PDA

View Full Version : Apple None-Touch iPod Interface?


MacRumors
Jul 24, 2006, 08:29 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A recently published patent application from Apple entitled "Proximity detector in handheld device" describes an interesting technology for potential use in the next generation of iPod devices.

Readers should realize that Apple while continues to publish patents on technologies that never make it into shipping products, the concepts described in this patent were referenced (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/06/20060615101812.shtml) by Hon Hai chariman Terry Gou in June 2006:

Apple is about to unveil the next generation of iPod, the best-selling music player in the U.S., using a "none-touch" concept, Gou said without elaborating

At the time the "none-touch" description was speculated to be an audio-interface, but this recent patent describes:

A method for initiating floating controls on an electronic device, the method comprising: detecting the presence of an object above and spaced away from a surface of the electronic device; and displaying a particular graphical user interface element on a display of the electronic device when the object is detected above the surface of the electronic device.


Essentially, as users point their fingers towards the screen, the appropriate controls would appear on the screen - such as a scroll wheel. Example images (http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:Gesture11.png) show the scroll wheel appearing and disappearing based on the user interaction. Meanwhile, the user's intentions are interpreted based on Gestures - which have previously been described (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/02/20060202070007.shtml).

twoodcc
Jul 24, 2006, 08:33 PM
seems interesting. i don't know if i would use it that much, but this could be a good thing.

VanMac
Jul 24, 2006, 08:33 PM
Very Cool.

One way to elimate scratches :)

fkalwar
Jul 24, 2006, 08:35 PM
so would this be incorporated into the upcoming iPod, or the "next" update to the iPod?

crackpip
Jul 24, 2006, 08:41 PM
Very Cool.

One way to elimate scratches :)

Maybe not just scratches, but fingerprints, too. If a new iPod has a screen that ends up taking up the whole front, this may be a good way to keep the front cleaner. Iirc it was one of the major complaints of a video device released by Olympus sometime back. The device had a touch screen.

crackpip

Luis
Jul 24, 2006, 08:42 PM
That would be realy awesome! cmon not only would it reduce scratches on the ipod but make it even cooler than it already is. This wold be one of the many features that would kill the Micro$oft "iPod Killer". I hope this is true....:D

MrCrowbar
Jul 24, 2006, 08:44 PM
Sounds cool to me. I guess all those people worried about fungerprints on the potencially touch screen iPod are psyched about this. So it is a touchscrenn you don't actually touch? This could really work out if done right. I wonder if you can still control your iPod in your pocked without having to look at it though... the iPod remote will come in handy if not :)

Daveway
Jul 24, 2006, 08:44 PM
I can see many first time user scratching their heads on this kind of design.

penter
Jul 24, 2006, 08:46 PM
this sounds very interesting and futuristic. i wonder how you click, or make a selection. it would be pointless if you could scroll wothout touching the screen, but had to touch it in order to click on the scroll wheel.
im excited though! sounds cool!

dicklacara
Jul 24, 2006, 08:48 PM
Umm...

I have a mental image of "flipping off" your iPod :)

celebrian23
Jul 24, 2006, 08:53 PM
I wonder if all of these possibilities for the 6G are all compatible with each other.

Lixivial
Jul 24, 2006, 08:54 PM
Kinda takes away from that whole "Simplicity is everything" slogan Apple is known for, doesn't it? While I'll reserve my judgments on the design until it's worked into a final product, it does look like the user needs to take unnecessary steps to actually use the click wheel. Then again, pictures (drawings) probably can't do the interface justice.

Still, not everything has to be digital over analog...

crackpip
Jul 24, 2006, 08:54 PM
i wonder how you click, or make a selection. it would be pointless if you could scroll wothout touching the screen, but had to touch it in order to click on the scroll wheel.

Yeah, that is a good question. It would seem to be a very touchy thing to differentiate scrolling from clicking the buttons. Maybe they'll move back to the 3G interface with the separate buttons. It seems that it might feel a bit awkward to me to not receive any tactile feed back.

I'm excited to see what Apple comes up with.


crack "Bad Puns" pip

xfiftyfour
Jul 24, 2006, 08:55 PM
sounds interesting, though i have a feeling many people will just ignore the feature and end up touching the screen anyway, lol.

banjomamo
Jul 24, 2006, 08:57 PM
They are just giving Microsoft fewer features to throw into that Zune player - whether Apples uses them or not is another issue.

bradc
Jul 24, 2006, 09:03 PM
Cool stuff, sort of like a tablet design? I want to see Microsoft's product for sure though.

Lot's of Rumors lately eh? The Rumor mill is getting pretty high!

xPismo
Jul 24, 2006, 09:06 PM
Wave your hands in the air controls?

Wait, I've seen that before somewhere?! Hmmmmm.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bn96IEhi_WyiUM:http://hugereviews.com/images/Movies/Minority%2520Report/wpeA.jpg

As long as I don't have to wear those gloves. uuugh.

Stella
Jul 24, 2006, 09:09 PM
This would be bloody expensive.. too much to incorporate into an iPod.

SiliconAddict
Jul 24, 2006, 09:15 PM
Is it just me or does anyone else think that if a company never uses a patent it should go pub domain after x number of years? This is tantamount to cyber squatting IMHO.
Who gives a crap if you thought up a great idea if all you are going to do is sit on it and never use it.

Complaints aside. Its a cool idea.

Tommyg117
Jul 24, 2006, 09:27 PM
fantastic idea if pulled off correctly. I can't wait.

angelneo
Jul 24, 2006, 09:33 PM
I think this will even allow apple to be more versatile in their UI design. Imagine if the ipod interface now is on LCD, with clickwheels, buttons controlled by programming logic internally. For the first time users or non-savvy users, apple can tweak the interface to be even much more simpler, for heavy users, they can customise their own interface. The interface can even react to the users action, guiding them to the right button if it detected that the users are having problems. None of these will be tied down to the hardware design, giving it more room to fit into any particular users' competency level.

cslewis
Jul 24, 2006, 09:35 PM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:

Demoman
Jul 24, 2006, 09:40 PM
I can see many first time user scratching their heads on this kind of design.

