but a remote screen would kick so much ass and would give the iphone almost unlimited possibilites.
Not sure I follow you. My idea is simply that you'd have all of your media on a networked server hooked up to your stereo / theater ... and you could view and play / control that media via a multi-touch graphical user interface on a "plam top" device like the iPod Touch or iPhone... basically... it would be the ultimate remote control.
You could still use your home theater screen with a push button remote too... if you're on the couch in front of the TV... which is how the Apple TV works now. I just like the idea of having the interface in my hand... and being able to take it with me anywhere in the house (imagine that most of the rooms in your house are wired for sound).
Anyway... it's just an idea people... and it only really makes sense for music of course. Obviously... for videos, pictures, etc... you'd be sitting in front of a TV or Monitor anyway
mel... my ideal is to have the graphical interface in my hand... not on a remote screen. Apple TV does not offer that.
I get you.
I just wonder why that would make a difference. If you have a fair sized monitor, you would be seeing the same thing as on the iPhone, or whatever, why would you care?
The main advantage as you stated it before was so that you didn't have to get up and go to another room to change songs selections, or programs on your computer.
You made that your main concern, as I remember from your post.
I can understand if you are saying that you want to get the iPhone, or iTouch rather than buying that and the ATV. That makes sense.
But, I'd just rather have an ATv, and leave it in the system.
Not sure I follow you. My idea is simply that you'd have all of your media on a networked server hooked up to your stereo / theater ... and you could view and play / control that media via a multi-touch graphical user interface on a "plam top" device like the iPod Touch or iPhone... basically... it would be the ultimate remote control.
Though I wouldn't build it into an iPhone or iPod touch, there is certainly some room for a media control device. It could also function as a universal remote I guess. I would want something far cheaper, and that's the main limitation of the touch technology at present.
Quote:
Anyway... it's just an idea people... and it only really makes sense for music of course. Obviously... for videos, pictures, etc... you'd be sitting in front of a TV or Monitor anyway
Actually, I think that "interactive TV" (which hasn't really materialised in any meaningful way) would be far better with such a multimedia device.
For example - if you're watching a travel program on the TV, rather than have interactive links to websites and other information on the TV screen, your "remote control" could actually bring up a menu of options for the show, complete with the links and programming functionality that go with it. Same with ads - why not have your ads on the TV link to websites on your 'remote'? etc
I just wonder why that would make a difference. If you have a fair sized monitor, you would be seeing the same thing as on the iPhone, or whatever, why would you care?
I guess. My original idea tho' was a 160 GB iPod that could stream... so you'd also have the advantage of being able to take your entire library WITH you... and stream it anywhere there is a WiFi network with speakers hooked up (at a friends... at the office... etc.). Or maybe it would stream via bluetooth... and your car could have bluetooth!! I just like the idea of an iPod with the ability to send music out wirelessly.
But as someone pointed out... the issue there would be battery life. Then we switched to the idea of just using a iPod touch as a remote to control media on a server.
Anyway, the thing is... I listen to a lot of music. Some days I might want to listen on the couch (same room that has my big TV). Another day I might want to listen to music lying in bed on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Another day... maybe I want to listen to music when I'm in my exercise studio. None of those rooms have televisions or ATV's.
But if I only ever listened to music in my living room... where my big TV is... ya... an Apple TV would be cool. Still... I don't think the remote control interface is as nice as the iPod classic or touch. A nice upgrade to the ATV would be a click wheel remote instead of that first gen shuffle type remote. Now THAT I would consider buying!
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The question is, how would you handle the Tv?
Good question. I guess if we're talking about the idea of an ATV paired with a Touch... maybe the TV would mirror what's on the "remote" (i.e.... iPod touch or iPhone)???
Go Peet's Coffee. However my point was that the widespread extent of the Starbucks empire brought decent coffee worldwide, which resulted in the backlash of indie coffee stores.
So if there was no Starbucks, there'd be Peet's Coffee all by themselves in California and a couple other places. Diner coffee everywhere else, outside of a few large cities and a couple tourist towns.
