Remotes have to be tactile. And TV remotes don't need screens. The TV is plenty.
C.
1. Just because remotes have always been tactile, does not mean that they need to be tactile. An iPhone or iPod Touch makes a pretty good (non-tactile) remote for AppleTV.
2. A universal remote controls a lot of things without screens: Stereos, Mixers, Speakers; HVAC... A remote with a small screen would help navigate/control these drives.
Most Universal/Media remotes (expensive ones) have a screen... A combo of buttons and screen.
Assuming that there wouldn't be tactile buttons makes sense if its a touchscreen (but they don't KNOW if it is or not)
And we're assuming they theres only going to be "one" of these screens? Maybe its a remote with two screens, one for each thumb...? Just throwing it out there...
1) The screen need not be touch sensitive if the surface containing the screen is touch sensitive,
2) The "screen" is 1.2 inches square, so if you touched it, you couldn't see it.
3) They could gang these "screens" together to form a very small video wall
4) If touch sensitive, they could gang them together to form a button matrix-- this would mitigate 2) above, as you could determine which button you were pressing from the surrounding buttons,
It would be nice to have a new iPod Shuffle with a display. The Shuffle is Apple's bread and butter that keeps the number of iPods sold high. The latest Shuffle may not be doing the trick. I'd imagine we'd see a display on the Shuffle next year. Being it is a touch display that could simply mean that it won't have many, if any, physical controls.
At 3cm^2 a solar panel seems unlikely, as well as hidden controller under a MBP.
I think a remote with a 1.2"^2 display and touhscreen is awkward.
The length, shape and placement of the connector on the ribbon appear to exclude any watch or small worn item.
An iPod Shuffle with a display seems equally unlikely with that design.
The only two thing I can think of for a small square display is the LCD behind the iPhone/Touch LCD that displays info constantly without draining the battery much, and a simple heads-up display with or without simple touchscreen interactions for future iOS-based appliances, like an AppleTV, AEBS, Apple Home Server.
It is just too small to be a useful display. Smaller than a phone, camera or GPS screen. All it could actually display was a simple image; a single figure or a graph. Its not big enough for anything else.
Too small to look at - too small to touch. That size makes it too small for selecting many options.
So what Apple device does not say much and needs hardly any user input?
The current nano is 38.7mm wide, so a 30x30mm touchpad could replace its click wheel. Why? So the user's interaction with the click wheel could be animated, and different controls could be rendered for different functions.
For example, the default control setup would look something like the current click wheel, and when the user clicks play/pause or ff/rw, that area could appear brighter and larger for just a second. And, when the user wants to shoot video, s/he flicks left and the video control "page" slides into place. There would be a record/pause button, again animated as the user interacts with it.
But the most important reason for adding a virtual click wheel to the nano is to allow the user to see the same control setup in both vertical and horizontal orientations. Right now, the click wheel is designed for vertical use, so when you turn the nano sideways the controls are also rotated 90 degrees. This is the kind of thing that bugs Steve. So a virtual clickwheel could be used to show exactly the same control orientation by always rendering it with pause/play at the bottom, menu at the top, etc.
Could it be used as a video display for the nano? Nope. Too small for a video display for the nano. As a video display for the shuffle? Nope. Shuffle uses the in-line control in the headphones and is getting smaller and smaller itself (far smaller than 3x3 cm). What about adding a display to the Apple Remote? Bad idea. The Apple Remote should be usable without looking at it.
That doesn't back up your claim. Please provide a convincing argument why this is a photovoltaic panel. You may wish to support your defense with links to reputable sites showing similar, correctly identified parts.
Saying that you work in the electronic industry (sic) doesn't mean anything at this point. For all we know, you could be selling cakeboxes of CD-Rs at Fry's.
Comments
NOT A REMOTE
Remotes have to be tactile. And TV remotes don't need screens. The TV is plenty.
C.
1. Just because remotes have always been tactile, does not mean that they need to be tactile. An iPhone or iPod Touch makes a pretty good (non-tactile) remote for AppleTV.
2. A universal remote controls a lot of things without screens: Stereos, Mixers, Speakers; HVAC... A remote with a small screen would help navigate/control these drives.