Gee, that would be a newsworthy event...confused first-time users. :)

Did you vote 'negative' on this? I cannot understand how the thumbs down vote happens so quickly, when there are few, if any, negative comments. Is Dell/MS just waiting for each new thread to come out?

helmsc
Jul 24, 2006, 09:43 PM
I can see many first time user scratching their heads on this kind of design.

Like me...I don't have an iPod ...yet.

ezekielrage_99
Jul 24, 2006, 09:47 PM
How Minority Report......:rolleyes:

But seriously it sounds really dumb, I wonder what that thought projection iPod is picking up from me now......

I see dumbfounded iPod users ;)

kskill
Jul 24, 2006, 09:59 PM
seems like a step in the right direction.
this frees up the space of the wheel and would allow for a full screen ipod.
pretty dope.

now all they need to add is a 5.0 mp camera, wifi, web browser, and phone. :D

Finiksa
Jul 24, 2006, 10:00 PM
This sounds like a brilliant concept. If it ever makes it into a shipping product I suspect Apple would utilise it to maintain the protective layer of plastic over the screen like current iPods instead of exposing the fragile LCD/OLED display. The users could scroll directly on the iPod housing instead of having to float their finger in the air above the display.

JackSYi
Jul 24, 2006, 10:00 PM
Although it sounds sketchy on paper, Steve will convince you that its the next big thing.

dongmin
Jul 24, 2006, 10:02 PM
sounds interesting, though i have a feeling many people will just ignore the feature and end up touching the screen anyway, lol.I think some of you have the wrong understanding of this 'non-touch' concept. You'll still be touching the screen. The purpose of the non-touch technology is to hide the scroll wheel (or any other controller) whenever it's not needed. But I think you'll still be touching the screen to actually activate the virtual buttons. That's my reading of it, anyways.

Kinda takes away from that whole "Simplicity is everything" slogan Apple is known for, doesn't it? While I'll reserve my judgments on the design until it's worked into a final product, it does look like the user needs to take unnecessary steps to actually use the click wheel. Then again, pictures (drawings) probably can't do the interface justice.

Still, not everything has to be digital over analog...I actually think this will be even more intuitive than other interfaces because the controls will be contextual. The buttons will automatically appear and disappear as you move your fingers over the iPod screen. The buttons themselves, I'm imagining, will maintain the look and feel of the trademark iPod scrollwheel. If you are smart enough to operate the current iPods, you'll be smart enough to use the touch-sensitive controls.

BTW, wasn't this story already posted elsewhere a couple of days back? Shouldn't Macrumors be crediting the original publisher?

edit: Appleinsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1902) had this article last week. It goes into more detail too.

MattG
Jul 24, 2006, 10:10 PM
I want an iPod that can read my mind...I'll bet Apple could do it

crees!
Jul 24, 2006, 10:11 PM
seems interesting. i don't know if i would use it that much, but this could be a good thing. Sounds like someone didn't take the time to read the post. If you wouldn't use it much you're implying you wouldn't use the iPod... period.

jicon
Jul 24, 2006, 10:12 PM
My brain is still trying to fathom using such an interface on an ipod.

This concept seems better suited for FrontRow, taking a page out of Gyration's gyroscope and/or laser mouse.

www.gyration.com

MattyMac
Jul 24, 2006, 10:12 PM
Although it sounds sketchy on paper, Steve will convince you that its the next big thing.
Got that right!

It sounds awesome, but how much $$$:confused:

seenew
Jul 24, 2006, 10:12 PM
Wouldn't it be "non-touch?"

None-touch doesn't sound right..

dongmin
Jul 24, 2006, 10:15 PM
If this patent is anything close to reality, Apple may be prepping something much bigger than an iPod, something closer to a full-featured OS X tablet computer. You'll be running a full-featured version of iTunes, not just the simplified UI of the iPod:

http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch17.gif

mi5moav
Jul 24, 2006, 10:22 PM
This is old news, the prototypes where shown last month. They actually use Apples igesture software very cool stuff. If you swipe your finger off the screen to the left it is like reverse, finger swipe off screen to top is volume up, finger slide on left or right side mimics scroll... I can't remeber where i saw all the different igestures will have to look. I talked about this about a month ago regarding there new code name"Freedom" let me see if I can find an older link on my ramblings...

The new Ipod has no buttons, no scroll wheel, no headphone jack, no dock connector. In other words freedom from everything. The most aesthetic piece of technology ever conceived.


1. Power Supply through SplashPower. Similar to those toothbrushes and razors that charge through there plastics with magnetic fields.(strange they haven't updated there site since September 05...did Apple acquire them?)

2. Transfer of songs...Wireless USB

3. Headphone jack...Bluetooth

4. Navigation...virtual touchless/touch screen. As your finger moves over the ipods screen a virtual scrolling interface pops up allowing for more screen real-estate. fingerprints?? not to worry you don't actually have to touch the screen, embedded in/behind the lcd are capacitors that can tell, which direction your fingers are going. Igesture software will be used to give commands(Apple needed to add another way to input besides pop up scroll wheel... need some sort of tactile or directional point to start from... otherwise on a completely blank screen, which end is up??) I guess this way you can still activate and use the device while it is in your pocket, and even a blind individual could use igestures.

5. Hold Button/Power On fingerprint screen identification(great for if your ipod is stolen)

So, there you have it a completely enclosed ipod, so elegant as not to have a single button or port opening or anything but a beautiful screen... Apple will release the in 2006... Freedom... free your self from everything.

*ipod Nano will still have dock connector for now.

nagromme
Jul 24, 2006, 10:22 PM
Some Apple patents are just "out there" and don't sound useful in practice. I never expect to see them in a product.

But THIS sounds actually very useful--the problem of whether a keyboard hogs the screen or not is solved, etc. etc.

Apple's hiring says they're serious about touch computing. For an iPod? For a Mac? And when? I can't wait to find out!

BrianMojo
Jul 24, 2006, 10:33 PM
The new Ipod has no buttons, no scroll wheel, no headphone jack, no dock connector. In other words freedom from everything. The most aesthetic piece of technology ever conceived.

...

*ipod Nano will still have dock connector for now.