I know this is off topic, but I wanted to clarify something.
The reason Starbucks was known for quality coffee when it expanded was because they would receive their coffee from Peet's roasting plant. So, certain coffee like Viennesse and Kenya were of great quality back in the days thanks to Peet's quality standards that once existed in Starbucks.
On the other hand, Peet's is starting to grow thanks to the coffee-loving culture phenomena that was created thanks to Starbucks. It's quite a dilemma really. I love Peet's for its great quality and freshly made espresso drinks (where baristas actually pull the shots and steam the milk, unlike the new machines that they have in starbucks), but I do like the environment inside Starbucks.
Nonetheless, quality is best, just like Apple. [generic quote to bring it sort of back in topic]
YASA VOB to iPod Converter is an expert and easy-to-used to convert VOB files to iPod converter.YASA VOB to iPod Converter has the ability to convert VOB into iPod Video and other various video formats.
I guess. My original idea tho' was a 160 GB iPod that could stream... so you'd also have the advantage of being able to take your entire library WITH you... and stream it anywhere there is a WiFi network with speakers hooked up (at a friends... at the office... etc.). Or maybe it would stream via bluetooth... and your car could have bluetooth!! I just like the idea of an iPod with the ability to send music out wirelessly.
But as someone pointed out... the issue there would be battery life. Then we switched to the idea of just using a iPod touch as a remote to control media on a server.
Anyway, the thing is... I listen to a lot of music. Some days I might want to listen on the couch (same room that has my big TV). Another day I might want to listen to music lying in bed on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Another day... maybe I want to listen to music when I'm in my exercise studio. None of those rooms have televisions or ATV's.
But if I only ever listened to music in my living room... where my big TV is... ya... an Apple TV would be cool. Still... I don't think the remote control interface is as nice as the iPod classic or touch. A nice upgrade to the ATV would be a click wheel remote instead of that first gen shuffle type remote. Now THAT I would consider buying!
Good question. I guess if we're talking about the idea of an ATV paired with a Touch... maybe the TV would mirror what's on the "remote" (i.e.... iPod touch or iPhone)???
Mind you, I have nothing against your ideas, but you didn't lay it all out in the beginning.
As you mention more things you want, the situation changes.
I agree that the 160 GB model is certainly good for what you want to do in terms of capacity, even more than enough, probably.
Of course, it can't do those things.
Which brings us back to the Touch. There would be no way for Apple to put more memory into that now, without raising the price unacceptably. Naturally, as time goes on, that will happen. But, it will take a long time for it to reach 60 GB, which would be, I suppose, the minimum needed to do what you want to do.
Putting in a HDD would keep the cost down, but would, as was said, kill the battery life. That big screen does have its drawbacks.
At some point, Apple will use an OLED screen, hopefully, and that will help. But, again, that's out in the future.
The closest you really can get now to your home situation, is to get that ATv you are resisting.
I feel y'all & your capacity issues: until someone makes a 500gb ipod I'll have those issues (was in the record biz for years, have thousands of discs).
In fact, I've been quite happy w/ my 4gb Mini, but now it's dying, and 16gb seems like a substantial bump to me...seeing as how I can't fit it all on one device....
As a result, I'm torn between getting one of *these* too-small devices & waiting for a larger too-small device next year.
I'll probably split the difference & get a fat-nano.
Geeks would love this but it isn't what most people want. Screens on remotes have been technically trivial and relatively cheap for decades now. However, most people still prefer screenless remotes.
Reasons?
If it has a screen, you have to look at it to use it. People watch TV by looking at the TV, not by looking at their hand.
Also, normal IR/screenless remotes have extremely long battery life. I have remotes that last half a decade between needing replacement batteries. An iPod touch as remote would mean that people would regularly not have use of a remote because they forgot to charge it.
Would I enjoy using one? Certainly. But it isn't something I'd spend money on. My current remote has a 7 foot screen (on screen display). It also has battery life measured in years instead of hours.
For most stuff, the Palm TX does a pretty good job...
