or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

my guess would be that the iProd(uct) 2,1 will be either the iPad gen2 or another form factor (we did have rumors of an in-between 6" iPad just recently).

For me that is a direct reference to the next generation iPad. That is due to ship some time next year. It should surprise no one that, that is the case.
[quote]
That being said, I can't see Apple releasing another iPad model before next January, mainly because the iPad is selling so well, why create a new product to take away sales of a product that most lay-people think is it for now.
[\\quote]
First off this isn't a church, we aren't members of a cingregation thus not lay people.

In any event why this silly a$$ reasoning that introducing one product by default must take away sales from another????? This reasoning simply is not rational. It is like a TV manufacture saying it won't produce a 21 inch TV becayse it will take sakes away from its 42 inch model. Different markets and different needs imply products.

Further a 2.1 product implys a revision to a current oroduct. I hope you realize that it is very important for Apple to get past its rev one device as fast as possible. For iPad to realize its potential and compete with coming competition it needs more robust hardware.

As to an entirely new device, that i hope is coming. As it would be in effect a smalker iPad i don't see it impacting the iPad at all. After all the Touch exist and nobody claims it impacts iPad sale. People buy to fit their needs.
Quote:
I don't think this mention is an Apple TV revamp, mainly (for reasons already stated on this forum) they would give a different nomenclature, not 2,1. So the "Unknown- Add device descriptor info for this device" reference could be a new iTV.

This is getting exciting, however...everyone thought the iPad was going to be announce last year in September and it didn't happen.

Yes but these days I try to not let it get to me. Excitement is good but getting hung up on Apple isn't.
Quote:
Apple is smart to release brand-new products in the early year, it gives the market an acceptance period; 11 months of hype before the holidays.

Except when they grossly underestimate demand. IPad and iPhone demand is such that the time of the year for the debut makes little difference. The sad reality is that the Christmas shopping season will be upon us in a couple of months and the indications are that Apple will not be able to cover demand. That is very bad.

In the end the time of debuting a product doesn't mean much. It is all about meeting customer expectations with product on the shelf.

Dave
post #42 of 67
Perhaps this will be the iTable or iSurface. Apple has a reputation for taking product the Microsoft fails at and making them a success.
post #43 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

I could see using an app on your iPhone/iPad as a remote to run the iTV.

The Remote app already controls the AppleTV.
Quote:
I don't think it would take a lot of hand-eye coordination to use an iPhone/iPad app if you can see some kind of cursor on your TV screen that follows what you're doing on the iPhone/iPad.

Why would the user need to see anything on the TV screen when he sees everything he needs to on his iPhone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Umm, how would you run touch-based apps on a TV?

You would connect the iTV to your televisions and run apps on that (as explained in the sentence you quoted).
Note that the iTV is not a television set. It is a new/replacement AppleTV device which runs iOS.
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe hs View Post

What is an iProd ???

Well,

if you have to ask . . .
post #45 of 67
One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.

I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
Reply
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
Reply
post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacApfel View Post

I can see that cable TV will experience the same fate as landline phone. Everyone still has it, but many people use their mobile now. I think there is a market for in iDevice based TV. This will then go the way of the mobile phones, and in 5 years people find this much more attractive and versatile than cable TV. Let's just hope the price difference is not the same as between landline and mobile phones!

I wouldn't quite say that. Cable TV offers real-time "linear" channels, and I don't see people generally dumping those anytime soon. Rumors talk about Apple TV being a device that can stream on-demand movie rentals, and play games. So could this be the beginning of the end for Blu-Ray, cable TV's Movies on Demand, and perhaps even the Wii. If the latter applies, based on early Wii demand, Apple had better open up a new factory, or make their Foxconn factory employees work 28-hour days, eight days a week.

