course. This would be a Mac only feature, unless Apple found a money-making reason to port iPhoto to Windows.



    iFlick (or iShow, or iVid... or whatever): A new iApp, which would be a combination of iTunes for video, and a PVR. While watching TV, the set top box can simultaneously beam the video to your Mac, where it'll save it to your harddrive in Quicktime format. iFlick will, of course, manage and organize all your TV shows (and any other Quicktime videos you may have) in a Library and playlists/albums. There could also be an iTunes-like browse feature to search for shows by channel, date, or other meta data (like all your "Friends" episodes, or all movies starring a particular actor). iFlick would integrate with other iApps as well. iMovie could export your completed videos to your iFlick library, just like GarageBand exports to iTunes. Also, iFlick could send saved TV shows to either iMovie for editing (who wants those commercials, anyway?) or directly to iDVD. Plus, once broadband actually gets fast enough, and Apple sorts out an agreement with the Motion Picture Association, there could be an iFlick Movie Store... probably more of a rental store, but whatever. Of course, I shouldn't have to mention it, but iFlick could obviously send any stored videos back to your TV, through the set top box, for later viewing, and would provide all the playback features current PVR users are accustomed to.



    iFlick would be a cross-platform iApp, just like iTunes, because it would help sell the set top box (just like iTunes sells the iPod). Plus, when the video store opens, you want a big customer base.



    I don't think bandwidth should be a problem... I've never tried streaming video over Airport, but considering the resolution you can get over DSL/cable, and considering how much faster Airport Extreme is than that, there shouldn't be any problem. Plus, Apple wouldn't need to worry about supporting HiDef for a few years, and by then Airport super-duper-extreme will be around anyway.



    Plus, cost could be fairly low. It's airport, a processor, and a bunch of memory. You probably wouldn't even need a hard drive, since the Mac is doing all the video recording anyway... unless you want a small one for buffering, and it turns out to be cheaper than extra RAM.



    The set top box could all be controlled through an iPod-like interface, although with a very snazzed-up and Aqua-esque appearance. In fact, the remote would not likely need many more controls than those found on an actual iPod. You would basically select the computer from the auto-discovered list, then select the iApp (or more likely, the type of media you're looking for), and then browse the playlists and stuff. Apple could even skip the whole "select the computer" stage, and have the device list media from all connected computers in a blended, seamless list.



    Do I actually think Apple will make such a box? Not likely. Should Apple make one? Well, it's another digital lifestyle device with potentially high margins. It integrates with and adds value to almost all of iLife. And it would get all those analysts off their backs for not having an answer to the Media Center PC (and yes, most analysts are bone heads, but they do affect Apple's stock price). Plus, of all the computer companies trying to get into the home entertainment business, only Apple has a clue when it comes to style.
  • Reply 15 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Apple wants to sell Macs. Period.







    You want a centralized server for all your media files? That's what your Mac is for. You can back it up, edit, store, whatever... it does it all.



    A set-top box would be for *viewing* them remotely. Why on earth would you insist on having the storage with the device in your living room? Why not have a machine on the network that handles all the actual server work (which is already built in to MacOS X quite nicely), and just tap into it? Seems to be a much better option, and one that is doable today. Want more storage? Add it to the server, not the set-top box. The STB is just an access point. Witness the iPod - you store on your Mac, you organize with iTunes, you access with iPod 'remotely'. If the iPod were on a 24/7 network, streaming would be doable instead - a STB has that option that an iPod doesn't.



    Apple will go with pushing the devices that give them the strongest long-term strategic advantage, and highest profit margins. Those are Macs, ultimately.



    Now, if the STB had a FW port for adding an external HD for storage as an option, that might fly - you would still need a Mac to get things *onto* it, but once you did, you could have it be standalone. Mac still need = happy Apple.




    Why would it matter if it's in the living room? It will have airport extreme, right? I don't want to have to buy some crumby, third party firewire drive to back-up my data. It makes sense that the machine that will act as a media player stores the media. It would be a server, but the not kind of thing where you would have to actually que a data back-up, or even schedule one, but a constant synchronization to the STB between all macs on the network in the background.



