Get multiple sets of individual or universal remotes and strategically distribute them around the room. This adds to the confusion and clutter, and, likely, will require more furniture and a second mortgage.
The Real (Apple) Solution:
A single, solid state (no moving parts), programmable device.
-- You could to have several around-- they are interchangeable.
You previously claimed that having multiple universal remotes around causes all sorts of problems. But just because a remote control has an Apple logo on it, each of those problems you listed suddenly doesn't exist?
Whatever it is, the RGB color stripes only add up to about 18 pixels across. That's barely enough for display that scrolls one letter at a time - let alone showing an icon or anything else meaningful.
It used the screen to display something somewhat useful (album art). And the controls were drop dead easy: tap to play, tap to pause, swipe left or right to change tracks, up and down for volume. An accelerometer would determine the devices orientation to keep the controls consistent
This would be awesome, and is the only "Apple" possibility listed in this thread so far. Akin to wearing a changeable pin showing your affiliation to your favourite band. "Wear your music" indeed. Much needed update to shuffle.
Having said all that, I like the idea of it being a control interface for the nano, although one wonders whether it would be beneficial to have two screens over one large. Might muddle the interface.
I think that is pretty slick. Most mockups, like the other one with the iPhone 4 frame, try to the design into a current product without thinking about why it would be made that way. Why the antenna separating band if itÂ?s not likely to have any wireless, and certainly not WiFi and cellular? Each iPod looks very different from each other. Kudos to the person who made that.
If that is anywhere close to the product I wonder if Apple will push their milled aluminium design theyÂ?ve been using for, well, everything? If they can push 40 million iPhone 4 frames through a CNC machine I think they can do a thin, beveled casing, Ã* la the iPad.
IÂ?m still not convinced that it what itÂ?s for or even that itÂ?s an LCD, but that mockup is certainly a product IÂ?d consider buying.
You previously claimed that having multiple universal remotes around causes all sorts of problems. But just because a remote control has an Apple logo on it, each of those problems you listed suddenly doesn't exist?
1 small (MagicMouse size) Apple remote replaces 3-5 (larger) individual remotes (1 set)
or
1 small (MagicMouse size) $79 Apple remote replaces 1 very large $159 Universal remote. (1 set)
So if you are replacing individual remotes, and want 3 sets, 3 Apple remotes replace 9-15 individual remotes.
or
If you are replacing universal remotes, and want 3 sets, 3 $79 Apple remotes replace 3 $159 universal remotes-- you pay half as much and they would take a lot less space.
I am making certain assumptions for the sake of illustration.
I can't believe I need to explain this-- with the slightest effort, you could have figured it out by yourself!
Watches are last century. Fewer people of any stripe wear them year by year, and you will notice hardly anyone under 40 even owns one.
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
I’m not sure what is idiotic about his post. Saying an item is last century doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in the current century, it can be conceived as hyperbole but the meaning of watch popularity has declined per capita.
The reason why should be quite apparent, it’s just not as useful as a tool as it once was now that we have gadgets that inform us of the time and much, much more. That doesn’t mean they will go away completely and he didn’t state that. He made a statement about fewer people wearing them and the younger generation not wearing them.
Those sounds reasonable to me and certainly not idiotic. It’s even backed up by your claim that you bought a very expensive watch as jewelry and/or status. That pretty much proves his point as utilitarian aspect of a wristwatch has been replaced by more capable tools.
There are still plenty of areas where a wristwatch is still by far the best tool, but these are not the general public wearing a watch simply to tell time.
Personally, i’ve never cared for wearing things on my wrist or any other type of jewelry. I much prefer to have the best tool on me… and that’s it. My nature has always been utilitarian and wristwatches never quite cut it expect for camping and diving (for my uses). But that doesn’t mean I can’t see the value of the watch and how this change in the electronic age has elevated the once pragmatic device to being a statement of wealth and refinement. There will always be a market for that and some watch makers may find themselves thriving in the cultural shift because of it.
PS: There are some clever and brilliant designs coming out of today’s wristwatches but my concern is about the engineering.
PPS: Speaking of mechanical timekeeping, NOVA has a brilliant episode on John Harrison, based on the book Longitude by Dava Sobel:
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Probably the most idiotic reply I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who wears a wristwatch, it not one of the most important items of jewelry a man can wear anymore and it doesn't mean you aren't dressing well if you don't have one. Very few people are interested in spending more money for a watch than their last four computers together. A watch depreciates fast and just won't have much value besides nostalgia in a few short years. I'll never get my money back for it.
