this is just another way for Apple to help out some third-party company. I'm sure somebody will develop a remote-control for Apple. A remote-control isn't a device that Apple needs to put excessive investment into. Why not let other people (who have the potential to specialize in this specific device) take over the production of this device? If the device is successful, perhaps Apple can buy the company out. if it's not that successful (which I'm sure it won't be), then it won't be Apple's problem for putting money into creating a mediocre device.
From a business aspect, it's probably a better decision to let other potential experts take care of excess devices like these.
Why doesn't somebody in this forum invent such a device? :P And give me some of the earnings...?
Shell doesn't need to really be the same as a mouse but I'm lazy.
I don't want it to match either of the actual iPod shapes, just to completely avoid people taking the remote with them thinking it's an iPod by accident.
I think it'd be a waste of the iPod's battery and lifetime to roll-in remote duty (plus where in hell would the airport card go?).
iPod should be for portable music listening only, not as a remote, not as a streaming server.
Wouldn't a remote control for iTunes have to be pretty complex to be really useful? How would you switch playlists? Browse by genre? Sure, you could click forward/backward, but really how useful would that be if you've got 10,000 tracks? It would almost have to be a "dumb iPod" to be a useful remote.
Um, exactly. It just has the iPod interface and controller, but no onboard storage. Since the disk drive is the vast majority of the cost of an iPod, replacing it with a much cheaper wireless option wouldn't be *that* hard. Toss in Rendevous, and voila. Turn it on, and it gives you a list of the iTunes machines available for control. Select one. You're now in the standard iPod interface, with a new top-level selection for AirTunes output, just like in iTunes 4.6 with the pop-up menu. Done.
Shell doesn't need to really be the same as a mouse but I'm lazy.
I don't want it to match either of the actual iPod shapes, just to completely avoid people taking the remote with them thinking it's an iPod by accident.
I think it'd be a waste of the iPod's battery and lifetime to roll-in remote duty (plus where in hell would the airport card go?).
iPod should be for portable music listening only, not as a remote, not as a streaming server.
Apple wants purity of purpose.
THIS is fantastic, and exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.
Forward a copy to Cupertino and cross your fingers (& toes).
I don't know how many of you use your laptop as your DVD player plugged in to a TV and Receiver (when apple starts streaming all audio that will be a great day). I sure do.
If there is to be a remote I think it should control your whole Digital lifestyle.
iPhoto, DVD player, iTunes.. you see?
flick.
P.s.
This optical out cable deal.. what does this do? digital surround? what is so special about it?
The DA converter in any such handheld product will be vastly inferior to that found in modern home theater receivers. For this reason, I would prefer to use digital interconnects.
Even better, the digital output is optical. This isolates the wifi circuitry from the connected amplifier. Very nice for self proclaimed audiophiles.
Remote? Sure, i'd buy one.
But I'm waiting for airVideo. Once apple has a wifi device that can deliver audio and video, everything changes. At that point, deciding on a feature set becomes a difficult proposition when designing a remote control.
Um, exactly. It just has the iPod interface and controller, but no onboard storage. Since the disk drive is the vast majority of the cost of an iPod, replacing it with a much cheaper wireless option wouldn't be *that* hard. Toss in Rendevous, and voila. Turn it on, and it gives you a list of the iTunes machines available for control. Select one. You're now in the standard iPod interface, with a new top-level selection for AirTunes output, just like in iTunes 4.6 with the pop-up menu. Done.
Do most people use remotes with their stereos? I don't know, maybe they do. I sure don't. I don't know anyone else who does either, but maybe I just don't hang out with the right people.
I used to use a remote with my stereo system all the time; before my house got burgled and everything got ripped off. Now I'm just using Mac and it doesn't have a remote, but I would love to have an AirPod Remote like johnq's mockup.
I do what's been mentioned here already - use my bluetooth cellphone and salling clicker.
It displays the track name and running time, the joystick lets me skip back and forward, play and pause plus I can browse playlists, artists etc on the screen.
I also have a small fm transmitter hooked up to the iMac, when I want to listen privately to music I use this along with the fm radio in my cellphone, It becomes both the controller and a set of pseudo cordless headphones.
I get everything I need using something I already own.
