or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Microsoft plans wireless iPod rival by Christmas
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft plans wireless iPod rival by Christmas - Page 3

post #81 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by TrevorD
If they also included an "Add to Wishlist" feature rather than just "Buy Now", that would be even better.

You can drag songs from the iTMS into a playlist to make a wishlist. What would be really cool is if they created a wishlist that your friends/family could see and they could ust the "Gift" feature to send you what you wanted.
post #82 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by bdj21ya
You can drag songs from the iTMS into a playlist to make a wishlist. What would be really cool is if they created a wishlist that your friends/family could see and they could ust the "Gift" feature to send you what you wanted.

smart
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #83 of 108
You're an apologist if you don't think Apple should add a radio and a mic (and ability to record radio) to iPods. I think people aren't so stupid they can't handle using a goddamn radio. Or mic. I mean are you kidding? Damnit I waited all COLLEGE!!!! By the time I'm in grad/law school they BETTER have recording. And I don't mean some 8khz tacked on garbage, I mean a built in mic, and a mic jack, and recording straight to AAC or HE-AAC. Definitely wouldn't jack cost up much, and if MS or other competitors seriously challenge the iPod it WILL need to add these features, among others. At some point, features do matter. Especially ones like those that are right in line with the iPod. I'm not saying I want the 6th gen to make me sandwiches. I just want to record lectures and radio, and I bet a lot of other people do too.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #84 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
You're an apologist if you don't think Apple should add a radio and a mic (and ability to record radio) to iPods. I think people aren't so stupid they can't handle using a goddamn radio. Or mic. I mean are you kidding? Damnit I waited all COLLEGE!!!! By the time I'm in grad/law school they BETTER have recording. And I don't mean some 8khz tacked on garbage, I mean a built in mic, and a mic jack, and recording straight to AAC or HE-AAC. Definitely wouldn't jack cost up much, and if MS or other competitors seriously challenge the iPod it WILL need to add these features, among others. At some point, features do matter. Especially ones like those that are right in line with the iPod. I'm not saying I want the 6th gen to make me sandwiches. I just want to record lectures and radio, and I bet a lot of other people do too.

I don't know. I stopped listening to the radio years ago for music, and I'm not a student so I can't think of anything I really need to record. I, personally, would not pay extra for either of those features. What Apple has to do is figure out weather there are more customers like you, or more like me out there. Or weather there are enough of both to create two lines.

Then again, I still haven't upgraded to the video iPod because I don't care about video either. So it's quite possible I'm just out of touch culturally.
post #85 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
I don't know. I stopped listening to the radio years ago for music, and I'm not a student so I can't think of anything I really need to record. I, personally, would not pay extra for either of those features. What Apple has to do is figure out whether there are more customers like you, or more like me out there. Or whether there are enough of both to create two lines.

Since podcasts emerged i entirely ceased to listen to radio, too.
Not to say, that i was a big radio listener previously. But now even more
there is really no need for radio (in its current state, at least for me.)

I believe that the success of the current iPod line is based on
its simplicity. If you want to ad some more features, than there
is a huge field of 3rd party deliverers.
Quote:
Then again, I still haven't upgraded to the video iPod because I don't care about video either. So it's quite possible I'm just out of touch culturally.

Don't worry, i guess you just represent the second part of customers,
who appreciate simplicity, no? I do.
Btw, i have upgraded to Video iPod, guess what, i was so excited,
such a compelling feature, but actually i don't use it.
cheers
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #86 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second.


you mean 20 or 60kb, yes?

I've heard files with bitrates that low on wired devices, and these are much better than that.

Anyhow, aren't Bluetooth 1.1 and 1.2 limited to more like 720kbps?
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #87 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?



Apple to release Wireless iPod - http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1866


"wireless functionality is an obvious next step for the product line"

"we expect a new wireless iPod this fall"

Are you implying that Apple are making a huge mistake if they release what is likely to be a Bluetooth iPod, aegis?
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #88 of 108
If it's Bluetooth for music transfer, great! I'm sure it would only add to the ease of use of the iPod if it would automatically sync with your library when it got close enough. If it is Bluetooth for headset, they'd better do something revolutionary, because current BT audio really sucks for music. The only revolutionary solution I can think of working out with current BT standards would be to send the music across several radios and put it back together in realtime. While that would be cool in theory, I don't think anyone would think losing the wire would be worth also losing 80% of their battery life.
post #89 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
You're an apologist if you don't think Apple should add a radio and a mic (and ability to record radio) to iPods. I think people aren't so stupid they can't handle using a goddamn radio.

Mic/line-in I agree with. Radio, no, but I'm in the UK and FM radio is about to go the way of the dodo in most of Europe and Asia as both have some form of free digital radio - DAB in the UK...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/digitalradio/about/

Of course, you've not got that in the USA and Asia's system is different to Europe so adding it in as standard is complex as there would no longer be an iPod that worked everywhere.
post #90 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
you mean 20 or 60kb, yes?

