PDA

View Full Version : More FW800, TouchScreen iPod Rumors




MacRumors
Feb 18, 2003, 01:28 AM
Kodawarisan (http://www.kodawarisan.com/ug/index.html) posts a rumor about iPods this week... and also mentions FW800, and a touch-LCD instead of the scroll wheel.



bentmywookie
Feb 18, 2003, 01:48 AM
Has Kodawarisan ever been on point regarding rumors? I seriously doubt FW 800 will be on the ipod unless it comes with a free adapter to connect to a FW 400 port at throttled down speeds (is that even possible?)

voyagerd
Feb 18, 2003, 01:59 AM
still, a color touch screen would be sweet...

Stike
Feb 18, 2003, 02:14 AM
Kodawarisan had some reliable hints in its past, though many were hard to translate ;)
but concerning the touchscreen instead of the wheel... that design comes to my mind. Can anybody say "iWalk"? :D:D:D

arn
Feb 18, 2003, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by bentmywookie
Has Kodawarisan ever been on point regarding rumors? I seriously doubt FW 800 will be on the ipod unless it comes with a free adapter to connect to a FW 400 port at throttled down speeds (is that even possible?)

they've hit a couple of things... but missed an equal or greater number...

arn

ELYXR
Feb 18, 2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by bentmywookie
Has Kodawarisan ever been on point regarding rumors? I seriously doubt FW 800 will be on the ipod unless it comes with a free adapter to connect to a FW 400 port at throttled down speeds (is that even possible?)

FW800 is backwards compatible and throwing in the adapter would most likely be a nominal cost consideration. Even though there would be very little point in terms of a speed advantage, upgrading to FW800 would give some legitimacy to the FW800 standard(and the new Powerbooks and Powermacs) if they did upgrade it.

redAPPLE
Feb 18, 2003, 04:02 AM
i do not see the point of a touch screen. unless the whole front would be a screen.

Falleron
Feb 18, 2003, 04:40 AM
I doubt very much there will be a touch sensative screen. Also, unless there is going to be a feature that requires a colour screen then I doubt we will see that as well. I can however imagine the Firewire 800 with an adapter so that the iPod is futureproof.

redAPPLE
Feb 18, 2003, 04:57 AM
futureproof?

i would love for Apple to fix the battery problem i keep hearing, first.

then futureproof it with fw800. :)

i would like to have the possibility to replace the batteries myself.

i_am_a_cow
Feb 18, 2003, 06:57 AM
why does everyone want fw800 NOW. nobody has anything to use it with. you have to think about the people "stuck" with the g4 450s. OK?

;) but it would be great if they sold fw800 ipods with the adapter. maybe it would be an internal adapter . . .

zach
Feb 18, 2003, 07:00 AM
is it just me, or do the 5 gigabyte iPods say nothing next to them anymore about "increased holiday demand"?

melchior
Feb 18, 2003, 07:09 AM
it's just you. it still says high holiday demand...

have you been drinking?

zach
Feb 18, 2003, 07:12 AM
No :-)

Actually, I am on my friend's pee cee so I can use his DSL. I have DSL at home, but that would defeat the purpose, as I am hanging out with him. And after all, he has a Athlon 250 Mhz in his machine........

melchior
Feb 18, 2003, 07:25 AM
zap123, that is my definition of pain. i feel for you. i really do.

i advise mass, intravenous alcohol consuption. STAT

zach
Feb 18, 2003, 07:42 AM
yeah, but me being 13 sorta rules that out................

zach
Feb 18, 2003, 07:46 AM
luckily, i have my iPod and ibook with me, so i can retreat from the world of pcs for a little while....

Sun Baked
Feb 18, 2003, 08:02 AM
The lack of FW800 on Intrepid-based machines (iMac, PowerBook 12) is strange ...

Even if the new low power FW800 ATA bridge does show up soon, it may still have a FW400 connector until FW800 is added to the Intrepid-based machines.

Spock
Feb 18, 2003, 10:04 AM
I don't think we will see a FW800 iPod untill FW800 is in the iMac's,iBook's,and eMac's and the 12"PB. And a touchscreen?? that would make the iPod thicker would it not?