(By the way: That new Foxconn factory that could supposedly make 200k iPhones a day -- could they make Apple TVs when iPhone demand sags a tad? What about iPads?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

Comcast/NBCU has a huge stake because they're a big player in both cable networks and local cable/broadband subscriptions, and I just don't see them contributing all of their current content to an internet-delivered, subscription-based service unless it replaces the revenue from reduced ad rates and fewer cable subscribers.

And would they want to give in to Steve Jobs like he'd like, or would CoNBC just put the stuff on Hulu Plus or something like that? The latter is possible, because that's the NBC 2.0 Jeff Zucker Way. Yeah, like that's worked, before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thompr View Post

Which device you going to look at while playing a dynamic iOS game, the iPhone or the TV? Same question goes for the people that say the magic trackpad could be used as the controller.

This doesn't make much sense to me.

And really, I don't, either. As others pointed out, I'm pretty sure that Steve probably would have something brand new ready to go, something that could fit in the box, and not cost much to make (remember -- $99 for everything).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Further a 2.1 product implys a revision to a current oroduct. I hope you realize that it is very important for Apple to get past its rev one device as fast as possible. For iPad to realize its potential and compete with coming competition it needs more robust hardware.

In this case, why? FaceTime? People seem satisfied with the current iPad; it's still on backorder, and it's not the holidays, yet, when demand for gadgets increase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

As to an entirely new device, that i hope is coming. As it would be in effect a smalker iPad i don't see it impacting the iPad at all. After all the Touch exist and nobody claims it impacts iPad sale. People buy to fit their needs.

Quote:
Apple is smart to release brand-new products in the early year, it gives the market an acceptance period; 11 months of hype before the holidays.

Except when they grossly underestimate demand. IPad and iPhone demand is such that the time of the year for the debut makes little difference. The sad reality is that the Christmas shopping season will be upon us in a couple of months and the indications are that Apple will not be able to cover demand. That is very bad.

And many of the people who buy iPad 2's would be repeat iPad 1 buyers, further hurting supply. Unless it's a 6-7" iPad, and/or they've got a supply trick up their sleeves, I can't see why Apple would rationally replace, or even supplement, a super-popular device so close to the holiday rush. And if it were a 7" iPad, why wouldn't the device be known as "iProd 1,2"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ranum View Post

One thing Apple seems to like is implementing the newest wi-fi protocols even before the standard has been ratified. I'm pretty sure they implemented 802.11-G and 802.11-N before either were ratified.

I've kept an eye on Wi-Fi Direct since it first made a splash several months back. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new AppleTV (iTV) implement Wi-Fi Direct technology, which allows for direct device to device wireless communication, bypassing the need for an intermediate Wi-Fi router. The awesome thing, from what I understand, is the Wi-Fi Direct capabilities can be enabled by new firmware on existing hardware and only one device needs to be Wi-Fi Direct-enabled for other devices to connect to it. A new AppleTV seems to be a relatively low-risk device on which to implement and test Wi-Fi Direct capabilities in the real world before Apple tried to implement it on desktops or other iDevices. Imagine being able to use the iPod Touch or iPhone as a remote control or game controller, etc., all wirelessly connected directly without needing the wi-fi router. I think it would be pretty cool.

1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?

2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.
post #47 of 67
how about this for the unidentified iprod device:

I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.

basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.

Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.

With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...
post #48 of 67
another question:

does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?

I think yes....
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

how about this for the unidentified iprod device:

I have a hunch that we might see the current ipod nano be replaced with an ipod touch nano like device.

basically a shrunken down ipod touch - same res screen but maybe 2.8 or 3.0 inch diagonal at a higher pixel density - and the case would be much smaller in dimension: definitly losing the top "chin" and some of the bottom chin with a slightly smaller or rectangular home button.

Nano would retain the video camera functionality, but would not have the facetime or higher res still camera of the full size ipod touch.

Unlikely for three reasons:

1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.

2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.

3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

With the ipod nano being the highest selling ipod, the boost to apple iOS device shipment numbers would definitly push it back past the 200,000+ android daily shipment numbers so proudly quoted by google recently...