    The problem with using a Mac as your server (unless it's dedicated) is that it will slow down whatever the user on that machine is doing. Not to mention setting up permissions, share points, etc. is something most consumers aren't going to do.
  • Reply 16 of 43
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Serving up media is a no-brainer, and doesn't slow down the computer for a logged in user. Try it. I serve up songs, video and pictures from a 350MHz B/W G3 Rev A. in my study to the laptops around the house, and guess what? Almost no appreciable difference to a logged in user.



    Config, permissions, etc: Rendevouz. iTunes Sharing. Etc.



    I already do this in my house - a STB would just be a cheaper version of the retired Pismo I use now.



    It really is pretty blasted simple with a minor amount of setup *now*... with an STB dedicated for this sort of services discovery, and playback, it'd be truly plug and play.





    Waitaminnit... you're griping about needing to set up share points, permissions, etc, and yet you want this thing to *synchronize* with user's media files on various computers automatically?? Whaaaaaaa? Same situation, if not worse. "I'll share these files, but not these" vs. "I'll let the STB copy these files, but not these". No difference, except now you have copies to synchronize.



    If you want a backup, get a backup solution. RsyncX and a 'crumby' FireWire drive (because goodness knows that's what web cookies leave behind...) will fit the bill nicely.



    If you want an autosync networked storage backup solution, get yourself a SAN and then use RsyncX.



    But for goodness' sake, keep the separation of media storage and media playback separate. There's no need to combine the two, *especially* if you're in the business of selling Macs.
  • Reply 17 of 43
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Serving up media is a no-brainer, and doesn't slow down the computer for a logged in user. Try it. I serve up songs, video and pictures from a 350MHz B/W G3 Rev A. in my study to the laptops around the house, and guess what? Almost no appreciable difference to a logged in user.



    Config, permissions, etc: Rendevouz. iTunes Sharing. Etc.



    I already do this in my house - a STB would just be a cheaper version of the retired Pismo I use now.



    It really is pretty blasted simple with a minor amount of setup *now*... with an STB dedicated for this sort of services discovery, and playback, it'd be truly plug and play.





    Waitaminnit... you're griping about needing to set up share points, permissions, etc, and yet you want this thing to *synchronize* with user's media files on various computers automatically?? Whaaaaaaa? Same situation, if not worse. "I'll share these files, but not these" vs. "I'll let the STB copy these files, but not these". No difference, except now you have copies to synchronize.



    If you want a backup, get a backup solution. RsyncX and a 'crumby' FireWire drive (because goodness knows that's what web cookies leave behind...) will fit the bill nicely.



    If you want an autosync networked storage backup solution, get yourself a SAN and then use RsyncX.



    But for goodness' sake, keep the separation of media storage and media playback separate. There's no need to combine the two, *especially* if you're in the business of selling Macs.




    First off, I run a home server as well. I have a Dual G4 running Panther Server. But that's only because I work from home. A consumer typically doesn't have an extra computer lying around. Nor do they want to use RsyncX or a SAN.



    Second, this hard drive-based STB could use Rendevous to automatically discover home folders on the network. I'm talking about backing-up home folders...not sharing all of them. Only photos, music and movies would be accessible by the STB interface for playback.
  • Reply 18 of 43
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    What you just described is a Rendevouz SAN. Cool device. Not a STB.
  • Reply 19 of 43
    Well, if you look at my first post here, you'll see that what I described is essentially an Airport Base Station, STB, and SAN combined in one device with component out and an iPod dock.
  • Reply 20 of 43
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Right. At which point I have to ask... why?



    Sell the SAN backup system as a solution for small businesses, homes with more than one computer, etc, etc, etc. <-Make profit.



    Sell an STB that plays media off of other systems, including the SAN if wanted. <-Make profit.



    Sell a networkable iPod Dock that serves up the playlists to the STB without tying it to a computer, excellent for "Bring your own music" parties and the like, or for the person who just likes gadgets. (You can get audio-out Docks now. If you want more flexibility and funkiness, have a Dock that can just plug directly into... wait for it... the STB for on-screen selection, etc.)



    These are two separate functions to be performed optimally by different devices. Tying them together just limits the markets of each.



    Good design isn't a matter of seeing how much you can cram into one box - it's about finding out how much you can strip away.
Sign In or Register to comment.