DeusOmnis
Feb 18, 2003, 02:24 PM
Look, touch screens that arnt even built in are only 1.3 mm thick:

http://www.ezscreen.com/touchscreen.html

theranch
Feb 18, 2003, 03:31 PM
I happen to be selling my 4month old 20gb iPod on ebay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3008836239

spread the word if you know someone looking for one.

trebblekicked
Feb 18, 2003, 08:49 PM
this rumor is contradicted by another thread here that states 10, 20 , 40 GB ipods are already manufactured. (http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000029.php), and the scroll wheel is an intuitive and beautiful piece of work. why go away from that, in favor of something that would do nothing but drive up the price?

yzedf
Feb 18, 2003, 10:11 PM
The Apple seems that this week plans the announcement of the new iPod. According to information, there is a color liquid crystal on-board model which corresponds to also FireWire 800 in the new iPod, by the fact that from the former touch sensor type scroll wheel it is modified to liquid crystal touch sensor system, design leaves it became simpler. Furthermore, we refrain also the announcement of the new iBook, it seems that everyone week continues still pleasantly


http://world.altavista.com/

ELYXR
Feb 19, 2003, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by trebblekicked
this rumor is contradicted by another thread here that states 10, 20 , 40 GB ipods are already manufactured. (http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000029.php), and the scroll wheel is an intuitive and beautiful piece of work. why go away from that, in favor of something that would do nothing but drive up the price?

Judging by Apple's discounting of the LCD monitors last week... LCD film prices have dropped significantly. Also PDA manufacturers have been making small LCD's in large enough quantities and shipping in volume to corroborate this, at least in my thinking. I'm still not convinced that this rumor is true... but I think it's a cool idea. People's biggest compaint about the current touch sensor scroll wheel over the analog one that it replaced is that it doesn't give you enough feedback. I'd like to see a solid-state scroll wheel that does just that. :)

AidenShaw
Feb 19, 2003, 08:38 AM
The disks used in the iPods are quite slow (about 150Mbps peak for the 20GB).

A faster wire wouldn't improve its speed, and would just cause compatibility problems (due to the cable and connector differences).

occam
Feb 19, 2003, 09:14 AM
Perhaps the new touch screen video parts are for a set top box? An iPod contraption is limited in disk size (harsh for video) and power consumption (again harsh for video). However, a compact set top box could be a showstopper with Ive at the design helm.

A set top box does not care about power (it's plugged in) and can have a larger form factor (for those larger, full speed video hard drives). A set top box could use OS X native to do all sorts of wonderful things using Aqua on the set top box.

Hmm, I wonder if it would play games as well, a la MS Xbox? This would be a PVR approach to the LR instead of gaming, though with gaming (Java?) capabilities. Nice.

Also, this box could be relatively cheap (a la Xbox) and provide a trojan horse platform for OS X (or at least OS X based technologies). That would be a sweet success story for Apple. Provide some wireless connectivity via Airport [Extreme], and you have a plug-and-play Set Top Box which is easily updatable (look ma, no phone line!) via Airport in Apple homes. For non-Apple homes, I guess you're back to the [ugly] phone line situation.

In sum, perhaps we should be looking for an Apple iBox (a la set top box) which has a deluxe video touch screen for control, FW800 for high-speed xfer, airport for high-speed PVR guide updating, OS X internals for Aqua X video and upgradability, Java for (safe) user extensibility (a la Java's original roots!) and downloads, and is relatively cheap ($500?) for a trojan horse push into the living room (more effective than a cheap iMac).

Yummy.

sparks9
Feb 19, 2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by occam
Perhaps the new touch screen video parts are for a set top box? An iPod contraption is limited in disk size (harsh for video) and power consumption (again harsh for video). However, a compact set top box could be a showstopper with Ive at the design helm.

A set top box does not care about power (it's plugged in) and can have a larger form factor (for those larger, full speed video hard drives). A set top box could use OS X native to do all sorts of wonderful things using Aqua on the set top box.

Hmm, I wonder if it would play games as well, a la MS Xbox? This would be a PVR approach to the LR instead of gaming, though with gaming (Java?) capabilities. Nice.

Also, this box could be relatively cheap (a la Xbox) and provide a trojan horse platform for OS X (or at least OS X based technologies). That would be a sweet success story for Apple. Provide some wireless connectivity via Airport [Extreme], and you have a plug-and-play Set Top Box which is easily updatable (look ma, no phone line!) via Airport in Apple homes. For non-Apple homes, I guess you're back to the [ugly] phone line situation.