YOU may wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams. They'll tell you that watches are a luxury item at best now and have little practical value for the average person. They *need* those endorsements just to sell the watches nowadays. This is also why watches are so big, ostentatious, and covered with useless details, whirly-gigs, jewels, and bric-a-brac. It's like cars in the 50's. There's nothing new in the design, so they have to paste a lot of fins and chrome all over just to keep the suckers interested and keep the designs changing year to year.
Luxury watch sales are a small market, especially the expensive Swiss brands, and the market for regular wrist-watches is practically gone already. I would not be seen dead with a watch on my wrist. It shows that I am either living in the past, or that I'm more concerned with flashy jewellery and showing off than anything else. But then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Remotes have to be tactile. And TV remotes don't need screens. The TV is plenty.
I'll agree it's probably nor for an Apple remote. Buy my Logitech Harmony's use of a small LCD to replicate the DirecTV-DVR functionality and as a configurable macro launch pad is pure genius. It significantly cuts down on the number of hard buttons necessary and is far more readable in the dark than dirty backlit hard buttons.
Logitech does these so well that I don't see a really underserved market for Apple to move into.
My confusion on the screen is compounded by two things:
A 1.2 inch touch screen is too small to be of general use. Fingers are imprecise. This screen is two fingertips wide.
The dot pitch is clearly visible, meaning it is a low DPI screen. Small and low DPI...
As pointed out by others, the connectors are for a non-small product.
It seems this is more like a G4 cube style power button. For a Cinema Display? Mac Pro? The question remains, why bother? Any scenarios I can think of would be better served by actual buttons. The screen is too small and low-res to convey anything but the most abstracted of information.
On the watch topic, the reason I don't wear my Titan Edge I impulse-bought, is that it would scratch the @#$ out of my aluminum MacBook Pro. Thus, watches, besides being redundant due to the surplus of clocks built into everything from Microwaves to phones, are actually incompatible with my Mac.
What if the Apple logo on the top of the MacBooks used this display and you could monitor battery power more accurately and maybe control itunes with the macbook closed ? Idk. Or just have random color apple logos on the macbook while it's open. Or have a windows logo on it so people wouldn't want to steal your computer... x]
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
This is a well known trend somewhat like the trend of giving up land lines in the home.
Quote:
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well.
Number one: well dressed men DO NOT wear jewelry! If you don't realize that then you simply are not what most people expect when describing men.
Second if everybody you know wears a watch you are really hanging around with questionable company.
Quote:
I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
So you buy watches so that you have something to brag about? This pretty much affirms in my mind the mind set of males that wear jewelry.
Quote:
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else.
I think he simply is aligning himself with people that have learned to manage their vanity.
Quote:
Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
So class is flashing ones wealth these days. Honestly you have been brain washed if you believe anything you have stated in this text.
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch,
I don't know of any young people who wear a watch. Silly Bandz, sure. Watches... no.
Quote:
it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear ...
Precisely. A watch is jewelry. Jewelry is for women. Tools are for men. For keeping time, a cell phone is a superior tool. They don't need to be set, they're never inaccurate, they automatically know your time zone and adjust themselves to DST.
Sorry to break it to you Murphster, but it seems old-fart decrepitude has crept up on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is a well known trend somewhat like the trend of giving up land lines in the home.
Number one: well dressed men DO NOT wear jewelry!
Agreed. A wristwatch is required as much as a pinky ring and hideous gold chains dangling in your chest hair. Blecch.
I wear a watch so I guess that makes me an old geezer. But I find them quite functional for you know, knowing the time. I guess a cell phone can do that but I find it easier to just look at a watch versus pulling out and unlocking a cell phone to find the out the time.
As for the criticism of watches as jewelry, I have to chuckle. I guess it isn't fashionable for the younger generation, men in particular, to wear jewelry and that's fine. But before you go off about how repulsive men's watches are think about others might view your body piercings and tattoos which are all the rage with the 'younger' generation.
Each generation has their views on what is aesthetically pleasing and cool in general. Remember in the not to distant future someone will be laughing at your customs.
I do not know a single person who wears a wristwatch, it not one of the most important items of jewelry a man can wear anymore and it doesn't mean you aren't dressing well if you don't have one.
Comments
.
.
.
.
.
... the Mini-Pad!
Yes, that was my first thought, too!
Alternate Solution 4:
Get multiple sets of individual or universal remotes and strategically distribute them around the room. This adds to the confusion and clutter, and, likely, will require more furniture and a second mortgage.
The Real (Apple) Solution:
A single, solid state (no moving parts), programmable device.