All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

another question:

does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?

I think yes....

Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.
post #50 of 67
The iProd is a new device for ranchers so they can listen to music and move cattle with the same device.

Whatever the new device is I hope it comes out at the next event. I would like a smaller iPad or a much bigger iPod Touch.

Nobody in my area owns an iPhone because there is no AT&T coverage. I'd really like to see a retina display in person. Maybe it would be good enough to view movies. I know that an iPod Touch screen as is doesn't look that great for movies. A bigger screen would make viewing the web better and reading books much easier.

I've played with an iPad and I'd prefer something smaller.
post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Portable device for stunning Trolls and other Apple haters with an electric shock.


Oh I'm gonna need a few of them.
post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

another question:

does anyone think the new ipod touch will gain an optional 3G/GPS model with the same data plans available as the ipad?

I think yes....

That would be the start of a revolution.... but I don't think the carriers are ready and willing to support that... yet. Well, maybe if Apple bought a bunch of carriers (just AT&T, Orange, Vodafone, America Movil and China Unicom would do for a start) and then ruled the world.
post #53 of 67
Thanks for your feedback Mike.[

QUOTE=mikemikeb;1699173]Unlikely for three reasons:

1. Apple's big into FaceTime. Steve Jobs has been pushing the application, and I suspect all future iPod Touches, and perhaps Nanos, will have it. Actually, an iPod nano with two cameras and FaceTime is more likely than what you suggested. And remember that 3x3cm touchscreen display? That may be the key to FaceTime in a future iPod nano.

Thats true, perhaps the differentiation in the back facing camera quality will be enough for apple.


2. A smaller iPod touch screen would make gameplay harder. Plus the pixel density would be really expensive to produce.

A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference. Regarding pixel density - I think it will have same res as current ipod - which is half as much as the retina display - so i dont think it will be very expensive at all.

3. Such a device would likely be labelled as "iPod 4,2" or something like that.

But an ipod touch nano (or mini) would be an entirely new product, so wouldn't be a continuation of an existing produt identifier (think the ipod nano replacing the ipod mini).

All of them phones. Android could still claim the "top smartphone shipper" title even with all the added iOS devices, and that's what counts here. WiFi connectivity isn't as ubiquitous as 3G. Nor is there the phone part in those new iOS devices, unless you want to count VoIP apps.

THe android stats include ereaders like the nook and budget chineses netbooks & laptops. Regardless, apple doesn't care what an iOS device is: iPad, iPhone or iPod - all are its new computing platform - some has phone included, some have 3g connectivity, some just have wifi. Every device runs apps and consume content from itunes/ibooks/app store. This is what apple cares about - not who ships more phones, but who ships more devices.


Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.[/QUOTE]

What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.
post #54 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Portable device for stunning Trolls and other Apple haters with an electric shock.

Comes with a years supply of extra strength Koolaid and an improved set of blinkers with even larger baffles.

I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.
post #55 of 67
Is it really that shocking guys? I mean with iTv/AppleTV in horizon, they must be testing it by now.
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #56 of 67
Why couldn't it be a verizon Iphone 4 that numerous major newspapers have reported would be announced in september and released in December?? Its known too that a verizon Iphone was being tested on LTE in Boston so why couldn't it be?? Although I do agree that the ITV makes more sense.. I was on an airplane two months ago sitting behind what appeared to be someone pretty high up in Intel and I was reading a little bit of his stuff he was working on about why Apple Tv makes sense... i couldn't read the rest because it was too far away for me to see but there is some sort of apple TV coming since Google TV was listed as a competitor to it.. we'll see! Cant wait for the IPod update tho!! Facetime would be awesome or a verizon data chip would be nice too.
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

... I've read the rumors of a Wii-style remote, but that requires all those sensors and ugly wires that SJ hates!