Reading all this and having had AirTunes station for a few weeks now, I wish they did make a remote. Even though I have a powerbook, I don't want to carry that around everywhere I go in the house to play/pause/adjust volume or choose playlist(i.e. fwd/reverse buttons). I didn't realize how restrictive airtunes module is. Only one printer, no scanner or other usb devices. It won't play system sounds from computer(like when i want game sounds to go through it to the stereo), and no remote! I like the idea of a remote looks like an iPod, maybe not the iPod itself. I do use my stereo remote all the time, easier to carry that around if I'm not in front of my computer and the phone rings, or I'm doing dishes, cleaning, reading in another part of the apartment. I can only adjust volume, I want an airpod remote so I can change other things too. It would be nice if it could control the DVD player for when I use my labtop as a T.V.
Sure, it provides a stab at what a lot of people have been asking for (remote for Airtunes that's cheap and easy!), but it's INFRARED!
Duh? If I have line of site to my Mac I hardly need a remote. I need one to control the Mac in the other room (Bluetooth, RF?). Sure, I can do it via Salling Clicker and my BT phone, but I don't usually leave my phone at home so that my wife can listen to music.
This is just silly. I wonder how many people will be tricked into buying this without realizing that it's line of sight only.
Sure, it provides a stab at what a lot of people have been asking for (remote for Airtunes that's cheap and easy!), but it's INFRARED!
Duh? If I have line of site to my Mac I hardly need a remote. I need one to control the Mac in the other room (Bluetooth, RF?). Sure, I can do it via Salling Clicker and my BT phone, but I don't usually leave my phone at home so that my wife can listen to music.
From that product page:
Quote:
Receiver plugs into the AirPort Express USB port, or into the USB port on a PC or Mac
So, you need to mount the receiver somewhere within line of site (and near the AE), but you don't need line of site to the Mac. Since the intent of this product is to work with the Airport Express, seems like a reasonable approach to me.
What *I* wonder is what kind of feedback you get when using the thing, given that there's no display or anything. It's hard to control iTunes blindly, beyond basic track control.
In any case, it's good to see progress along these lines.
Comments
this is just another way for Apple to help out some third-party company. I'm sure somebody will develop a remote-control for Apple. A remote-control isn't a device that Apple needs to put excessive investment into. Why not let other people (who have the potential to specialize in this specific device) take over the production of this device? If the device is successful, perhaps Apple can buy the company out. if it's not that successful (which I'm sure it won't be), then it won't be Apple's problem for putting money into creating a mediocre device.
From a business aspect, it's probably a better decision to let other potential experts take care of excess devices like these.
Why doesn't somebody in this forum invent such a device? :P And give me some of the earnings...?
deunan
Zero hard drive. (small flash RAM instead)
Downloads playlists from remote Mac
Control iTunes playback on chosen Mac
Airport card
Charging cradle.
Shell doesn't need to really be the same as a mouse but I'm lazy.
I don't want it to match either of the actual iPod shapes, just to completely avoid people taking the remote with them thinking it's an iPod by accident.
I think it'd be a waste of the iPod's battery and lifetime to roll-in remote duty (plus where in hell would the airport card go?).
iPod should be for portable music listening only, not as a remote, not as a streaming server.
Apple wants purity of purpose.
Good drivers for OS X (actually better than the Windows drivers), and something like 150ft range.
Originally posted by BRussell
Wouldn't a remote control for iTunes have to be pretty complex to be really useful? How would you switch playlists? Browse by genre? Sure, you could click forward/backward, but really how useful would that be if you've got 10,000 tracks? It would almost have to be a "dumb iPod" to be a useful remote.
Um, exactly. It just has the iPod interface and controller, but no onboard storage. Since the disk drive is the vast majority of the cost of an iPod, replacing it with a much cheaper wireless option wouldn't be *that* hard. Toss in Rendevous, and voila. Turn it on, and it gives you a list of the iTunes machines available for control. Select one. You're now in the standard iPod interface, with a new top-level selection for AirTunes output, just like in iTunes 4.6 with the pop-up menu. Done.
Originally posted by johnq
I want an AirPod Remote:
Zero hard drive. (small flash RAM instead)
Downloads playlists from remote Mac
Control iTunes playback chosen Mac
Airport card
Charging cradle.
Shell doesn't need to really be the same as a mouse but I'm lazy.
I don't want it to match either of the actual iPod shapes, just to completely avoid people taking the remote with them thinking it's an iPod by accident.