A non-physical hold switch would be highly impractical. I just want to be able to slip the thing into my pocket without worrying about changing the volume -- I don't want to have to use a fingerprint identification to do that.

Also, this was all posted on AppleInsider last week, why is this front-page news?

SirROM
Jul 24, 2006, 10:38 PM
<So, there you have it a completely enclosed ipod, so elegant as not to have a single button or port opening or anything but a beautiful screen.>

I think there is a hole in this argument/dream. Apple has spent considerable time and marketing money in the Made for iPod campaign that centers arounds the dock connector. They have created the Universal dock and inserts for all recent iPods, promising to keep these updated with all new iPods in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I seriously doubt these new no touch iPods wouldn't have at least a dock connector. It allows third parties to keep their investment in accessories without getting pissed at Apple for changing the rules again. How about all these car interfaces that are just now gaining traction in new automobiles for example? They need the dock connector to work. Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.

Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).

twoodcc
Jul 24, 2006, 10:50 PM
Sounds like someone didn't take the time to read the post. If you wouldn't use it much you're implying you wouldn't use the iPod... period.

sorry, i said it wrong. i guess i meant to say that i wouldn't go out and buy a new ipod just for this feature

celebrian23
Jul 24, 2006, 10:52 PM
<So, there you have it a completely enclosed ipod, so elegant as not to have a single button or port opening or anything but a beautiful screen.>

I think there is a hole in this argument/dream. Apple has spent considerable time and marketing money in the Made for iPod campaign that centers arounds the dock connector. They have created the Universal dock and inserts for all recent iPods, promising to keep these updated with all new iPods in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I seriously doubt these new no touch iPods wouldn't have at least a dock connector. It allows third parties to keep their investment in accessories without getting pissed at Apple for changing the rules again. How about all these car interfaces that are just now gaining traction in new automobiles for example? They need the dock connector to work. Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.

Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).

oh thank you for the answers, oh great enlightened one

JesterJJZ
Jul 24, 2006, 11:13 PM
Ehhh... A headphone jack would be nice. I don't want to have to buy new headphones just for my iPod...:mad:

crackpip
Jul 24, 2006, 11:21 PM
Without the third party economy and proprietary ports, there is also little to keep the MS Menace at bay, despite the coolness of such a product.

Bottom Line: there WILL be a regular dock connector for the foreseeable future on all iPods except the shuffle (which is on it's way out).

While, I am skeptical of the no non-wireless interfaces. I have to disagree that Apple cares much about third-parties when designing their iPods. The dock connector has been pretty standard, but other characteristics have not. For example, the remote port, that used to be near the headphones. It was also used by FM transmitters and microphones and maybe more. The size of the iPods also keeps changing (the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.

The bottom line is that if Apple sees merit in changing the interface (like removing the remote port to conserve space), it will do it regardless of effects to accessory manufacturers. They will adapt to the new designs.

crackpip

mrblah
Jul 24, 2006, 11:27 PM
No freakin thanks. Its already hard enough to control the touch sensitive orange ipod because its so "touchy." It would literally be impossible to use the ipod without looking with an interface like that, driving with an ipod would go from dangerous to suicidal. Its not the least bit practical and would just be a gimmick.

Its just an all around NO for me. One hand control would be a pain, no-look control would be impossible, the learning curve would take awhile to get used to because it would be the first thing with controls like that, no cases, pretty much no everything. Bad idea.

neutrino23
Jul 24, 2006, 11:33 PM
Sounds like the controls used in the alien spaceship in the movie "The Day The Earth Stood Still". Klatu would just wave his hands at the controls and things would happen.

eenest
Jul 24, 2006, 11:35 PM
This patent clearly reminds me the one-time very popular misic instrument - TermenVox. The same method of operation. BTW - it's almost 100 years old. :-)
For me this is one more time where everybody can see the problems with the US Patent Law.

slidingjon
Jul 24, 2006, 11:39 PM
nice thoughts, all.

I would love all of the features brought up above, but I just don't see it in a sub $500 unit. It's just not going to happen any time soon. It would just cost too much. Besides who wants wireless usb when you can sync with FW800? :)

dornoforpyros
Jul 24, 2006, 11:43 PM
pfft, I don't wanna hover my fingers above the iPod...I wanna use my brain!

mazola
Jul 25, 2006, 12:01 AM
I wouldn't touch one.

DrEwe
Jul 25, 2006, 12:01 AM
I think there is a hole in this argument/dream. Apple has spent considerable time and marketing money in the Made for iPod campaign that centers arounds the dock connector. They have created the Universal dock and inserts for all recent iPods, promising to keep these updated with all new iPods in the foreseeable future. Therefore, I seriously doubt these new no touch iPods wouldn't have at least a dock connector. .

The new Nike-Apple collaboration shows how Apple could get around this - simply a female dock receptacle, bluetooth (or whatever) configured to replace the physical dock connection. It would work for automobile interfaces, the iPhoto connection etc.

Apple could make a ton of cash "this simple connector - only available from Apple - allows all your iPod accessories to communicate with our new iMonolith iPod"... very 2001:)

Multimedia
Jul 25, 2006, 12:18 AM
Can't wait to see it for sale.

ibook30
Jul 25, 2006, 12:19 AM
Apple could make a ton of cash "this simple connector - only available from Apple - ... very 2001:)

Apple making tons of cash on simplicity and ease of use???
Unheard of !

This is a wonderful vision of the future ( that leads to robots wiping us all out ).

Donz0r
Jul 25, 2006, 12:37 AM
That's SO Cool. I really do imagine seeing this in the full screen iPods. it's so wierd that I JUST TODAY described the rumored 'true video ipod' and she says " well the screen would get fingerprints all over it" which I had never thought of. This is Perfect. I don't think that apple will release a full screen rumored true video ipod Without something exactly like this.

This is not only plausable, but I really think that it's probable. I'd bet money on this being with the true video ipod.

swingerofbirch
Jul 25, 2006, 12:49 AM
I am a little confused.

It says when you move toward the screen the appropriate control appears. So say you move toward the scroll wheel and it appears. Then do you scroll by making a scrolling motion in the air but close to the screen? Or do you scroll by rubbing your finger along the image of the scroll wheel?