The only reason I was interested in the touch was for Safari - the palm browsers are still a little so-so...
I agree. I tried Opera a bit but couldn't understand what the positive excitement was about; Blazer works much better for me. Of course Safari would put either to shame (IMO).
Quote:
The TX even has VOIP clients which does a pretty good job of selling it for me.
Are you using VoIP with your TX? I didn't know that was possible, which isn't surprising since*I've been mostly uninvolved with the Palm (OS) community for several years. So far I've found Articulation and some guy's external mic/adapter solution.
The closest you really can get now to your home situation, is to get that ATv you are resisting.
Actually... this is the closest thing out there to what I'm thinking about. In fact... replace the sonos remote with an iPod Touch and it's exactly, 100% what I'm talking about. I'm gonna wait for Apple to do it tho'... since I'm sure Apple would do a much better job on the interface / usability (as evidenced by the Touch)
Geeks would love this but it isn't what most people want. Screens on remotes have been technically trivial and relatively cheap for decades now. However, most people still prefer screenless remotes.
Reasons?
If it has a screen, you have to look at it to use it. People watch TV by looking at the TV, not by looking at their hand.
Yes... but I don't care about watching TV or videos or whatever... my idea is purely about music... 100%. Nothing else. I'd like to be in my exercise room or on my back deck or in the bedroom or anywhere in my house that has speakers (powered + WiFi or hooked up to an amp that's on WiFi) and be able to control my iTunes library from that location with a graphical user interface. What I have described is essentially the Sonos system... but their remote is ugly and clunky. The Touch would be a MUCH nicer remote... while still being a portable music player.
My current remote has a 7 foot screen (on screen display). It also has battery life measured in years instead of hours.
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
Noted. But realize that most people aren't like that. Almost nobody has music in every room. Certainly not more than a couple percent if even that.
Unfortunately, I doubt apple will provide a solution for you. Apple products tend to have really well done, but fewer features. A third party product will likely have to fill the niche.
Actually... this is the closest thing out there to what I'm thinking about. In fact... replace the sonos remote with an iPod Touch and it's exactly, 100% what I'm talking about. I'm gonna wait for Apple to do it tho'... since I'm sure Apple would do a much better job on the interface / usability (as evidenced by the Touch)
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
You didn't mention this at first either, from what I remember, though I think you mentioned as an IDEAL later.
Unfortunately, I doubt apple will provide a solution for you. Apple products tend to have really well done, but fewer features. A third party product will likely have to fill the niche.
I'm only talking about one feature... an iPod that can stream.
And I would hardly say that the Touch fits in with the idea of 'fewer features'... I mean... it's a music player with a web browser for god's sake.
Finally... what I am talking about has been available... FROM APPLE... for years... in a slightly different form. For years now you've been able to buy airport stations that can hook up to an audio system so that you can stream music from iTunes on your Mac to any room in the house. All I'm talking about is having an iPod do the streaming instead of your Mac... so if you're on the back deck and you want to change the music... you just pick up your iPod... you don't have to go in the house... down the stairs... down the hall... to the computer room... etc... to change the music.
Also, the whole iPod as remote thing was just an idea that came about as a result of this thread. That was never my idea. So with all the back and forth arguments and suggestions... things have become confusing.
My original idea was just an iPod (any iPod with a screen... classic, touch, whatever) that can stream via WiFi and/or Bluetooth. It might stream to your livingroom stereo... or to your exercise room stereo... or to wireless bluetooth headphones (people have been asking for this for years)... or to the stereo system at your workplace... or to a bluetooth enabled car stereo... etc. I know battery life might be an issue... but the classic 160 GB now has 40 hours! I'd be happy with 10 hours streaming or 40 hours without streaming.
I do think this might happen at some point. An iPod that can use wireless headphone or speakers, etc. just seems like a no-brainer to me.
Comments
but a remote screen would kick so much ass and would give the iphone almost unlimited possibilites.