I think it'd be a waste of the iPod's battery and lifetime to roll-in remote duty (plus where in hell would the airport card go?).
iPod should be for portable music listening only, not as a remote, not as a streaming server.
Apple wants purity of purpose.
THIS is fantastic, and exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.
Forward a copy to Cupertino and cross your fingers (& toes).
But why stop at just controlling Airtunes?
I don't know how many of you use your laptop as your DVD player plugged in to a TV and Receiver (when apple starts streaming all audio that will be a great day). I sure do.
If there is to be a remote I think it should control your whole Digital lifestyle.
iPhoto, DVD player, iTunes.. you see?
flick.
P.s.
This optical out cable deal.. what does this do? digital surround? what is so special about it?
Even better, the digital output is optical. This isolates the wifi circuitry from the connected amplifier. Very nice for self proclaimed audiophiles.
Remote? Sure, i'd buy one.
But I'm waiting for airVideo. Once apple has a wifi device that can deliver audio and video, everything changes. At that point, deciding on a feature set becomes a difficult proposition when designing a remote control.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Um, exactly. It just has the iPod interface and controller, but no onboard storage. Since the disk drive is the vast majority of the cost of an iPod, replacing it with a much cheaper wireless option wouldn't be *that* hard. Toss in Rendevous, and voila. Turn it on, and it gives you a list of the iTunes machines available for control. Select one. You're now in the standard iPod interface, with a new top-level selection for AirTunes output, just like in iTunes 4.6 with the pop-up menu. Done.
This is exactly what I expect iPod Remote to be.
Originally posted by BRussell
Do most people use remotes with their stereos? I don't know, maybe they do. I sure don't. I don't know anyone else who does either, but maybe I just don't hang out with the right people.
I used to use a remote with my stereo system all the time; before my house got burgled and everything got ripped off. Now I'm just using Mac and it doesn't have a remote, but I would love to have an AirPod Remote like johnq's mockup.
It displays the track name and running time, the joystick lets me skip back and forward, play and pause plus I can browse playlists, artists etc on the screen.
I also have a small fm transmitter hooked up to the iMac, when I want to listen privately to music I use this along with the fm radio in my cellphone, It becomes both the controller and a set of pseudo cordless headphones.
I get everything I need using something I already own.
My cell phone is with me, so my wife can't use it during the day. The interface is fine, but nowhere near as seamless or fast as the iPod's design.
Here's hoping Apple gives us this tool ASAP.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
Keyspan FINALLY came out with an AirTunes remote control today (check macminute.com). No more complaint threads!
I saw that a while ago, about time
Originally posted by skyweir
Perhaps one could use the Salling Clicker software and their BlueTooth enabled phone to control iTunes from afar.
That works great.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
Keyspan FINALLY came out with an AirTunes remote control today (check macminute.com). No more complaint threads!
Um, what's wrong with this picture?
http://www.keyspan.com/products/usb/urm17a/
Sure, it provides a stab at what a lot of people have been asking for (remote for Airtunes that's cheap and easy!), but it's INFRARED!
Duh? If I have line of site to my Mac I hardly need a remote. I need one to control the Mac in the other room (Bluetooth, RF?). Sure, I can do it via Salling Clicker and my BT phone, but I don't usually leave my phone at home so that my wife can listen to music.
This is just silly. I wonder how many people will be tricked into buying this without realizing that it's line of sight only.
Originally posted by Sport73
Um, what's wrong with this picture?
http://www.keyspan.com/products/usb/urm17a/
Sure, it provides a stab at what a lot of people have been asking for (remote for Airtunes that's cheap and easy!), but it's INFRARED!
Duh? If I have line of site to my Mac I hardly need a remote. I need one to control the Mac in the other room (Bluetooth, RF?). Sure, I can do it via Salling Clicker and my BT phone, but I don't usually leave my phone at home so that my wife can listen to music.
From that product page:
Receiver plugs into the AirPort Express USB port, or into the USB port on a PC or Mac
So, you need to mount the receiver somewhere within line of site (and near the AE), but you don't need line of site to the Mac. Since the intent of this product is to work with the Airport Express, seems like a reasonable approach to me.
What *I* wonder is what kind of feedback you get when using the thing, given that there's no display or anything. It's hard to control iTunes blindly, beyond basic track control.
In any case, it's good to see progress along these lines.