I think the Gyroscope in the new iPhones is so accurate in tracking one's movement so a future Wii-style remote for the Apple TV could be done without IR sensors all together. Just a gyroscope enabled Apple Remote with Bluetooth would pretty much do it, with an extra "reset position" button or something..

iOS is Apple's super hit OS, so I think an iOS Apple TV would make sense.
No multi touch on the Apple TV I guess, but if they REALLY would like to, they could add extended gaming controller features to their remote.. I don't know though.. Maybe that'll happen when they understand the quality of the games that start to emerge...
post #58 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

A 3 inch screen is only slightly smaller than the current 3.5 inch screen, not too much difference.

No, no, no. This rumored screen is three centimeters wide, not three inches. Very small screen, more suited for a Nano, or an Apple TV remote of some kind. What the last poster suggested about the Apple TV remote works well with this screen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IOSWeekly View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

Cannibalization of iPad and especially iPhone sales? Possible. Not sure if AT&T (or any other carrier) would allow that device to exist, since it would cannibalize expensive iPhone data plans. They'd definitely want an iPhone exclusivity extension, if they were to allow that device to see the light of day.

What??? The carriers are money hungry shills, any opportunity they have to get you to sign up for another overpriced data plan - they will take all day every day. especially if its locked to just one device.

The fact that they're money-hungry shills is exactly why they wouldn't accept this device you suggest. Put it this way: Put an iPhone and an iPod Touch 3G side-by-side. Both would have to have just about identical 3G hardware. Both would put about the same strain on the AT&T network (voice doesn't use much bandwidth).

But an iPod Touch 3G would probably have to have a similar data plan to that of the iPad, because of the lack of AT&T 3G-based phone calls. That is, unless you want consumer outrage. So the iPhone nets AT&T an extra $25/month/subscriber or so, with little added strain to the network. On top of that, the iPad is contract-free; the iPhone locks you in for two years. It's one thing to offer low-ish cost 3G data-only plans on something that complements the iPhone. But to do it on something that directly competes with the iPhone? Makes no sense.

Would I take an interest in a contract-free, no-talk iPod Touch 3G? Absolutely. But AT&T would be insane to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iwantaverizonlteiphone4G View Post

Why couldn't it be a verizon Iphone 4 that numerous major newspapers have reported would be announced in september and released in December?? Its known too that a verizon Iphone was being tested on LTE in Boston so why couldn't it be??

I heard about Verizon testing LTE in Boston, yes. But an LTE-based Verizon iPhone? I didn't hear about that. Perhaps it happened, but it would likely have to be an early prototype of a model for the long-term future (like, being released in late 2011 or 2012).

Apple's previous MO is to wait for technology to mature before deploying it in mass-scale products. They could have launched the original iPhone with 3G technology, but they waited until the chipsets were less power-hungry. It's more likely that Apple has been testing an iPhone that can work with EVDO Rev. A, or perhaps even Rev. B, but not LTE.
post #59 of 67
Isn't the iProd 2.1 just the current 3G iPad?

iProd 1.1 --> WiFi
iProd 2.1 --> WiFi + 3G
post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

Well,

if you have to ask . . .

It's ok I was just being a little slow yesterday.
post #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

I wish people would stop referring to 'Apple's custom A4' processor. It has well and truly been outed as a Samsung Hummingbird. Probably the only 'custom' bit of it is the labeling on the chip.

I wish trolls would stop making comments that even they know they can't back up, and thus qualify with words like 'probably'. Having the same CPU is not the same as being the same SOC.
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by eightzero View Post

Have my visa card in hand.

So what happens to your apple tv you just bought (theoretically) this year when this new iTV device rolls out? I'm betting it doesn't get the iTV OS upgrade, not even as a paid option, and at some point becomes completely out dated, and by out dated i mean it stops functioning correctly due to software not hardware failure.
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
Groupthink is bad, mkay. Think Different is the motto.
Reply
post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

So what happens to your apple tv you just bought (theoretically) this year when this new iTV device rolls out? I'm betting it doesn't get the iTV OS upgrade, not even as a paid option, and at some point becomes completely out dated, and by out dated i mean it stops functioning correctly due to software not hardware failure.