I've heard files with bitrates that low on wired devices, and these are much better than that.

Anyhow, aren't Bluetooth 1.1 and 1.2 limited to more like 720kbps?

No. I meant KB not Kb or kb.

Transferring files to my phone (Sony Ericsson P910i) rarely gets more than 20KBytes/sec. That's 160Kbits/sec so it's barely enough for music streaming. That's plain Jane Bluetooth 1.2. In theory it should give you up to 90KB/s (or 720Kb/s) but I've never got anywhere near with any phone I've had, and I've had 4 different BT phones. Could be the phones or it could also be interference from 802.11b networks but my reality is a patchy 20KB/s.

v2.0 with Enhanced Data Rate gives you 2.1Mb/s, however, all the headphone systems I've seen so far have been v1.2.

So, in theory, for compressed music Bluetooth 1.2 is ok, and 2.0 pretty good but in practice for me, so far I've been very unimpressed.
post #91 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
No. I meant KB not Kb or kb.


Fair enough - it's just that you referred to KB as the limiting factor, yet said it couldn't run a certain mp3 rated in kb. It would have been clearer to speak about either KB or kb, not both in the same sentence...:-

"20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?"

And wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #92 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by bdj21ya
If it's Bluetooth for music transfer, great! I'm sure it would only add to the ease of use of the iPod if it would automatically sync with your library when it got close enough.

Even if you were transferring at the theoretical maximum of Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, it would take you over an hour to fill a 1GB Nano. It'll take 3 hours at BT 1.2 speeds and IME, it took me 8 hours to fill a 512MB bluetooth 1.2 enabled phone.

If they added 802.11g however, it would be about 20 times faster. Both the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS have wifi. I don't see why the iPod doesn't have that now. However, all three are quicker to fill via USB or a card adaptor.

The only thing bluetooth is useful for is pairing it with your phone so that when your phone rings, the music stops.
post #93 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
And wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?

He answered that in detail in the remainder of his post.
post #94 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Fair enough - it's just that you referred to KB as the limiting factor, yet said it couldn't run a certain mp3 rated in kb. It would have been clearer to speak about either KB or kb, not both in the same sentence...:-

"20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?"

And wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?

Which is why I wrote KB and not Kb. It's not confusing if you read correctly and can divide by 8 without thinking. Comes naturally to a programmer. Sorry.
post #95 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
He answered that in detail in the remainder of his post.


He says "Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?", so I think it's fair to ask "wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?"
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #96 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Which is why I wrote KB and not Kb. It's not confusing if you read correctly and can divide by 8 without thinking. Comes naturally to a programmer. Sorry.



Most people who talk about quality regarding MP3's aren't programmers like you and me. So to most people, mixing KB and kb in the same sentence IS confusing. Hence my request for clarification. Many people mistakingly interchange the two.

But it's simple enough - 60 KiloBYTES/sec is enough to play a 320 KiloBITS/sec mp3.

Which is probably why my bluetooth headphones sound perfectly excellent. But yes, wired has the edge, but I like the convenience of unwired...
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #97 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
He says "Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?", so I think it's fair to ask "wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?"

The question was because it's a theoretical max. It varies with distance, walls in the way, interference from other sources in the 2.4 range such as 802.11b/g, DECT phones, Microwaves etc.

Ok, I'm sure you're not going to wander far from your iPod and if you're at home, you're not likely to be using an iPod anyway so most of the time you're fine and within probable capabilities but I'd like a bigger margin of error bearing in mind I get occasional drops in signal to an Airport Express never mind bluetooth.
post #98 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
Which is probably why my bluetooth headphones sound perfectly excellent. But yes, wired has the edge, but I like the convenience of unwired...

Obviously not so if you can tell the difference.
post #99 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by belfast-biker
He says "Bluetooth A2DP is ok if you're listening to low bitrate music but it currently maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second. What does it do when you try playing a 320Kb/s mp3?", so I think it's fair to ask "wouldn't 60 KiloBYTES/sec play a 320kiloBITS/sec file adequately?"

He said:
Quote:
Transferring files to my phone (Sony Ericsson P910i) rarely gets more than 20KBytes/sec. [..] v2.0 with Enhanced Data Rate gives you 2.1Mb/s, however, all the headphone systems I've seen so far have been v1.2.
post #100 of 108
Yeah, the post I was referring to was the one where you say it "maxes out at either 20KB or 60KB a second".



Granted, after I asked the question, he talked about how his Sony phone got 20KB/sec, but I can hardly predict what he's going to type AFTER I post...



Are we forgetting about the 60KBPS now completely, pretend it was never typed?