Not sure I follow you. My idea is simply that you'd have all of your media on a networked server hooked up to your stereo / theater ... and you could view and play / control that media via a multi-touch graphical user interface on a "plam top" device like the iPod Touch or iPhone... basically... it would be the ultimate remote control.
You could still use your home theater screen with a push button remote too... if you're on the couch in front of the TV... which is how the Apple TV works now. I just like the idea of having the interface in my hand... and being able to take it with me anywhere in the house (imagine that most of the rooms in your house are wired for sound).
Anyway... it's just an idea people... and it only really makes sense for music of course. Obviously... for videos, pictures, etc... you'd be sitting in front of a TV or Monitor anyway
mel... my ideal is to have the graphical interface in my hand... not on a remote screen. Apple TV does not offer that.
I get you.
I just wonder why that would make a difference. If you have a fair sized monitor, you would be seeing the same thing as on the iPhone, or whatever, why would you care?
The main advantage as you stated it before was so that you didn't have to get up and go to another room to change songs selections, or programs on your computer.
You made that your main concern, as I remember from your post.
I can understand if you are saying that you want to get the iPhone, or iTouch rather than buying that and the ATV. That makes sense.
But, I'd just rather have an ATv, and leave it in the system.
The question is, how would you handle the Tv?
If some kind hackers would make a skype mod. or application I could throw away my mobile phone at last.
How would you communicate without a mic?
A third party could develop some sort of dock connector mic, maybe.
Not sure I follow you. My idea is simply that you'd have all of your media on a networked server hooked up to your stereo / theater ... and you could view and play / control that media via a multi-touch graphical user interface on a "plam top" device like the iPod Touch or iPhone... basically... it would be the ultimate remote control.
Though I wouldn't build it into an iPhone or iPod touch, there is certainly some room for a media control device. It could also function as a universal remote I guess. I would want something far cheaper, and that's the main limitation of the touch technology at present.
Anyway... it's just an idea people... and it only really makes sense for music of course. Obviously... for videos, pictures, etc... you'd be sitting in front of a TV or Monitor anyway
Actually, I think that "interactive TV" (which hasn't really materialised in any meaningful way) would be far better with such a multimedia device.
For example - if you're watching a travel program on the TV, rather than have interactive links to websites and other information on the TV screen, your "remote control" could actually bring up a menu of options for the show, complete with the links and programming functionality that go with it. Same with ads - why not have your ads on the TV link to websites on your 'remote'? etc
I get you.
I just wonder why that would make a difference. If you have a fair sized monitor, you would be seeing the same thing as on the iPhone, or whatever, why would you care?
I guess. My original idea tho' was a 160 GB iPod that could stream... so you'd also have the advantage of being able to take your entire library WITH you... and stream it anywhere there is a WiFi network with speakers hooked up (at a friends... at the office... etc.). Or maybe it would stream via bluetooth... and your car could have bluetooth!! I just like the idea of an iPod with the ability to send music out wirelessly.
But as someone pointed out... the issue there would be battery life. Then we switched to the idea of just using a iPod touch as a remote to control media on a server.
Anyway, the thing is... I listen to a lot of music. Some days I might want to listen on the couch (same room that has my big TV). Another day I might want to listen to music lying in bed on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Another day... maybe I want to listen to music when I'm in my exercise studio. None of those rooms have televisions or ATV's.
But if I only ever listened to music in my living room... where my big TV is... ya... an Apple TV would be cool. Still... I don't think the remote control interface is as nice as the iPod classic or touch. A nice upgrade to the ATV would be a click wheel remote instead of that first gen shuffle type remote. Now THAT I would consider buying!
The question is, how would you handle the Tv?
Good question. I guess if we're talking about the idea of an ATV paired with a Touch... maybe the TV would mirror what's on the "remote" (i.e.... iPod touch or iPhone)???
Go Peet's Coffee. However my point was that the widespread extent of the Starbucks empire brought decent coffee worldwide, which resulted in the backlash of indie coffee stores.
So if there was no Starbucks, there'd be Peet's Coffee all by themselves in California and a couple other places. Diner coffee everywhere else, outside of a few large cities and a couple tourist towns.