One other thought.....when Apple introduced the ROKR, they said it's iTunes on your phone. That sounded a bit odd to me. Apple has never referred to the software on the iPod as iTunes.

But maybe with this increased interactivity Apple will put something on this larger screen that resembles the iTunes screen (Library, Playlists, Video Lists), possibly having iTunes on your iPod? Just an idea.

CoMpX
Jul 25, 2006, 12:54 AM
It seems like a major problem with this would be the fact that you get no tactile feedback. However, I have tapping enabled on my iBook and I don't find it odd or uncomfortable at all then I "click" on something. I'm sure it would take some getting used to, but I imagine that it could work.

SirROM
Jul 25, 2006, 12:54 AM
I like your idea and I think it would work in many situations if there is indeed going to be a "transition phase" toward a new type of connection format. However, I'll stick by my prediction as it offers the maximum benefit for Apple and its third party partners while keeping the whole user interaction simpler and more elegant. The Nike situation is different in the respect that it is really the only way to make a product like that work–can't have a bunch of wires getting in the way of running. I know the iPod Hi-Fi probably isn't selling well enough for Apple to worry that a new connection format would hurt their own profit margin much, but there are a LOT of third party partners out there that have only recently given it their best because Apple has probably assured them that the dock connector will be around for quite some time, so third party R&D won't be a black hole or recurring expense in that area. It is what has helped the accessory market evolve to the point it has, which has benefitted Apple immensly-don't think Apple doesn't realize that fact! It is also what is missing from the also-ran MP3 manufacturers: not enough consistency to make it worth their investment to produce for those products.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, it COULD have both....

redAPPLE
Jul 25, 2006, 01:12 AM
i am soon going to reveal my new self-help program. it is called, no-drink. it would help alcoholics stop drinking. and start driving. :rolleyes:

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 01:18 AM
this sounds very interesting and futuristic. i wonder how you click, or make a selection. it would be pointless if you could scroll wothout touching the screen, but had to touch it in order to click on the scroll wheel.
im excited though! sounds cool!

I can see how simple gestures could be recognized as the various clicks that you would normally do, so I don't think this would be an issue.

Kingsly
Jul 25, 2006, 01:19 AM
reminds me of the controls in the 'Heart Of Gold'

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 01:20 AM
Wave your hands in the air controls?

Wait, I've seen that before somewhere?! Hmmmmm.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:bn96IEhi_WyiUM:http://hugereviews.com/images/Movies/Minority%2520Report/wpeA.jpg

As long as I don't have to wear those gloves. uuugh.


Did anyone here ever play Journeyman Project 3: Legacy of Time? That came out before Minority Report and they had this kind of non-touch interface, but they didn't have to wear funny gloves! ;)

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 01:25 AM
Re: Zune already features none-touch technology

I wouldn't touch one.

Zune already features none-touch technology? Huh? Zune doesn't even exist yet (at least from a consumer point of view), so how can you say it already has anything?

Comparing two products that haven't been released (nor even had their specs officially released) seems quite pointless...

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 01:31 AM
<SNIP>
But maybe with this increased interactivity Apple will put something on this larger screen that resembles the iTunes screen (Library, Playlists, Video Lists), possibly having iTunes on your iPod? Just an idea.

Hmm... and why might we want iTunes (proper) on an iPod? Maybe to download music directly, as in accessing iTMS over WiFi? So, maybe this new iPod will have a full screen, which will be enough to provide a more substantial GUI, and allow for an implementation of iTMS directly on the iPod. This would be crucial to having a functional WiFi iPod, as well as having a good video iPod. Sounds good to me!

(Personally, I will say that I certainly don't know enough to judge whether or not this is in any way a realistic expectation. But, to be fair, this may simply be the new top-end iPod, or vPod, and the lower end models will still have the tactile UI. Food for thought, if nothing else...)

Lollypop
Jul 25, 2006, 01:31 AM
I see some sort of conversion of these rumors, and a clear indication that the big screen virtual interface thing might be feasible, but really... all the rumors are getting a bit much, next thing the ipod will be a all purpose video edeting aplience called the... macbook! :p

iMeowbot
Jul 25, 2006, 01:53 AM
Wouldn't it be "non-touch?"

None-touch doesn't sound right..

That phrase came from a printed report of a Q&A with Hon Hai CEO Terry Gou. We don't even know if that's a direct quote or a translation, let alone the accuracy of the transcript.

RodThePlod
Jul 25, 2006, 01:58 AM
Zune already features none-touch technology? Huh? Zune doesn't even exist yet (at least from a consumer point of view), so how can you say it already has anything?

Comparing two products that haven't been released (nor even had their specs officially released) seems quite pointless...

No - Mazola meant that Zune had none-touch - because he wouldn't touch it!

Geddit?!

RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 02:13 AM
No - Mazola meant that Zune had none-touch - because he wouldn't touch it!

Geddit?!

RodC
--
www.expodition.com - for iPod users who love to travel

Ah... Gotcha.

Ner!! Maybe I'm too sleepy right now... :)

Kardashian
Jul 25, 2006, 02:51 AM
I hope we don't have something like this.

noservice2001
Jul 25, 2006, 02:52 AM
come on.... 120GB!!! or more...

aswitcher
Jul 25, 2006, 04:57 AM
No touch...mmmm...means I can use my tounge to change tunes when I have my hands full ;)

Macnoviz
Jul 25, 2006, 05:13 AM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:

I want an iPod that can read my mind...I'll bet Apple could do it

It can be done and is already being done. A receptor near the part of your brain that controls movement picks up where you want something to go (like a mouse pointer) Currently however there is a little disadvantage, because you need a pin through your skull to pick up the signals accuratly enough. However, there have been experiments with "stickers" on your skull, but this is less accuratly. Still, it should be well enough for an iPod Shuffle interface. And if they incorporate this in headphones, it should be possible.


1. Power Supply through SplashPower. Similar to those toothbrushes and razors that charge through there plastics with magnetic fields.(strange they haven't updated there site since September 05...did Apple acquire them?)

(...)

