I hear that a lot but what can you really do with it while not looking at it? Change volume, play/pause, skip tracks. So surely all you'd need are gestures that support this. When a song is playing, a vertical slide is volume up/down, a double-tap is play/stop, a slide left/right skips track.
You can also fast-forward or rewind by holding the prev/next buttons. What would be the gesture for that?
I agree with shamino, and while I can see the full-size iPod becoming a touch-screen device, I think the nano will keep the scroll-wheel for the longest time.
Your gesture idea kinda look nice on paper, but in the real world could be a pain to use.
Let's say I want to raise the volume just a little by making to short vertical upward swipes... Oops, the music stops, it was interpreted as a double tap...
The double-tap gesture would have to be tolerant for small movements because otherwise it would be hard to pull-off. If it's too tolerant the volume gesture would become unresponsive, and it would be easy to make an unintended double-tap while reaching the iPod in your pocket.
The iPhone can differentiate between scroll and tap easily because the flick-to-scroll or drag-to-scroll gestures are much more exaggerated than minute volume adjustments done with the thumb while holding the device.
Even with fine-tuning, I can see these unintended gestures happening too frequently for a device that people mainly buy to play music.
People like tactile feedback. Remember the 3G iPod? There's a reason why Apple stopped using these touch buttons on iPods. A touch based solution makes sense on the iPhone since it benefits so much more from having a bigger screen and controls that can change depending on the application. But on a nano, having a full-face screen would not be that much of a plus. The screen would still be too small for serious video watching, and the majority of nano buyers get it to play music before anything.
Like what, without becoming an iPhone? Personally, I want my iPod to play music, and that's it. Other people may want a few videos and photos, a calendar, and contacts, all of which exist, but I think that the next level up from this is an iPhone. With OS X, the interface could be similar to the iPhone's.
I'm with you on this but I do wish that music could play with crossfade on the iPod. And maybe just a little bit more control with managing my music directly on the iPod instead of having to do everything on the Mac through iTunes, i.e. the ability to flag songs, correct ID3 tags, delete songs, etc.
Why would OS X be useful on an iPod, especially a nano? iPods don't do that much, and the things that they do are already written in the current iPod OS.
Things I see using Mac OS X to run the iPod will give us are:
Internet support so we can browse the iTunes Store and purchase music that is downloaded to the iPod. When we connect the iPod to the computer it will then transfer the songs to it
The ability to squirt each other; songs that is.
Update the iPod wirelessly.
A remote to control the Apple TV. This is where multi-touch comes into play.
Browse other iTunes libraries that are using the AirPort Express with AirTunes and listen to music streamed from it.
Well, I'm hopeful that Apple will flip the lid on the watch industry. We already have armbands for our iPods and the iPods can display time. Why not a watch that can play music, display photos, and play video but with bluetooth headsets?
I like this idea too. It could it be called an iWatch. Get it?
The current OS is pretty simple, with few API's or other touches OS X has, even in a cut down state.
That might be true. Still, despite being simpler, my iPods have locked up about as much as my Macs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
Whaaa?
Linux for iPod is a 3rd-party replacement of the OS that Apple currently has on the iPods, not an application running on top of it. You cannot make any judgements about the capabilities of the current iPod OS based on what you see the iPod doing while is Linux running on it. That'd be equivalent to making judgements about the capabilities of Windows Vista based on what you see while Ubuntu is running on a PC.
Now, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the current iPod hardware is capable of doing more than Apple's current iPod user interface belies. (In fact, to varying extents, I think this has been true of every generation of iPod to date with the possible exception of the Shuffles. I don't know if enough is known about the Shuffle's internals to make such a call.)
That's true. There was a time when I wished that the stock iPod didn't require a stupid expensive add-on to do recording when the stock OS can clearly do if it weren't programmed otherwise, the lock-out is more complex than just allowing recording. I had used iPod4Linux to do recording because my Griffin attachment added noise even through the mic pass-through, and I think it's impossible to get around that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parrothead Phan
Unfortunately, this news doesn't excite me.
(...snipped lame rant...)
First, it's just a rumor. Second, even if it's true, the story didn't say for certain that all HDD iPods will go away, maybe the highest capacity model will still be HDD. Even if Apple does do away with the HDD, I think that by the time your current HDD iPod fails, Apple may have a SSD replacement available.
Things I see using Mac OS X to run the iPod will give us are:
Internet support so we can browse the iTunes Store and purchase music that is downloaded to the iPod. When we connect the iPod to the computer it will then transfer the songs to it
The ability to squirt each other; songs that is.
Update the iPod wirelessly.
A remote to control the Apple TV. This is where multi-touch comes into play.
Browse other iTunes libraries that are using the AirPort Express with AirTunes and listen to music streamed from it.