I know this is off topic, but I wanted to clarify something.
The reason Starbucks was known for quality coffee when it expanded was because they would receive their coffee from Peet's roasting plant. So, certain coffee like Viennesse and Kenya were of great quality back in the days thanks to Peet's quality standards that once existed in Starbucks.
On the other hand, Peet's is starting to grow thanks to the coffee-loving culture phenomena that was created thanks to Starbucks. It's quite a dilemma really. I love Peet's for its great quality and freshly made espresso drinks (where baristas actually pull the shots and steam the milk, unlike the new machines that they have in starbucks), but I do like the environment inside Starbucks.
Nonetheless, quality is best, just like Apple. [generic quote to bring it sort of back in topic]
http://www.vob-converter.com/
I guess. My original idea tho' was a 160 GB iPod that could stream... so you'd also have the advantage of being able to take your entire library WITH you... and stream it anywhere there is a WiFi network with speakers hooked up (at a friends... at the office... etc.). Or maybe it would stream via bluetooth... and your car could have bluetooth!! I just like the idea of an iPod with the ability to send music out wirelessly.
But as someone pointed out... the issue there would be battery life. Then we switched to the idea of just using a iPod touch as a remote to control media on a server.
Anyway, the thing is... I listen to a lot of music. Some days I might want to listen on the couch (same room that has my big TV). Another day I might want to listen to music lying in bed on a rainy Sunday afternoon. Another day... maybe I want to listen to music when I'm in my exercise studio. None of those rooms have televisions or ATV's.
But if I only ever listened to music in my living room... where my big TV is... ya... an Apple TV would be cool. Still... I don't think the remote control interface is as nice as the iPod classic or touch. A nice upgrade to the ATV would be a click wheel remote instead of that first gen shuffle type remote. Now THAT I would consider buying!
Good question. I guess if we're talking about the idea of an ATV paired with a Touch... maybe the TV would mirror what's on the "remote" (i.e.... iPod touch or iPhone)???
Mind you, I have nothing against your ideas, but you didn't lay it all out in the beginning.
As you mention more things you want, the situation changes.
I agree that the 160 GB model is certainly good for what you want to do in terms of capacity, even more than enough, probably.
Of course, it can't do those things.
Which brings us back to the Touch. There would be no way for Apple to put more memory into that now, without raising the price unacceptably. Naturally, as time goes on, that will happen. But, it will take a long time for it to reach 60 GB, which would be, I suppose, the minimum needed to do what you want to do.
Putting in a HDD would keep the cost down, but would, as was said, kill the battery life. That big screen does have its drawbacks.
At some point, Apple will use an OLED screen, hopefully, and that will help. But, again, that's out in the future.
The closest you really can get now to your home situation, is to get that ATv you are resisting.
In fact, I've been quite happy w/ my 4gb Mini, but now it's dying, and 16gb seems like a substantial bump to me...seeing as how I can't fit it all on one device....
As a result, I'm torn between getting one of *these* too-small devices & waiting for a larger too-small device next year.
I'll probably split the difference & get a fat-nano.
Geeks would love this but it isn't what most people want. Screens on remotes have been technically trivial and relatively cheap for decades now. However, most people still prefer screenless remotes.
Reasons?
If it has a screen, you have to look at it to use it. People watch TV by looking at the TV, not by looking at their hand.
Also, normal IR/screenless remotes have extremely long battery life. I have remotes that last half a decade between needing replacement batteries. An iPod touch as remote would mean that people would regularly not have use of a remote because they forgot to charge it.
Would I enjoy using one? Certainly. But it isn't something I'd spend money on. My current remote has a 7 foot screen (on screen display). It also has battery life measured in years instead of hours.
For most stuff, the Palm TX does a pretty good job...
The only reason I was interested in the touch was for Safari - the palm browsers are still a little so-so...
I agree. I tried Opera a bit but couldn't understand what the positive excitement was about; Blazer works much better for me. Of course Safari would put either to shame (IMO).