In sum, perhaps we should be looking for an Apple iBox (a la set top box) which has a deluxe video touch screen for control, FW800 for high-speed xfer, airport for high-speed PVR guide updating, OS X internals for Aqua X video and upgradability, Java for (safe) user extensibility (a la Java's original roots!) and downloads, and is relatively cheap ($500?) for a trojan horse push into the living room (more effective than a cheap iMac).

Yummy.

This all seems VERY, VERY unlikely... :D

S Club 1
Feb 19, 2003, 12:27 PM
I think everyone's missed the point of Apple's succesful updates, which have always centred around increasing the *funtionality* and the *usability* of their products, as opposed to token specification upgrades, a la the Intel/Microsoft world.

What is the point of FW800 if this results in added expense and a distinct lack of FW800 owners to increase market share? Or a touch screen LCD if this increases cost and necessitates physical contact with the base unit in order to gain control?

Based on the core tenets of *functionality* and *usability* I reckon on Apple being best advised to:

1. Add Bluetooth to the iPod, thereby enabling Bluetooth syncs (at slow speed) for music 'top-ups', as well as (and this is key) freeing up control and headphone units. AirPort Extreme is an option, but cost and size as well as a fundamental redesign counts against this.

2. As stated, Bluetooth headphones would therefore allow the main unit to be stored elsewhere on your body. But where would headphone power come from? This would be served from a lightweight 'keychain' style dongle incorporating power and receiving units, as well as a minaturised iPod-style scroll wheel and (preferably color) LCD-display unit. This unit would incorporate a small rechargeable battery and could be 'docked' onto the iPod for charging. This unit described can also be used with any Bluetooth enabled Macs for iTunes use (imagine listening to your iTunes library whilst your PBook G4 is in your backpack!). In a neat touch the headphone cable could serve as Bluetooth antennae.

Of course this throws up the likely scenario of accidentally listening to somebody else's iPod on the Tube, but unique IDs are not difficult to allocate and control.

3. So where does this leave the orginal iPod? Freed of its need for display and control functions, it reverts to being a Bluetooth enabled storage device with high-speed data-transfer capability and docking capabilities. Without an LCD and a jog dial it morphs into an aluminium (I'm British) case with a pulsating Apple logo to indicate status by colour (ditto). Docking abilities would of course include iTunes functionality (music), though if the color LCD (see 2) were incorporated, iPhoto functionality could also be enabled, as well as the existent semi-PDA functionality.

zach
Feb 19, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by S Club 1
I think everyone's missed the point of Apple's succesful updates, which have always centred around increasing the *funtionality* and the *usability* of their products, as opposed to token specification upgrades, a la the Intel/Microsoft world.

What is the point of FW800 if this results in added expense and a distinct lack of FW800 owners to increase market share? Or a touch screen LCD if this increases cost and necessitates physical contact with the base unit in order to gain control?

Based on the core tenets of *functionality* and *usability* I reckon on Apple being best advised to:

1. Add Bluetooth to the iPod, thereby enabling Bluetooth syncs (at slow speed) for music 'top-ups', as well as (and this is key) freeing up control and headphone units. AirPort Extreme is an option, but cost and size as well as a fundamental redesign counts against this.

2. As stated, Bluetooth headphones would therefore allow the main unit to be stored elsewhere on your body. But where would headphone power come from? This would be served from a lightweight 'keychain' style dongle incorporating power and receiving units, as well as a minaturised iPod-style scroll wheel and (preferably color) LCD-display unit. This unit would incorporate a small rechargeable battery and could be 'docked' onto the iPod for charging. This unit described can also be used with any Bluetooth enabled Macs for iTunes use (imagine listening to your iTunes library whilst your PBook G4 is in your backpack!). In a neat touch the headphone cable could serve as Bluetooth antennae.

Of course this throws up the likely scenario of accidentally listening to somebody else's iPod on the Tube, but unique IDs are not difficult to allocate and control.