3. Headphone jack...Bluetooth



1. I don't think a razor or toothbrush require as much power as an iPod, especially not with a 4 inch screen. Charching through magnetic fields is only good enough for very light electrical equipment, that doesn't require a lot of power

3. Have you ever listened via bluetooth headphones? It's crap


This sounds like a brilliant concept. If it ever makes it into a shipping product I suspect Apple would utilise it to maintain the protective layer of plastic over the screen like current iPods instead of exposing the fragile LCD/OLED display. The users could scroll directly on the iPod housing instead of having to float their finger in the air above the display.

Amen.

As for tactile feedback, I think that it would not be that hard to adjust the controls to the position of your fingers. Imagine you are driving in a car, you don't look at the iPod, but you tap once on the surface, and whereever you touch is the middle button, and then you don't really need this feedback.



But I think the biggest advantage is that it would be very very simple to adjust the interface to dial phonenumbers, type text messages, and so on. In other words: the iPhone would be within handreach, and it would not require dozens of buttons added to interface (eg via a dock connector like the FM radio) I believe this was planned for 2006

iMeowbot
Jul 25, 2006, 05:15 AM
No touch...mmmm...means I can use my tounge to change tunes when I have my hands full ;)
The existing iPods already are lickable, though the 3rd gen controls are a little more convenient than the click wheel and button interfaces. Feel free to take my word on this, and if you feel the need to confirm, remember that it's probably rude in most places to lick someone else's iPod without asking nicely first.

SPUY767
Jul 25, 2006, 05:27 AM
This says one thing. Apple is continuing to innovate, and that makes me smile. I would imagine that Apple is also a bit wary of carrion fowl such as creative who would swoop down on a market conquered by Apple, and demand a pittance because their own product was a failure.

aswitcher
Jul 25, 2006, 05:39 AM
The existing iPods already are lickable, though the 3rd gen controls are a little more convenient than the click wheel and button interfaces. Feel free to take my word on this, and if you feel the need to confirm, remember that it's probably rude in most places to lick someone else's iPod without asking nicely first.


Ok, now I need to see all that in a silhouette Apple add.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 05:52 AM
Feel free to take my word on this, and if you feel the need to confirm, remember that it's probably rude in most places to lick someone else's iPod without asking nicely first.

It's also likely to lead to a Douglas Adams-esque end-of-the-world pandemic scenario! Euuuh!

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 05:56 AM
This would be a nice UI for ebooks - just swipe your finger/hand across the display to turn the page.

The None-Touch (presumably so named as it sounds more pleasing than "Non-Touch", and is a play on "One-Touch") name would imply that at least some control can be achieved without touching the screen.

Evangelion
Jul 25, 2006, 07:32 AM
you mean something like this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2607277&postcount=79) ;)?

Eraserhead
Jul 25, 2006, 08:12 AM
(the new 5G are a bit wider and thinner than the 4G) making any devices that the iPod "fits into" need to be retooled.

My 5G iPod fits in my 3G dock just fine, the only problem is that it's thinner so it doesn't fit snugly. I think it will have a dock connector (for accessories) and a headphone socket and hld switch at least, though a splash power charger would be cool, i can just see your iPod falling off it, for a similar feature why not just include a dock to connect to your computer?

sigamy
Jul 25, 2006, 08:26 AM
I've wanted hyperlinks and a touch screen on the iPod since forever. Many times I do "shuffle songs", then it lands on an artist or album that I'd like to hear more of. It would be great to be able to click on the artist name or the album and then jump right there.

crees!
Jul 25, 2006, 08:35 AM
Wouldn't it be "non-touch?"

None-touch doesn't sound right.. That's the Japanese/Chinese for you. Lost in translation.. how about just plain 'ol touchless :)

GaseousPlatypus
Jul 25, 2006, 08:40 AM
Is there a reason why the patent pictures are always so awful?

billchase2
Jul 25, 2006, 09:23 AM
i totally called this! and was told i was wrong... ;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=209192&page=7&highlight=none+touch#172

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 09:32 AM
I think some of you have the wrong understanding of this 'non-touch' concept. You'll still be touching the screen. The purpose of the non-touch technology is to hide the scroll wheel (or any other controller) whenever it's not needed. But I think you'll still be touching the screen to actually activate the virtual buttons. That's my reading of it, anyways.


What you describe sounds less 'cool', but is probably more workable and more likely. Still, it would mean the controls (such as the scroll wheel) can appear anywhere you touch the screen, so the scroll wheel is under your thumb regardless of whether you're left or right handed.

penter
Jul 25, 2006, 09:44 AM
I can see how simple gestures could be recognized as the various clicks that you would normally do, so I don't think this would be an issue.

yeah, i thought about the same thing, but unless it is pulled right i think it will be a grat idea gone bad. i cant wait to see it tough, cuz apple always comes up with some ingenious method of doing things. they're probably going to have something cool and easy to use, because thats one of the main things the iPod is known for.

hayesk
Jul 25, 2006, 10:41 AM
It seems like a major problem with this would be the fact that you get no tactile feedback. However, I have tapping enabled on my iBook and I don't find it odd or uncomfortable at all then I "click" on something. I'm sure it would take some getting used to, but I imagine that it could work.

The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.

But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.

Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 10:49 AM
The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.

Although it still isn't perfect - if you listen to music in the dark (I often listen to music in bed), it's difficult to find the buttons without pressing the wrong one. The 1G iPod was better in this regard.

network23
Jul 25, 2006, 11:04 AM
But I think the biggest advantage is that it would be very very simple to adjust the interface to dial phonenumbers, type text messages, and so on. In other words: the iPhone would be within handreach, and it would not require dozens of buttons added to interface (eg via a dock connector like the FM radio) I believe this was planned for 2006

This is what I thought when I saw the report on the Apple patents for the different interfaces (number pad, 4-way "cross" control, iPod controls, etc.). What if those "alternative" controls were actually all "displayed" controls on a none-touch screen, and Apple is planning on making this device your iPod, your cell phone, and your gaming machine? Depending on what you select, the proper controls will appear.

We know Apple was looking to hire a game programmer for the iPod. We think Apple's working on a cell phone based on comments made at the last financials meeting. We saw the patents for the various control interfaces, coincidentally all being shown on the same form factor.