The TX even has VOIP clients which does a pretty good job of selling it for me.
Are you using VoIP with your TX? I didn't know that was possible, which isn't surprising since*I've been mostly uninvolved with the Palm (OS) community for several years. So far I've found Articulation and some guy's external mic/adapter solution.
The closest you really can get now to your home situation, is to get that ATv you are resisting.
Actually... this is the closest thing out there to what I'm thinking about. In fact... replace the sonos remote with an iPod Touch and it's exactly, 100% what I'm talking about. I'm gonna wait for Apple to do it tho'... since I'm sure Apple would do a much better job on the interface / usability (as evidenced by the Touch)
http://www.sonos.com/
About using the touch as a remote...
Geeks would love this but it isn't what most people want. Screens on remotes have been technically trivial and relatively cheap for decades now. However, most people still prefer screenless remotes.
Reasons?
If it has a screen, you have to look at it to use it. People watch TV by looking at the TV, not by looking at their hand.
Yes... but I don't care about watching TV or videos or whatever... my idea is purely about music... 100%. Nothing else. I'd like to be in my exercise room or on my back deck or in the bedroom or anywhere in my house that has speakers (powered + WiFi or hooked up to an amp that's on WiFi) and be able to control my iTunes library from that location with a graphical user interface. What I have described is essentially the Sonos system... but their remote is ugly and clunky. The Touch would be a MUCH nicer remote... while still being a portable music player.
http://www.sonos.com/
My current remote has a 7 foot screen (on screen display). It also has battery life measured in years instead of hours.
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
Noted. But realize that most people aren't like that. Almost nobody has music in every room. Certainly not more than a couple percent if even that.
Unfortunately, I doubt apple will provide a solution for you. Apple products tend to have really well done, but fewer features. A third party product will likely have to fill the niche.
Actually... this is the closest thing out there to what I'm thinking about. In fact... replace the sonos remote with an iPod Touch and it's exactly, 100% what I'm talking about. I'm gonna wait for Apple to do it tho'... since I'm sure Apple would do a much better job on the interface / usability (as evidenced by the Touch)
http://www.sonos.com/
Except that I'm talking about something that we know will work, and you are talking about one which, for now at least, won't.
Sigh. Again... I'm talking about music in every room... I'm not talking about sitting on my couch in front of my TV! If that were the case... I'd just buy an Apple TV.
You didn't mention this at first either, from what I remember, though I think you mentioned as an IDEAL later.
Except that I'm talking about something that we know will work, and you are talking about one which, for now at least, won't.
What do you mean? Sonos is available now.
Unfortunately, I doubt apple will provide a solution for you. Apple products tend to have really well done, but fewer features. A third party product will likely have to fill the niche.
I'm only talking about one feature... an iPod that can stream.
And I would hardly say that the Touch fits in with the idea of 'fewer features'... I mean... it's a music player with a web browser for god's sake.
Finally... what I am talking about has been available... FROM APPLE... for years... in a slightly different form. For years now you've been able to buy airport stations that can hook up to an audio system so that you can stream music from iTunes on your Mac to any room in the house. All I'm talking about is having an iPod do the streaming instead of your Mac... so if you're on the back deck and you want to change the music... you just pick up your iPod... you don't have to go in the house... down the stairs... down the hall... to the computer room... etc... to change the music.
Also, the whole iPod as remote thing was just an idea that came about as a result of this thread. That was never my idea. So with all the back and forth arguments and suggestions... things have become confusing.
My original idea was just an iPod (any iPod with a screen... classic, touch, whatever) that can stream via WiFi and/or Bluetooth. It might stream to your livingroom stereo... or to your exercise room stereo... or to wireless bluetooth headphones (people have been asking for this for years)... or to the stereo system at your workplace... or to a bluetooth enabled car stereo... etc. I know battery life might be an issue... but the classic 160 GB now has 40 hours! I'd be happy with 10 hours streaming or 40 hours without streaming.
I do think this might happen at some point. An iPod that can use wireless headphone or speakers, etc. just seems like a no-brainer to me.