Those are all nice ideas, but OS X probably isn't absolutely necessary to make all that work. It might make the work easier though.
The first three are flash-based while the last has a hard drive.
If the video has a hard drive, I think it'll be hybrid. I reckon Apple got a little stuck in limbo with the video iPod because of the battery required to run the hard disk.
iPod 4G (& 5G??) has 32MB of memory used for caching from the 30GB (or 80GB) disk, so if you're listening to a playlist it can load up 8 songs from the disk and turn it off for 30 mins to save battery. Then every 30 mins it turns on and loads up the next 8 songs, then turns off - giving you 8 or 9 hours of music listening time. Unfortunately, if you're watching a video it's so much larger than 32MB that it has to do that every 5 minutes, so you only get 1.5hrs of video time.
Whatever we see soon, Apple will be trying to allow it to cache 300MB of video somehow
I agree that having a hybrid flash/HDD would be ideal. Even just 1GB of flash would help a lot. Of course, 2GB would be best since the OS could be stored in .5GB, leaving 1.5GB to cache some video. It'd be nice to have 5 hours of video playing time per charge.
Apple Inc. will use a media event next month to unveil a new breed of iPod digital music players that have been injected with the company's most vital asset -- the Mac OS . . .
. . . Sources in the Far East -- where Apple manufacturers its digital music players -- have recently vouched for sightings of a "full screen" iPod . . .
. . . Apple has also been working on Mac OS-based iPod software for models that will retain their click-wheels -- such as third-generation iPod nanos. Interface concept videos recently published and then pulled from MacRumors consisted of genuine Apple material to this effect, AppleInsider can confirm . . .
I know it's a bit off-topic, but I loved the reponse to the below MacRumors posting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aafuss1
I was the person who alerted YouTube that one of the interface videos was infringing on Apple's copyrights-and of course complied.
iPod 4G (& 5G??) has 32MB of memory used for caching from the 30GB (or 80GB) disk, so if you're listening to a playlist it can load up 8 songs from the disk and turn it off for 30 mins to save battery.
64 MB for the 60/80 GB 5G iPods apparently. Yay, more than one (ALAC encoded) song fits into the memory.
I hear that a lot but what can you really do with it while not looking at it? Change volume, play/pause, skip tracks. So surely all you'd need are gestures that support this. When a song is playing, a vertical slide is volume up/down, a double-tap is play/stop, a slide left/right skips track.
Go ahead and try to do that reliably with no tactile feedback. I dare you.
keyboard/pen gestures do not magically translate into a one-handed/not-looking interface.
When I'm driving, I can adjust the radio's volume without looking because there's a big knob. It's easy to locate and turn that knob without ever looking down. Convert that into a finger-slide across a uniformly flat surface (or even mechanical push-buttons) and it won't work anymore. That's the reason most car stereos still have knobs for the volume control.
The same principle applies to an iPod. The click-wheel is very distinctive. You don't need to look at anything - not even the device's orientation - in order to adjust the volume. It's also pretty easy to determine the left/right sides of the wheel, since you can feel the device's overall orientation. With an iPhone-like screen, that all goes out the window. You'll be able to tell up/down from left/right, but you won't be able to determine which is which, so the gesture that you think will quickly lower the volume may end up blasting your ears.
And I haven't even mentioned that issue of working a device that's in your pocket, where you may not have the freedom of motion necessary to unlock the UI and perform full-screen gestures.
That's true. There was a time when I wished that the stock iPod didn't require a stupid expensive add-on to do recording when the stock OS can clearly do if it weren't programmed otherwise, the lock-out is more complex than just allowing recording.
Not necessarily.
I've some experience using "off the shelf" embedded operating systems. It's not like an installation of Windows or Linux, where everything's installed and ready to go. They don't give you a binary image to just install. You are given the source code, which you compile yourself (and often statically link with your application.) The distribution usually gives you the ability to selectively include/omit individual features. Turning features on and off is usually no more work than tweaking a configuration file, or adding a parameter to a bundled system-configuration script. When something is turned off, it is gone - the code isn't compiled and there is no trace of it left in the resulting OS.
Why would a vendor turn off features? Simple. Embedded devices have very limited memory. Every byte you use for an unnecessary feature is one that could be used for something else. Leaving out audio recording means there can be a bigger playback buffer, which extends battery life (especially for those iPods that have hard drives.) When coupled with the fact that there is no audio-recording hardware, the decision is a no-brainer.
Comments
I hear that a lot but what can you really do with it while not looking at it? Change volume, play/pause, skip tracks. So surely all you'd need are gestures that support this. When a song is playing, a vertical slide is volume up/down, a double-tap is play/stop, a slide left/right skips track.
You can also fast-forward or rewind by holding the prev/next buttons. What would be the gesture for that?