-- You could to have several around-- they are interchangeable.
You previously claimed that having multiple universal remotes around causes all sorts of problems. But just because a remote control has an Apple logo on it, each of those problems you listed suddenly doesn't exist?
It used the screen to display something somewhat useful (album art). And the controls were drop dead easy: tap to play, tap to pause, swipe left or right to change tracks, up and down for volume. An accelerometer would determine the devices orientation to keep the controls consistent
This would be awesome, and is the only "Apple" possibility listed in this thread so far. Akin to wearing a changeable pin showing your affiliation to your favourite band. "Wear your music" indeed. Much needed update to shuffle.
Having said all that, I like the idea of it being a control interface for the nano, although one wonders whether it would be beneficial to have two screens over one large. Might muddle the interface.
I saw this linked elsewhere.
Something like that would be interesting.
I think that is pretty slick. Most mockups, like the other one with the iPhone 4 frame, try to the design into a current product without thinking about why it would be made that way. Why the antenna separating band if itÂ?s not likely to have any wireless, and certainly not WiFi and cellular? Each iPod looks very different from each other. Kudos to the person who made that.
If that is anywhere close to the product I wonder if Apple will push their milled aluminium design theyÂ?ve been using for, well, everything? If they can push 40 million iPhone 4 frames through a CNC machine I think they can do a thin, beveled casing, Ã* la the iPad.
IÂ?m still not convinced that it what itÂ?s for or even that itÂ?s an LCD, but that mockup is certainly a product IÂ?d consider buying.
You previously claimed that having multiple universal remotes around causes all sorts of problems. But just because a remote control has an Apple logo on it, each of those problems you listed suddenly doesn't exist?
1 small (MagicMouse size) Apple remote replaces 3-5 (larger) individual remotes (1 set)
or
1 small (MagicMouse size) $79 Apple remote replaces 1 very large $159 Universal remote. (1 set)
So if you are replacing individual remotes, and want 3 sets, 3 Apple remotes replace 9-15 individual remotes.
or
If you are replacing universal remotes, and want 3 sets, 3 $79 Apple remotes replace 3 $159 universal remotes-- you pay half as much and they would take a lot less space.
I am making certain assumptions for the sake of illustration.
I can't believe I need to explain this-- with the slightest effort, you could have figured it out by yourself!
.
Watches are last century. Fewer people of any stripe wear them year by year, and you will notice hardly anyone under 40 even owns one.
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
I’m not sure what is idiotic about his post. Saying an item is last century doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in the current century, it can be conceived as hyperbole but the meaning of watch popularity has declined per capita.
The reason why should be quite apparent, it’s just not as useful as a tool as it once was now that we have gadgets that inform us of the time and much, much more. That doesn’t mean they will go away completely and he didn’t state that. He made a statement about fewer people wearing them and the younger generation not wearing them.
Those sounds reasonable to me and certainly not idiotic. It’s even backed up by your claim that you bought a very expensive watch as jewelry and/or status. That pretty much proves his point as utilitarian aspect of a wristwatch has been replaced by more capable tools.
There are still plenty of areas where a wristwatch is still by far the best tool, but these are not the general public wearing a watch simply to tell time.Personally, i’ve never cared for wearing things on my wrist or any other type of jewelry. I much prefer to have the best tool on me… and that’s it. My nature has always been utilitarian and wristwatches never quite cut it expect for camping and diving (for my uses). But that doesn’t mean I can’t see the value of the watch and how this change in the electronic age has elevated the once pragmatic device to being a statement of wealth and refinement. There will always be a market for that and some watch makers may find themselves thriving in the cultural shift because of it.
PS: There are some clever and brilliant designs coming out of today’s wristwatches but my concern is about the engineering.
PPS: Speaking of mechanical timekeeping, NOVA has a brilliant episode on John Harrison, based on the book Longitude by Dava Sobel:
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well. I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Probably the most idiotic reply I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
I do not know a single person who wears a wristwatch, it not one of the most important items of jewelry a man can wear anymore and it doesn't mean you aren't dressing well if you don't have one. Very few people are interested in spending more money for a watch than their last four computers together. A watch depreciates fast and just won't have much value besides nostalgia in a few short years. I'll never get my money back for it.
YOU may wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else. Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams. They'll tell you that watches are a luxury item at best now and have little practical value for the average person. They *need* those endorsements just to sell the watches nowadays. This is also why watches are so big, ostentatious, and covered with useless details, whirly-gigs, jewels, and bric-a-brac. It's like cars in the 50's. There's nothing new in the design, so they have to paste a lot of fins and chrome all over just to keep the suckers interested and keep the designs changing year to year.