Fair enough.
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #101 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by aegisdesign
Even if you were transferring at the theoretical maximum of Bluetooth 2.0+EDR, it would take you over an hour to fill a 1GB Nano. It'll take 3 hours at BT 1.2 speeds and IME, it took me 8 hours to fill a 512MB bluetooth 1.2 enabled phone.

If they added 802.11g however, it would be about 20 times faster. Both the Sony PSP and the Nintendo DS have wifi. I don't see why the iPod doesn't have that now. However, all three are quicker to fill via USB or a card adaptor.

The only thing bluetooth is useful for is pairing it with your phone so that when your phone rings, the music stops.

you're right. WiFi is the best, of course.

But it really sucks power. When I was considering the HTC-6700 phone, with WiFi and Bluetooth. I saw that the battery life ratings with WiFi turned on were dreadful. They improved by several times with it turned off, so that would be a limitation. I ended up with the Palm 700p, with just Bluetooth.
post #102 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
you're right. WiFi is the best, of course.

But it really sucks power.



Yup true - I tend to only turn Wifi on when I'm attached to the power (suits me with a wireless network at home, and not many wifis in Belfast anyhow), and use bluetooth outside the house without noticeable power loss.
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #103 of 108
post #104 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by LotharSNL
Argo. Like to see it operate.

http://portableaudio.engadget.com/20...-media-player/

This article (below) about the Argo project at Technology News says:

"Microsoft traditionally has been leery of the device market. Xbox is the one successful exception."

Xbox? Successful? With huge losses? Really? I'd like to know their definition of "success." I wouldn't call the Xbox project a success - MAYBE the 360 in a few years, but definitely not the Xbox.

And the whole Argo project has been given to the Xbox team? Scary...

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/51691.html
post #105 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by jamezog
[B]This article (below) about the Argo project at Technology News says:

"Microsoft traditionally has been leery of the device market. Xbox is the one successful exception."

Xbox? Successful? With huge losses? Really? I'd like to know their definition of "success." I wouldn't call the Xbox project a success - MAYBE the 360 in a few years, but definitely not the Xbox.

And the whole Argo project has been given to the Xbox team? Scary...

Yep, a few more successes like that and Microsoft could be out of business. Okay, I'll admit they have done fairly well in the US market--although still a distant second. But their Japanese experience has been terrible.

Microsoft successes tend to come from their ability to out-price and outlast their competitors. It worked better when the PC market was exploding, but investors seem to have a little less patience with the losses these days. But MS has a good hype machine, as you can see from the excitement this leak has caused.

Still, nothing I've heard or seen in these articles is particularly inspiring. Or hard to replicate.
post #106 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by jamezog
And the whole Argo project has been given to the Xbox team? Scary...

Well, keep in mind that M$ moved their Macintosh software developers under the Xbox umbrella. This happened back at the end of 2005 and seems darkly suspicious. I mean... I personally could care less if Microsoft drops Office for the Mac, but it seems that they may be tapping these guys for work on the IBM/Sony PowerPC chip derivative used in the Xbox and for interface work (hopefully - for their own good) on this new Microsoft Zen... I mean Zune.
post #107 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by LotharSNL
Argo. Like to see it operate.

http://portableaudio.engadget.com/20...-media-player/



Hmmm, one of the few ipod rivals that actually looks kinda sexy.
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
I need to read the posting guideline about signatures.
Reply
post #108 of 108
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
You're an apologist if you don't think Apple should add a radio and a mic (and ability to record radio) to iPods. I think people aren't so stupid they can't handle using a goddamn radio. Or mic. I mean are you kidding? Damnit I waited all COLLEGE!!!! By the time I'm in grad/law school they BETTER have recording. And I don't mean some 8khz tacked on garbage, I mean a built in mic, and a mic jack, and recording straight to AAC or HE-AAC. Definitely wouldn't jack cost up much, and if MS or other competitors seriously challenge the iPod it WILL need to add these features, among others. At some point, features do matter. Especially ones like those that are right in line with the iPod. I'm not saying I want the 6th gen to make me sandwiches. I just want to record lectures and radio, and I bet a lot of other people do too.

I suppose I'm an apologist then.

I did my degree using a 3rd Gen iPod and a plug-in mic - it was fine for what I needed. When I graduated I sold the plug-in as I haven't had a need for it since. If I end up doing a Masters degree I'll buy another Mic.

I don't need the feature clutter. Radio's a bloody waste of time - I picked up a satellite radio receiver for my car as I positively hate pulling up to the lights and getting nothing but #S&$#TAT@#IC.

NPR may be the best thing since sliced bread for you in the states. The CBC is wonderful for us up here.

THEY PODCAST.

If you need the features the iPod is modular enough to let you plug them in. As I don't require the features, I don't want them a) adding bulk b) draining battery or c) interrupting the design of the unit. It doesn't need extra holes, antennas, inches or ounces.
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
Modding for Great Justice
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Microsoft plans wireless iPod rival by Christmas