I agree with shamino, and while I can see the full-size iPod becoming a touch-screen device, I think the nano will keep the scroll-wheel for the longest time.
Your gesture idea kinda look nice on paper, but in the real world could be a pain to use.
Let's say I want to raise the volume just a little by making to short vertical upward swipes... Oops, the music stops, it was interpreted as a double tap...
The double-tap gesture would have to be tolerant for small movements because otherwise it would be hard to pull-off. If it's too tolerant the volume gesture would become unresponsive, and it would be easy to make an unintended double-tap while reaching the iPod in your pocket.
The iPhone can differentiate between scroll and tap easily because the flick-to-scroll or drag-to-scroll gestures are much more exaggerated than minute volume adjustments done with the thumb while holding the device.
Even with fine-tuning, I can see these unintended gestures happening too frequently for a device that people mainly buy to play music.
People like tactile feedback. Remember the 3G iPod? There's a reason why Apple stopped using these touch buttons on iPods. A touch based solution makes sense on the iPhone since it benefits so much more from having a bigger screen and controls that can change depending on the application. But on a nano, having a full-face screen would not be that much of a plus. The screen would still be too small for serious video watching, and the majority of nano buyers get it to play music before anything.
Like the old saying goes, if it ain't broken...
what kinda other hand held devices do u think apples workin on?
An Apple Gun that you can point and shoot at PC users to get them to switch.
Like what, without becoming an iPhone? Personally, I want my iPod to play music, and that's it. Other people may want a few videos and photos, a calendar, and contacts, all of which exist, but I think that the next level up from this is an iPhone. With OS X, the interface could be similar to the iPhone's.
I'm with you on this but I do wish that music could play with crossfade on the iPod. And maybe just a little bit more control with managing my music directly on the iPod instead of having to do everything on the Mac through iTunes, i.e. the ability to flag songs, correct ID3 tags, delete songs, etc.
Why would OS X be useful on an iPod, especially a nano? iPods don't do that much, and the things that they do are already written in the current iPod OS.
Things I see using Mac OS X to run the iPod will give us are:
Well, I'm hopeful that Apple will flip the lid on the watch industry. We already have armbands for our iPods and the iPods can display time. Why not a watch that can play music, display photos, and play video but with bluetooth headsets?
I like this idea too. It could it be called an iWatch. Get it?
6, 2, and even, over and out!
Likely less stable.
The current OS is pretty simple, with few API's or other touches OS X has, even in a cut down state.
That might be true. Still, despite being simpler, my iPods have locked up about as much as my Macs.
Whaaa?
Linux for iPod is a 3rd-party replacement of the OS that Apple currently has on the iPods, not an application running on top of it. You cannot make any judgements about the capabilities of the current iPod OS based on what you see the iPod doing while is Linux running on it. That'd be equivalent to making judgements about the capabilities of Windows Vista based on what you see while Ubuntu is running on a PC.
Now, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the current iPod hardware is capable of doing more than Apple's current iPod user interface belies. (In fact, to varying extents, I think this has been true of every generation of iPod to date with the possible exception of the Shuffles. I don't know if enough is known about the Shuffle's internals to make such a call.)
That's true. There was a time when I wished that the stock iPod didn't require a stupid expensive add-on to do recording when the stock OS can clearly do if it weren't programmed otherwise, the lock-out is more complex than just allowing recording. I had used iPod4Linux to do recording because my Griffin attachment added noise even through the mic pass-through, and I think it's impossible to get around that.
Unfortunately, this news doesn't excite me.
(...snipped lame rant...)
First, it's just a rumor. Second, even if it's true, the story didn't say for certain that all HDD iPods will go away, maybe the highest capacity model will still be HDD. Even if Apple does do away with the HDD, I think that by the time your current HDD iPod fails, Apple may have a SSD replacement available.
Things I see using Mac OS X to run the iPod will give us are:
Those are all nice ideas, but OS X probably isn't absolutely necessary to make all that work. It might make the work easier though.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...ipated-updates
Four iPods:
iPod shuffle, iPod nano, iPod, iPod video
The first three are flash-based while the last has a hard drive.
Screens:
None, 1.5", 2.5", 3.5"
iPod video:
Very iPhone-like, slightly different appearance. Same functionality except for cell.
iPod:
Smaller, thinner version of existing 5.5G iPod, same screen and clickwheel but with flash in place of HD. New OS and new GUI.
iPod nano:
Same form factor, different colors, different flash capacities. Possible updated OS and revised GUI.
iPod shuffle:
Minor update, maybe 2GB; color changes?
Just my WAG for iPod possibilities:
Four iPods:
iPod shuffle, iPod nano, iPod, iPod video
The first three are flash-based while the last has a hard drive.