My concerns are cost(how in the world could Apple make such a device that's also affordable) and simplicity(most iPod reviewers seem to come to the conclusion that it's the iPod simplicity that's the key to its success). Adding all these features seems very un-Apple and could make the device rather confusing and cumbersome.

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 11:05 AM
The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.

They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click. What people are questioning is the usability of an interface where you don't have any tactile feedback. I think that the answer is that there would have to be visual feedback to replace it, thus the further issue that you couldn't simply use this iPod in your pocket or use it very safely while driving. However, if we consider that this is meant to be the video / ebook iPod, where you'll be staring at the screen anyway, this is much less of an issue.


But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.

Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.

What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 11:10 AM
But I think the biggest advantage is that it would be very very simple to adjust the interface to dial phonenumbers, type text messages, and so on. In other words: the iPhone would be within handreach, and it would not require dozens of buttons added to interface (eg via a dock connector like the FM radio) I believe this was planned for 2006

Very interesting, I hadn't considered this. It would still obviously lack tactile feedback, but then again the buttons on my current phone are so tiny they're not the easiest to use either.

network23
Jul 25, 2006, 11:16 AM
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.

Snowy,

I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.

What happened?

If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.

Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.

whooleytoo
Jul 25, 2006, 11:18 AM
Here's a radical suggestion, very unlikely to be implemented, but maybe interesting.

The iPod has a screen on the front which displays the controls, but the touch/presence/motion sensitive sensor is on the back. Since the controls are on the back, your view of the screen isn't obscured by your finger tapping on it.

But how do you see exactly where your fingers are? Simple - the "None Touch" sensor detects where your fingers are, and superimposes a representation of their position on the screen - it's almost like a transparent iPod, where your fingers behind the iPod are shown on the screen in front.

Benefits

- your fingers aren't obscuring your view of the screen
- you're not smudging or scratching the screen by tapping on it.

Disadvantages

- You have to be careful not to accidentally tap a control on the back.

APPLENEWBIE
Jul 25, 2006, 11:24 AM
the new consumer MacPro tablet... 1" thick, 15" widescreen, :cool: touch or non-touch inputs (u choose) bluetooth keyboard included (virtual keyboards suck). Built in stand. Face of device is ALL SCREEN with very narrow margins. Face is ballistic glass, tough and virtually scratchproof. Trackpad like the current notebooks, but virtual.

$1500. 2.0 core duo. ($500 more for dual core duo.) 2 gig ram standard.

Steve also announces CS available NOW.

Edit: Frosted ballistic glass. And the entire front is imbedded with some sort of 'invisible' solar panel array so that the device self charges when off (or maybe even when it is on?)

enda1
Jul 25, 2006, 11:49 AM
Anyone considered how this (technically) will work? How will the iPod detect where your hands are?

I seem to remember a rumour about apple developing a display which emebdded motion sensors or CCD's between the pixels in a screen. Could this be what they will use to see/sense what you are doing.

As an aside, it would be cool if they could inplement this into all their screens. How cool for flicking between pics of a laptop of changing songs in itunes.. endless posibilities!

quigleybc
Jul 25, 2006, 12:06 PM
I'll believe it when I see it...:rolleyes:

iMeowbot
Jul 25, 2006, 12:09 PM
Anyone considered how this (technically) will work? How will the iPod detect where your hands are?

This seems to be a refinement of what the iPod and touch pads have been doing all along. Right now those can detect your finger through an insulated plastic layer, and even through clothes on top of that.

The main difference here would seem to be in smarter software that can do something useful with smaller changes in the electrical fields.

David Sharpe
Jul 25, 2006, 12:21 PM
After Jobs walks out, but before he starts the Keynote. Someone should ask Steve to empty his pockets. First the mini, then the nano, this time should be the Video iPod. I am hoping for a couple more things this Keynote.

Fuchal
Jul 25, 2006, 12:29 PM
But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.

You already don't touch the iPod screen on the current iPod, and they couldn't do that. Why a none-touch ipod means it will scratch less is beyond me.

Phat Elvis
Jul 25, 2006, 12:31 PM
Why is everyone assuming that you would use your fingers for these controls. Sounds like there could be lots of uses - clean and dirty.

Clean: you could flick your head to a side to forward to the next song.

Dirty: you could (beep) your (beep) to get to the next song. :D

BrianMojo
Jul 25, 2006, 12:35 PM
Here's a radical suggestion, very unlikely to be implemented, but maybe interesting.

The iPod has a screen on the front which displays the controls, but the touch/presence/motion sensitive sensor is on the back. Since the controls are on the back, your view of the screen isn't obscured by your finger tapping on it.

But how do you see exactly where your fingers are? Simple - the "None Touch" sensor detects where your fingers are, and superimposes a representation of their position on the screen - it's almost like a transparent iPod, where your fingers behind the iPod are shown on the screen in front.

Benefits

- your fingers aren't obscuring your view of the screen
- you're not smudging or scratching the screen by tapping on it.

Disadvantages

- You have to be careful not to accidentally tap a control on the back.

I had always seen the controls on the back thing as an idea, although I'd always invisioned them as physical buttons on the back. Your idea is a bit more interesting considering this technology could feasibly be used through the metal casing. It'll never happen because it's so counter-intuitive just to save from scratching the screen, but it's an interesting idea none-the-less.

crees!
Jul 25, 2006, 12:58 PM
After Jobs walks out, but before he starts the Keynote. Someone should ask Steve to empty his pockets. First the mini, then the nano, this time should be the Video iPod. I am hoping for a couple more things this Keynote.
Excellent.. excellent idea!

acslater017
Jul 25, 2006, 01:04 PM
It seems unlikely that Apple will employ this none-touch technology in the next-gen iPod. Can you imagine how much battery life it would take? Just to prevent fingerprints?

I imagine the full-screen iPod will indeed use a touch-screen in order to increase screen size - but it's impractical to employ motion sensors in a gadget like this, which people use while walking, in their pocket, in their car, etc.