3. So where does this leave the orginal iPod? Freed of its need for display and control functions, it reverts to being a Bluetooth enabled storage device with high-speed data-transfer capability and docking capabilities. Without an LCD and a jog dial it morphs into an aluminium (I'm British) case with a pulsating Apple logo to indicate status by colour (ditto). Docking abilities would of course include iTunes functionality (music), though if the color LCD (see 2) were incorporated, iPhoto functionality could also be enabled, as well as the existent semi-PDA functionality.


Yeah.

I Wish.

zach
Feb 19, 2003, 03:53 PM
sorry if that was a little harsh.

n00bieriffic
Feb 20, 2003, 02:09 PM
So, why no talk on the iMobile anywhere? CompUSA has had them in for a day or two and a couple have been opened up and played with. I know they aren't supposed to be released until tuesday, but I'd like to know more about them. I only saw the box for one since they were't opening them up at the store here, but I'd like to know about the specs of it. An apple PDA is a great idea right now.

iAndy
Feb 21, 2003, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by n00bieriffic
So, why no talk on the iMobile anywhere? CompUSA has had them in for a day or two and a couple have been opened up and played with. I know they aren't supposed to be released until tuesday, but I'd like to know more about them. I only saw the box for one since they were't opening them up at the store here, but I'd like to know about the specs of it. An apple PDA is a great idea right now.
Very interesting first post n00bieriffic !
Now can you let us in on some more details on what you saw on the iMobile box - before some of the regulars around here (not me) start calling you a troll ;)

iAndy
Feb 21, 2003, 03:16 AM
Sorry - accidendtal duplicate submission :o

iAndy
Feb 21, 2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by iAndy
Sorry - accidendtal duplicate submission :o
WOW - but now I am a fully fledged "Macrumors Member" And that despite my usual spelling mistakes ! :D

vanillamike
Feb 22, 2003, 03:42 PM
Ya what is iMobile? tell me tell me!!!!

Mike

nuckinfutz
Feb 22, 2003, 04:01 PM
1. There is NOT going to be a touchscreen color LCD. Those are Dellusions of Epic Proportions.

2. Forget Bluetooth. Too expensive and not enough support yet.

3. FW 800 should make it. Every excuse given so far is bunk. FW800 is probably not more expensive than the FW400 to implement. Also the object of a Bus design is not to design it for a devices lowest need. You people fail to realize that the future might have someone with 4 FW devices(iPod, CDRW, Minidv camera and Card Reader) all vying for bus contention. Why the hell would you want to tap out at 400Mbps when doube the bandwidth is available.

Using your logic Serial ATA should have maxed out at current ATA rates.

No this is going to come of rude but ..some of you freakin' trying reading sometime you'll enjoy it.

FireWire 800 provides two modes of transmission: the pure beta mode (1394b)
and the backward-compatible legacy mode that works with FireWire 400 devices
(1394-1995 and 1394a).

FireWire 400 devices use a 6-pin or 4-pin connector; FireWire 800 devices use a 9-pin
connector. The FireWire 400 ports on Apple systems have 6 pins, while the FireWire
800 ports have 9 pins. Existing FireWire 400 devices can be plugged into either type
of port, although in some cases an adapter cable (4-pin to 6-pin, 6-pin to 9-pin, and
so on) is required. FireWire 800 devices can achieve FireWire 800 speeds only on the
FireWire 800 port.





See there's no need for anything more than a 6-9 pin cable.


What you will see the next iPods offer is evolutionary upgrades.

A. Rendezvous Support for the forcoming iTunes 4

B. Better AAC support

C. Larger sizes 10,20,40GB

D. Perhaps more iLife Integration.Firewire 800 PDF (http://a992.g.akamai.net/7/992/51/93b28da05d3103/www.apple.com/firewire/pdf/FireWire_Tech_Brief-a.pdf)

job
Feb 22, 2003, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by n00bieriffic
So, why no talk on the iMobile anywhere? CompUSA has had them in for a day or two and a couple have been opened up and played with. I know they aren't supposed to be released until tuesday, but I'd like to know more about them. I only saw the box for one since they were't opening them up at the store here, but I'd like to know about the specs of it. An apple PDA is a great idea right now.

are you serious?

Gus
Feb 23, 2003, 12:33 PM
Allright n00b, where's your info? COme one, man, we like to have comments like these backed up , or yes, we do start screaming troll

By the way the picture from the Japanese website looks pretty cool to me.

Regards,
Gus