.
Most Universal/Media remotes (expensive ones) have a screen... A combo of buttons and screen.
Yep - I know. I was stupid enough to have bought one once.
Worst.
Gadget.
Ever!
Tactile feedback is what remotes need.
C.
NOT A LCD SCREEN!!!
Most Universal/Media remotes (expensive ones) have a screen... A combo of buttons and screen.
Assuming that there wouldn't be tactile buttons makes sense if its a touchscreen (but they don't KNOW if it is or not)
And we're assuming they theres only going to be "one" of these screens? Maybe its a remote with two screens, one for each thumb...? Just throwing it out there...
1) The screen need not be touch sensitive if the surface containing the screen is touch sensitive,
2) The "screen" is 1.2 inches square, so if you touched it, you couldn't see it.
3) They could gang these "screens" together to form a very small video wall
4) If touch sensitive, they could gang them together to form a button matrix-- this would mitigate 2) above, as you could determine which button you were pressing from the surrounding buttons,
...Mmmm, I wonder if ti comes with a stylus
.
I think a remote with a 1.2"^2 display and touhscreen is awkward.
The length, shape and placement of the connector on the ribbon appear to exclude any watch or small worn item.
An iPod Shuffle with a display seems equally unlikely with that design.
The only two thing I can think of for a small square display is the LCD behind the iPhone/Touch LCD that displays info constantly without draining the battery much, and a simple heads-up display with or without simple touchscreen interactions for future iOS-based appliances, like an AppleTV, AEBS, Apple Home Server.
PS: Love the Norm Abrams reference, Dick.
NOT A LCD SCREEN!
SOLAR ELECTRIC PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
It is NOT a LCD screen but a Solar PV module!!!
It certainly looks like one. But why so small? What could they be planning that could charge a device with that?
again...
NOT A LCD SCREEN!
SOLAR ELECTRIC PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
You're going to have to form an argument to back up your claim, not just repost the same thing.
It is just too small to be a useful display. Smaller than a phone, camera or GPS screen. All it could actually display was a simple image; a single figure or a graph. Its not big enough for anything else.
Too small to look at - too small to touch. That size makes it too small for selecting many options.
So what Apple device does not say much and needs hardly any user input?
Left-field guess.. TimeCapsule2. (or MediaCapsule)
C.
You're going to have to form an argument to back up your claim, not just repost the same thing.
I work in electronic industry. Sorry.
I work in electronic industry. Sorry.
So why would a photovoltaic cell need two ribbon connectors with that many terminals?
To me - the surface looks like an LCD with pixels - more than polycrystalline silicon.
C.
For example, the default control setup would look something like the current click wheel, and when the user clicks play/pause or ff/rw, that area could appear brighter and larger for just a second. And, when the user wants to shoot video, s/he flicks left and the video control "page" slides into place. There would be a record/pause button, again animated as the user interacts with it.
But the most important reason for adding a virtual click wheel to the nano is to allow the user to see the same control setup in both vertical and horizontal orientations. Right now, the click wheel is designed for vertical use, so when you turn the nano sideways the controls are also rotated 90 degrees. This is the kind of thing that bugs Steve. So a virtual clickwheel could be used to show exactly the same control orientation by always rendering it with pause/play at the bottom, menu at the top, etc.
Could it be used as a video display for the nano? Nope. Too small for a video display for the nano. As a video display for the shuffle? Nope. Shuffle uses the in-line control in the headphones and is getting smaller and smaller itself (far smaller than 3x3 cm). What about adding a display to the Apple Remote? Bad idea. The Apple Remote should be usable without looking at it.
Anyway, that's my silly wild-ass guess.
I work in electronic industry. Sorry.
That doesn't back up your claim. Please provide a convincing argument why this is a photovoltaic panel. You may wish to support your defense with links to reputable sites showing similar, correctly identified parts.
Saying that you work in the electronic industry (sic) doesn't mean anything at this point. For all we know, you could be selling cakeboxes of CD-Rs at Fry's.
I'm not buying it.
C.
(EDIT - after reflection. I *am* buying it.)