Luxury watch sales are a small market, especially the expensive Swiss brands, and the market for regular wrist-watches is practically gone already. I would not be seen dead with a watch on my wrist. It shows that I am either living in the past, or that I'm more concerned with flashy jewellery and showing off than anything else. But then again not everyone has class I suppose.
Good luck dialling on a 1" screen-keypad.
C.
voice activated dialing
and or a client list
face callin ipod iphone w/ some video pay back and somemm
less bells whistles
the nano phone will one day be true
go apple
go
You are right.
NOT A REMOTE
Remotes have to be tactile. And TV remotes don't need screens. The TV is plenty.
I'll agree it's probably nor for an Apple remote. Buy my Logitech Harmony's use of a small LCD to replicate the DirecTV-DVR functionality and as a configurable macro launch pad is pure genius. It significantly cuts down on the number of hard buttons necessary and is far more readable in the dark than dirty backlit hard buttons.
Logitech does these so well that I don't see a really underserved market for Apple to move into.
Wait for it...
.
.
.
.
.
... the Mini-Pad!
This sounds familiar.
(http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...1&postcount=47)
A 1.2 inch touch screen is too small to be of general use. Fingers are imprecise. This screen is two fingertips wide.
The dot pitch is clearly visible, meaning it is a low DPI screen. Small and low DPI...
As pointed out by others, the connectors are for a non-small product.
It seems this is more like a G4 cube style power button. For a Cinema Display? Mac Pro? The question remains, why bother? Any scenarios I can think of would be better served by actual buttons. The screen is too small and low-res to convey anything but the most abstracted of information.
On the watch topic, the reason I don't wear my Titan Edge I impulse-bought, is that it would scratch the @#$ out of my aluminum MacBook Pro. Thus, watches, besides being redundant due to the surplus of clocks built into everything from Microwaves to phones, are actually incompatible with my Mac.
Probably the most idiotic post I have read all year on any forum.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you produce any evidence to back up your claim?
This is a well known trend somewhat like the trend of giving up land lines in the home.
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch, it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear and is an important element in dressing well.
Number one: well dressed men DO NOT wear jewelry! If you don't realize that then you simply are not what most people expect when describing men.
Second if everybody you know wears a watch you are really hanging around with questionable company.
I spent more money on my TAG Heuer than my last four Mac's together and it will still be going strong and will have kept its value long after my MacBookPro has ended its life and been recycled into an ashtray.
So you buy watches so that you have something to brag about? This pretty much affirms in my mind the mind set of males that wear jewelry.
YOU may not wear a watch but don't confuse yourself with everyone else.
I think he simply is aligning himself with people that have learned to manage their vanity.
Ask the big watchmakers why they throw so many millions a year on chasing sponsorship with major movie stars, sports stars and teams if nobody under 40 buys one, Make any sense to you? Watch sales are booming, especially expensive Swiss brands, I would not be seen dead without a nice watch on my wrist at all times, but then again not everyone has class I suppose.
So class is flashing ones wealth these days. Honestly you have been brain washed if you believe anything you have stated in this text.
Dave
I do not know a single person who does not wear a wristwatch,
I don't know of any young people who wear a watch. Silly Bandz, sure. Watches... no.
it is still one of the most important item of jewelry a man can wear ...
Precisely. A watch is jewelry. Jewelry is for women. Tools are for men. For keeping time, a cell phone is a superior tool. They don't need to be set, they're never inaccurate, they automatically know your time zone and adjust themselves to DST.
Sorry to break it to you Murphster, but it seems old-fart decrepitude has crept up on you.
This is a well known trend somewhat like the trend of giving up land lines in the home.
Number one: well dressed men DO NOT wear jewelry!
Agreed. A wristwatch is required as much as a pinky ring and hideous gold chains dangling in your chest hair. Blecch.
This sounds familiar.
Oops. Once was bad enough
As for the criticism of watches as jewelry, I have to chuckle. I guess it isn't fashionable for the younger generation, men in particular, to wear jewelry and that's fine. But before you go off about how repulsive men's watches are think about others might view your body piercings and tattoos which are all the rage with the 'younger' generation.
Each generation has their views on what is aesthetically pleasing and cool in general. Remember in the not to distant future someone will be laughing at your customs.
I do not know a single person who wears a wristwatch, it not one of the most important items of jewelry a man can wear anymore and it doesn't mean you aren't dressing well if you don't have one.
Right you are.