remember iDock talk?->Intel does is 1st

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
While not as feature rich as most iDock discussions, it does the have core function which is wirelessly distribute media from a PC to home electromic devices.

<a href="http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7941141731.html"; target="_blank">http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT7941141731.html</a>;



If Apple wants to make the Mac the centre of our digital lifestyle, something like this but beyond is required.



Apple should have come out first, now the will have to what will become entrenched standards. This thing uses USB to connect to the electonic devices. This should have been Firewire, but if companies decide to support this from Intel, try getting them to put both FW and USB on their products..ain't gonna happen. This device doesn't stream Quicktime media, but does do WMA. So, again a core Apple technology move beyond the PC before Apple gets on the ball. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Rendezvous to shine. I know Philips is obviously interested in this sort of thing with rendezvous tech. Apple could sell their iDock evn more now with Rendezvous as a selling point.



Point of my ramble is simply that I am dissapointed that Intel beat Apple out the gate with an inferior version of something that Apple has all the tech and resources they need to have come out with a better model and help them move further into the digital lifstyle device arena.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 15
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 2 of 15
    I personally don't want to connect computer devices to my HiFi(snicker) via Wireless.



    Wireless is the current darling of the industry(networking) but it doesn't have the bandwidth to make it future proof IMO.



    HPNA 3.0 at 128mbps over standard decent quality Phonelines to me makes more sense. Most places have phonejacks in every room.



    I really think this type of easy convergence is WAY OFF.



    Apple would do good to stay away and see how much bloodshed Intel faces before venturing in these shark filled waters.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 4 of 15
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,752member
    [quote]Originally posted by AirSluf:

    <strong>



    Hmmm, Phillips says turn on your Mac and your stereo will stream it, not bad. Why do I need another box added to the mix??? Especially one made by a chip-maker, not an Audio-video vendor.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Unless each manufacturer is expected to add-on a wireless solution, you will need an intermediate interface, like a set-top box. Or you will need to directly connect your Mac to the home theater setup. A box that is capable of using rendezvous to discover the media and then send it on to the home theater via Firewire or USB or another way, means that the electronic companies don't have to worry about the wireless part.



    Firewire and USB have limited physical range, and since most people don't keep their computers in their home theater rooms, a direct wire connection between computer and home theater becomes a challenge. Added to the fact that manufacturers probably don't want to put wireless capabilities directly onto their components, then an iDock makes sense.



    An iDock, connected wirelessly to a computer, then connected to a home theater using a fast digital interface like FW, makes this sort of convergence well within Apple's ability and something that I think would fit well within their digital lifestyle ideals.
  • Reply 5 of 15
    [quote]When can I get one? . . . and for how much?



    Intel expects consumer versions of the digital media adapter to begin showing up during 2003.



    Based on an estimated total bill-of-materials (BOM) cost in the neighborhood of $79, Intel anticipates that PC vendors will bundle the media adapters with multimedia PCs in order to allow consumers to deliver music and video to their entertainment centers from their PCs. <hr></blockquote>



    $79 Bill of Materials? Bundling on PC's. Please. Most companies aren't even making money right now.



    This is YABTC(Yet another Box to connect) meaning it'll take reading a manual or begging a family member you come by to set this up. This is "not" consumer friendly convergence. Intel is just adding another layer of hardware. True Convergence is having the A/V device already contain the necessary interface.



    Wireless is not going to be it. The Audio Video Consumer industry is so far behind in actual cutting edge technology when it comes to non audio stuff it's pathetic. Go to AVScience and see. Debates rage on about Toslink vs Coax Digital cables and other mundane stuff.



    It's telling that Sony, a company that Sells PC's and A/V equip, hasn't delved into this "untapped oasis". That's pretty scary.
  • Reply 6 of 15
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,752member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>

    This is YABTC(Yet another Box to connect) meaning it'll take reading a manual or begging a family member you come by to set this up. This is "not" consumer friendly convergence. Intel is just adding another layer of hardware. True Convergence is having the A/V device already contain the necessary interface.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think having a Box act as an interface layer makes sense. I have a problem seeing manufacturers wanting build in a fully intergrated interface. This connection would have to be digital, fast, intelligent, and be able to read many different types of media. You build that into a $1000 unit and the consumer has no way of upgrading it easily. If you instead use an intermediate device that handles all the heavy lifting and is semi-upgradable, then all the manufacturer has to worry about on their devices is the physical interface. FW is perfect here, as it is digital and fast and cheap. Add FW to each device, and the Box worries about recoqnising devices, discovery of devices and decoding media. Building to much into each device limits your options with that device. A TV with a built in CDR might be nice for a week or so, till the customer decides a DVD-R would be better. Buy a new TV with DVD?...It would have been better for the CDR to be an add-on, then all the customer would need to replace would be the CDR. Convergence doesn't have to mean all devices are intelligent. It does mean that all devices are able to be used together and that they are somewhat aware of other devices. A singke Box done right, would handle this for for less expense that building the same components into every device.