That eventually happens with any "computer" product you buy. Really, Jeffrey, at least try to be a smart troll. Well, maybe that is an oxymoron.
post #64 of 67
So 4.1 is coming to the iPad, right? The wait for 4.x is killing me.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?

2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.

Considering that Wi-Fi Direct devices were demo'ed in January of this year at CES, and, at least according to this article from last week at InformIT.com (http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1620205), the Wi-Fi Direct standard is set for official release sometime soon, it could very well be to the point where Apple would implement it. Apple is almost always among the first computer companies to implement the newest Wi-Fi standards when they are released.

So, why Wi-Fi Direct over Bluetooth then? Here's the reason I think, quoting from the above article:

"Wi-Fi Direct devices will operate at the same speeds or data rates and range as current Wi-Fi gear. This maximum of about 200 Mbps at 200 feet is much more than the 3 Mbps at 30 feet with Bluetooth. This means you can share and communicate much faster and farther with Wi-Fi Direct."

I still think it's a good case for implementing Wi-Fi Direct technology on a device like the upcoming AppleTV/iTV.
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
Reply
"A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions."
Reply
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt109 View Post

I see these memes running around:

1) The new device is related to Apple TV
2) The new device runs iOS
3) The new device will sell for under 100 US$
4) The next Apple TV will include an app store and games
5) The next Apple TV will include Facetime

Some idle speculation:

A) The new device is a cheap iPod Touch-like device suitable as a remote, a game controller and a Facetime dialer. It will run iOS and all of its functions (apps) will be runnable on existing Touch, iPhone and iPad devices. It will sell for 99 bucks.

B) The next Apple TV is NOT the mystery device. It will remain OSX based and not be much cheaper than now. But, it will include an iSight so your living room TV can do Facetime, and enough cpu/gpu power to beat out the dying older generation of game console.

The whole package is going to look alot more like an xbox or ps3 with controller and internet connections. I've been thinking that even the geniuses at Apple can't fight the 6-foot interface challenge: the LR tv needs 2 devices: one for the hand and one to support the connections.

...still no blu ray...

I definitely hope the next event will bring a slew of FaceTime capable products as well as software updates for OS X to enable FaceTime in iChat. That to me would be huge and blow the competition away.

Course if they do so without releasing the standard to public as promised they may blow the chance of it becoming widely adopted. Too many companies out there now want to squash anything that comes from Apple; they'd rather see good technology die and Apple suffer.
post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranum View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemikeb View Post

1. Couldn't the same thing be done with Bluetooth?

2. 802.11g and n had been around for at least a year before Apple used it. You'd think they'd fast-track it with a few months' lead time, instead of using mature Bluetooth technology? Unlikely.

So, why Wi-Fi Direct over Bluetooth then? Here's the reason I think, quoting from the above article:

"Wi-Fi Direct devices will operate at the same speeds or data rates and range as current Wi-Fi gear. This maximum of about 200 Mbps at 200 feet is much more than the 3 Mbps at 30 feet with Bluetooth. This means you can share and communicate much faster and farther with Wi-Fi Direct."

I still think it's a good case for implementing Wi-Fi Direct technology on a device like the upcoming AppleTV/iTV.

Any remotes included in an AppleTV box (transmitting gyroscope data, button presses, etc.) probably wouldn't require any more than Bluetooth's bandwidth, over the short distance of the typical remote control. Bluetooth would be absolutely fine for the AppleTV. Plus, Bluetooth has been built into iPod touches and iPhones for a while, so putting it into the AppleTV won't be a challenge.

WiFi Direct may be good for synching data between iDevices and computers, from anywhere in the house, so I can see Apple working to use it, eventually -- just not on a TV remote.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple testing iOS 4.1 alongside next-gen iPod touch, iPad and 'unknown' product