If the video has a hard drive, I think it'll be hybrid. I reckon Apple got a little stuck in limbo with the video iPod because of the battery required to run the hard disk.
iPod 4G (& 5G??) has 32MB of memory used for caching from the 30GB (or 80GB) disk, so if you're listening to a playlist it can load up 8 songs from the disk and turn it off for 30 mins to save battery. Then every 30 mins it turns on and loads up the next 8 songs, then turns off - giving you 8 or 9 hours of music listening time. Unfortunately, if you're watching a video it's so much larger than 32MB that it has to do that every 5 minutes, so you only get 1.5hrs of video time.
Whatever we see soon, Apple will be trying to allow it to cache 300MB of video somehow
That might be true. Still, despite being simpler, my iPods have locked up about as much as my Macs.
And also, don't forget, the iPhone runs everything as root, opening up potential for many security holes.
Why did they go and do that when they had the security model more or less right on the Mac?
Apple, please, BRING BACK FIREWIRE to the iPods.
Thanks.
+2
PLEASE BRING BACK FIREWIRE!
Apple Inc. will use a media event next month to unveil a new breed of iPod digital music players that have been injected with the company's most vital asset -- the Mac OS . . .
. . . Sources in the Far East -- where Apple manufacturers its digital music players -- have recently vouched for sightings of a "full screen" iPod . . .
. . . Apple has also been working on Mac OS-based iPod software for models that will retain their click-wheels -- such as third-generation iPod nanos. Interface concept videos recently published and then pulled from MacRumors consisted of genuine Apple material to this effect, AppleInsider can confirm . . .
I know it's a bit off-topic, but I loved the reponse to the below MacRumors posting:
Originally Posted by aafuss1
I was the person who alerted YouTube that one of the interface videos was infringing on Apple's copyrights-and of course complied.
Leave
iPod 4G (& 5G??) has 32MB of memory used for caching from the 30GB (or 80GB) disk, so if you're listening to a playlist it can load up 8 songs from the disk and turn it off for 30 mins to save battery.
64 MB for the 60/80 GB 5G iPods apparently. Yay, more than one (ALAC encoded) song fits into the memory.
/Adrian
Of course, I can just not buy the new one when it comes out, but eventually my battery will die and that will require a new iPod.
No it won't. iPod batteries are replaceable.
You have three choices:
1.) Send iPod back to Apple for battery replacement
2.) Send iPod to third party for battery replacement
3.) Buy battery from third party and replace battery yourself.
No new iPod required.
I hear that a lot but what can you really do with it while not looking at it? Change volume, play/pause, skip tracks. So surely all you'd need are gestures that support this. When a song is playing, a vertical slide is volume up/down, a double-tap is play/stop, a slide left/right skips track.
Go ahead and try to do that reliably with no tactile feedback. I dare you.
keyboard/pen gestures do not magically translate into a one-handed/not-looking interface.
When I'm driving, I can adjust the radio's volume without looking because there's a big knob. It's easy to locate and turn that knob without ever looking down. Convert that into a finger-slide across a uniformly flat surface (or even mechanical push-buttons) and it won't work anymore. That's the reason most car stereos still have knobs for the volume control.
The same principle applies to an iPod. The click-wheel is very distinctive. You don't need to look at anything - not even the device's orientation - in order to adjust the volume. It's also pretty easy to determine the left/right sides of the wheel, since you can feel the device's overall orientation. With an iPhone-like screen, that all goes out the window. You'll be able to tell up/down from left/right, but you won't be able to determine which is which, so the gesture that you think will quickly lower the volume may end up blasting your ears.
And I haven't even mentioned that issue of working a device that's in your pocket, where you may not have the freedom of motion necessary to unlock the UI and perform full-screen gestures.
That's true. There was a time when I wished that the stock iPod didn't require a stupid expensive add-on to do recording when the stock OS can clearly do if it weren't programmed otherwise, the lock-out is more complex than just allowing recording.
Not necessarily.
I've some experience using "off the shelf" embedded operating systems. It's not like an installation of Windows or Linux, where everything's installed and ready to go. They don't give you a binary image to just install. You are given the source code, which you compile yourself (and often statically link with your application.) The distribution usually gives you the ability to selectively include/omit individual features. Turning features on and off is usually no more work than tweaking a configuration file, or adding a parameter to a bundled system-configuration script. When something is turned off, it is gone - the code isn't compiled and there is no trace of it left in the resulting OS.
Why would a vendor turn off features? Simple. Embedded devices have very limited memory. Every byte you use for an unnecessary feature is one that could be used for something else. Leaving out audio recording means there can be a bigger playback buffer, which extends battery life (especially for those iPods that have hard drives.) When coupled with the fact that there is no audio-recording hardware, the decision is a no-brainer.