    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>

    It's telling that Sony, a company that Sells PC's and A/V equip, hasn't delved into this "untapped oasis". That's pretty scary.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Then it would also be telling that Philips is interested in Rendezvous and that Panasonic has entered into a technology agreement with Apple..an agreement I always speculated deals with FW and now I think also Rendezvous.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 8 of 15
    Maybe now that Apple is going to have an OS that interfaces with A/V equipment wirelessly, maybe they could work on something even more high tech: audio I/O ports on Macs that include both line-in and microphone-in, and of course both line-level output.



    I realize a microphone input is an awful lot to ask for on any computer, especially a Mac that has a reputation for being the best platform for audio recording and editing. But wouldn't it be cool to pull a computer out of the box and be able to plug in a microphone and record audio?



    Such a feature would be a true revolution in audio for Apple.



    Oh, nevermind that Wintel's have had microphone input for over a decade. It's a tough feature to add, you know?
  • Reply 9 of 15
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,752member
    I would agree that the home electronics companies seem to be leaning towards including part of the interface onboard their machines. Making them intelligent enough to discover other devices and alert other devices that they are connected makes alot of sense. But, I think anything more that a Firewire or USB connection as the digital interface to other devices would be overkill. The computer companies can't decide on wireless standards right now, we can't expect the av companies to decide any faster. Expecting their devices to attach to a Firewire or USB network seems the most practical.



    A common physical high speed interface, let's say Firewire, integrated into all types of devices, would allow for Rendezvous like networks and for integration with computer setups. With everything in the same room, this would be suffucient. This is where I think the developments at Philips and Panasonic point. Wireless discussions only become relevant when you consider that most people don't keep their computers in the same room as their home theaters. In this case, an intermidiary box, a la iDock, that is able to interface directly with the home theater setup, via Firewire, and communicate with the computer network via wireless would be required. Yes, this is another layer to add to the home theater, but it means the customer only adds the wireless component if he/she decides it is wanted.



    Now, whether the home theater is connected directly to the computer setup via firewire, or connect wirelessly with an iDock, the computer is able to act as a component of the home theater. It could act as a remote scheduler, playlist DJ, TiVo device or remote control. It could fill voids of an incomplete system, acting as the CD player, or with a directly connected system, act as the DVD deck too.



    Basically, I am saying that I think some functionality should be built into each AV device, but not complete functionality. There is room for 'another layer'. Component systems are generally prefered over all-in-ones for upgradability and funtionality. Just as a reason for not buying a mini-stereo system or iMac is that many consumers want to actually decide what their system is made up of. These consumers will buy component stereos and PowerMacs. Built-in has it's place, but so do components.



    [ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 15
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,752member
    Sorry, double post.



    [ 09-14-2002: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 15
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:

    <strong>

    Then it would also be telling that Philips is interested in Rendezvous and that Panasonic has entered into a technology agreement with Apple..an agreement I always speculated deals with FW and now I think also Rendezvous.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Philips, Panasonic, Sony and others are working on <a href="http://www.havi.org/"; target="_blank">this</a> - notice what they are using to connect the devices
  • Reply 12 of 15
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    [quote]Originally posted by Tulkas:

    <strong>Firewire and USB have limited physical range, and since most people don't keep their computers in their home theater rooms, a direct wire connection between computer and home theater becomes a challenge.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Using what I mentioned above, the computer doesn't have to be connected directly to the home theater system - just the nearest component in the house.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    Firewire II is also slated to change the cabling so that 100 Meter lengths are possible. I still think HPNA 3.0 would be the way to go.



    Kenwood already uses 2.0 in their Entre Disc controller. I'm not adverse to seeing a FW solution as well howerver to make something like this fly it has to be routable throughout the house easy. So either it's Tulkas' idea that Wireless is the way or something that is ubiqitous in many homes which are phone jacks.



    This should be interesting.
  • Reply 14 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:

    <strong>Maybe now that Apple is going to have an OS that interfaces with A/V equipment wirelessly, maybe they could work on something even more high tech: audio I/O ports on Macs that include both line-in and microphone-in, and of course both line-level output.



    I realize a microphone input is an awful lot to ask for on any computer, especially a Mac that has a reputation for being the best platform for audio recording and editing. But wouldn't it be cool to pull a computer out of the box and be able to plug in a microphone and record audio?



    Such a feature would be a true revolution in audio for Apple.



    Oh, nevermind that Wintel's have had microphone input for over a decade. It's a tough feature to add, you know?</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I am not sure whether this comment is meant seriously, but fact is that I was already able to connect a microphone to my Mac IIsi and record audio in decent quality even before Windows 3.11 was available (and this was well over a decade ago)! And while you could hardly change font sizes on the Windows side of the fence, the Mac already could record signals from a VCR or Videocamera (together with audio) via video-in connectors, too and could make video conferences via company ethernet networking and already featured the voice recognition we still have in Mac OS X. So please don't tell me that Apple missed something in the past -- they only left the audio input away for about a year or two. I think we all agree that this was indeed a mistake -- that's probably why the latest PowerMacs sport shiny audio-in jacks again.





  • Reply 15 of 15
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
Sign In or Register to comment.