I'm not saying Apple will do this, but a more practical solution would be to coat the touch screen with Durabis (the Blu-ray scratch coating) or something similar so that scratches and fingerprints don't show up. That would be MUCH cheaper, conserve battery life and space, and allow for sort-of tactile-feedback (at least touching a smooth surface) and easy operation - keeping your fingers floating just above it is a novel but inconvenient way of doing things.

penter
Jul 25, 2006, 01:06 PM
is this coating as strong as it claims to be? i dont think a plastic could handle steel sponge scratching...

Snowy_River
Jul 25, 2006, 01:17 PM
Snowy,

I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.

What happened?

If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.

Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.

Well, while I'll admit that some touching is unavoidable, I could easily hover my finger over the controls on my iPod or on the track pad on my PB. I only glanced off the surface once in a mock navigation of the iPod to get to a playlist and start playing. How much better is that than having tones of sweep marks and finger prints from scrolling and tapping?

boncellis
Jul 25, 2006, 01:56 PM
i totally called this! and was told i was wrong... ;)

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=209192&page=7&highlight=none+touch#172

As did I, only 80+ posts prior...;)

Seriously though, the tech is cool, but it's one more thing to drain on the battery. I'm looking forward to the days when all iPods will be flash memory--sleeker, better battery life, and faster. I'm not too interested in the magnificent disappearing scrollwheel.

ToTem.M@cinPosh
Jul 25, 2006, 02:01 PM
Its cool apple is making it so shut up

BlueMars
Jul 25, 2006, 03:56 PM
Just a story...
The announcer swings his hand towards one corner of the ring, "And in this corner, with the full weight of Microsoft behind it...a device that will play your music...it will play your movies...it doesn't even have too, too many buttons....it's the challenger, the mother of all iPod Killers...it's the one....the only...THE MIGHTY....ZUUUUUUUUNE!" (Polite applause from the audience.)

The announcer then waves his hand towards the other side of the ring as the crowd now rises to their feet, cheering raucously.
"And in this corner, we have your undisputed champ...showing off a new physique...it's your video iPod!! With controls that simply...vanish...when you take your hand away?!?"
The announcer rolls his eyes, and motions, and in wheels the mechanical broom and dust pan. It whacks the Zune into little pieces, sweeps up the debris, then whirrs away.
"NEXT?"

stunna
Jul 25, 2006, 04:35 PM
"Readers should realize that while Apple continues to publish patents on technologies that never make it into shipping products, the concepts described in this patent were referenced by Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou in June 2006:"

What other patents does apple have in which they didn't make the product?

kevin.rivers
Jul 25, 2006, 05:26 PM
"Readers should realize that while Apple continues to publish patents on technologies that never make it into shipping products, the concepts described in this patent were referenced by Hon Hai chairman Terry Gou in June 2006:"

What other patents does apple have in which they didn't make the product?

Probably millions.

snap58
Jul 25, 2006, 07:32 PM
sounds interesting, though i have a feeling many people will just ignore the feature and end up touching the screen anyway, lol.

I am not going to read all 110 replies, so this may have already been put out there.

Remember the other patent with the LCD with the built in little photo cells, think these would know when something was above them?

The screen will have a clear scratch proof cover over it that you could touch if you wanted too.

I can't see people Not touching the screen, just hovering mm above it, no way.

Tymmz
Jul 25, 2006, 11:16 PM
I don't get it. A non-touch patent and a multi-touch patent. Does Apple know what they want?

I feel a little like watching Star Trek.

Maybe a small glimpse of the upcoming technologies, which our grandchildren will enjoy.

Very interesting!

stunna
Jul 25, 2006, 11:21 PM
I just want to know the price
I"m sure these can be built but can the average teen afford one?

celebrian23
Jul 25, 2006, 11:23 PM
I just want to know the price
I"m sure these can be built but can the average teen afford one?

Consider the current ipod is $400. This is looking like it could be quite expensive. I just don't see it selling for less than half a grand

johnthevulcan
Jul 26, 2006, 03:07 AM
Wonders though how close you'd have to be, i mean if it is a few inches or less it is still a touch screen and the sillys will touch it anyway, but can you blame them it is an iPod. How can you not touch, even if youre not supposed to:) :) :)

Ablatus
Jul 26, 2006, 03:59 AM
Well, I just had to wipe my hands to type this after eating my nachos, so i wouldn't mind not touching it, so I could still be eating....that being said..this is too weird...A bar rumor. I was out last weekend and a friend told me about a friend of his with an Apple powerbook prototype that he is testing that uses exactly that. It's a three dementional, no touching, control. I guess it works with sensors behind the screen and in between the keys on the keyboard. You can write in the air, move items, etc. I wish I can say it was first hand that I saw this, so you have to take it as it is...only a rumor...BUT it does fit into this thread.

153957
Jul 26, 2006, 05:58 AM
It's also likely to lead to a Douglas Adams-esque end-of-the-world pandemic scenario! Euuuh!

As DNA prophesied:
"A loud clatter of gunk music flooded through the Heart of Gold cabin as
Zaphod searched the sub-etha radio wavebands for news of himself. The machine was rather difficult to operate. For years radios had been operated by means of pressing buttons and turning dials; then as the technology became more sophisticated the controls were made touch-sensitive – you merely had to brush the panels with your fingers; now all you had to do was wave your hand in the general direction of the components and hope. It saved a lot of muscular expenditure of course, but meant that you had to sit infuriatingly still if you wanted to keep listening to the same programme.
[...]
The music swirled and dived for a moment. Another voice broke in, presumably Halfrunt. He said: ”Vel l, Zaphod’s jist zis guy you know?” but got no further because an electric pencil flew across the cabin and through the radio’s on/off sensitive airspace. Zaphod turned and glared at Trillian – she had thrown the pencil."

morespce54
Jul 26, 2006, 09:15 AM
so would this be incorporated into the upcoming iPod, or the "next" update to the iPod?

obviously in the next iPod (machine not sw) :(

morespce54
Jul 26, 2006, 09:25 AM
I want an iPod that can read my mind...I'll bet Apple could do it

Well, mine almost do it...
:D :D

But seriously, I'm not sold to that idea. Most of the time, my pod is in my bag and I became pretty good at changing songs without taking it out.
:rolleyes:

Anyway, with this idea, I guess that I would HAVE to take it out to skip songs... without touching the unit...
:confused:

ezekielrage_99
Jul 26, 2006, 09:41 AM
As long as the G6 iPods are less prone to scratches I will be happy :D

rockthecasbah
Jul 26, 2006, 10:02 AM
If this patent is anything close to reality, Apple may be prepping something much bigger than an iPod, something closer to a full-featured OS X tablet computer. You'll be running a full-featured version of iTunes, not just the simplified UI of the iPod:

http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch17.gif
but who would want to have a full featured iTunes when you still haven't solved the problem of typing. The most efficient part for me is to type out what you're looking for. I do, however, see the advantage to making playlists more efficiently on the go, giving you the ability to shuffle anything you choose, not just "All Songs" which is a bother. :)

morespce54
Jul 26, 2006, 10:39 AM
...all the rumors are getting a bit much, next thing the ipod will be a all purpose video edeting aplience called the... macbook! :p

when I first bought my iBook, I used to call it "my big iPod" :D :D

iMeowbot
Jul 26, 2006, 10:51 AM
but who would want to have a full featured iTunes when you still haven't solved the problem of typing. The most efficient part for me is to type out what you're looking for. I do, however, see the advantage to making playlists more efficiently on the go, giving you the ability to shuffle anything you choose, not just "All Songs" which is a bother. :)
Some of these patent applications have also included keyboard overlays that magically pop up on demand and so on. Much of this gesture stuff looks like major overkill for a media player, I do wonder if the iPoddish appearance of the examples is a red herring.

whooleytoo
Jul 26, 2006, 10:57 AM
It'll never happen because it's so counter-intuitive just to save from scratching the screen, but it's an interesting idea none-the-less.

Actually, that (and not smudging the screen) would be side-benefits - the main benefit is you can use the on-screen controls without your fingers and hand obscuring them.

Generally, most touch-screens tend to have large controls as it's difficult to accurately press small controls when your hand is (inevitably) covering them. Having the touch/motion sensors at the back would obliviate this problem and make it possible to have smaller (and thus, more) controls on screen, as needed.

dongmin
Jul 26, 2006, 11:05 AM
but who would want to have a full featured iTunes when you still haven't solved the problem of typing. The most efficient part for me is to type out what you're looking for. I do, however, see the advantage to making playlists more efficiently on the go, giving you the ability to shuffle anything you choose, not just "All Songs" which is a bother. :)Text input can be addressed in a lot of different ways. Bluetooth portable keyboards, for example. If I got a tablet, I'd also get myself a foldable keyboard to take along with me. Or you can make do with a virtual keyboard activated by gestures (2nd image):

http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch17i.gif

Scruff
Jul 26, 2006, 11:13 AM
I'm going to assume it doesn't mean that you actually control the thing without touching it, rather it just makes the wheel disappear when you aren't holding it. That seems to be a more useful idea.

I mean, otherwise, it's a useless feature, except to prevent screen scratching.

morespce54
Jul 26, 2006, 11:15 AM
but who would want to have a full featured iTunes when you still haven't solved the problem of typing. The most efficient part for me is to type out what you're looking for.

Yes but who wants a "Tablet Size" Pods??? :confused:

BrianMojo
Jul 26, 2006, 11:52 AM
I'm going to assume it doesn't mean that you actually control the thing without touching it, rather it just makes the wheel disappear when you aren't holding it. That seems to be a more useful idea.

I mean, otherwise, it's a useless feature, except to prevent screen scratching.

Yeah, if you read the whole patent (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1902), you'll notice that it makes mention of "force sensors" underneath the display to tell if it is a "light" or "hard" touch. A finger being waved above an object doesn't have force to sense, and in looking at the more tablet-oriented part of the patent, you can see that a hand is clearly holding the object (http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch19.gif). The document also makes several references to the input devices appearing or disappearing based on the proximity of a finger.

It would seem that the main purpose of this is to make overlays like this possible:
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/thumb/d/dd/1fullipodav.jpg/800px-1fullipodav.jpg

This isn't a "none-touch" patent.

GryphonKeeper
Jul 26, 2006, 11:56 AM
If you look at the illustrations, this is far larger than an iPod screen, especially for two handed control as depicted. Not that the tech can't be used for an iPod, but my guess this is going to be a tablet-like device positioned somewhere between the iPod and iMac. Steve Jobs and Apple have stated before that the Intel deal lets them envision a whole range of products not out there, especially fast chips that use less power. Also, macsimimumnews has revealed a trademark filing for a "doPod" that seems to suggest an iPod on steroids.

I believe this is a companion device that's not quite a full mac, but more functionality than an iPod, and be sized somewhere in between. At home, it could connect to your network and control your music through AirPort Express, or movies on FrontRow through your TV. Or you can take it with you and watch movies, check email, or read books (tying in the Engadget rumor on books). To keep the price point reasonable, I imagine it will be mostly a "player" rather than running full-fledged apps, but something like e-mail could be possible with the touch screen.

I'm guessing that the touchless interface could be a major part of Leopard and point to a new breed of hardware and form factors that Steve J and Apple have been hinting at.

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 01:20 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings?

Apple is smart to file a patent on something that might be "similar" to technology they have developed just to maintain their exclusivity of the technology.

Apple might be filing this just so they can say, haha, Microsoft, you can't produce this because we invented it first....and then Apple moves on to the next big thing without ever producing a product based on the patent.

As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.

You can show me Patent and Trademark filings all day long and I will simply reply with a "prove it"

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 01:23 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings? It's possible but they better not do this (not release such a product). I WANT this.

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 01:32 PM
It's possible but they better not do this (not release such a product). I WANT this.

I'm still not too sure how gestures would work to control such a device unless there was a camera.

Imagine you are in an airport trying to get your tablet to open up by swinging your arm up and down in front of your computer's camera.

Now that would be an invention...
The Headline "Apple Patents Technology So You Look Really Really Stupid In Public"

GryphonKeeper
Jul 26, 2006, 01:34 PM
While it is possible that it is a preventive filing, I think there are a number of indications that I mentioned that would suggest there is something more. However, it may be two years before we could even something if the tech isn't ready.

Frankly, I hope Apple never names anything "doPod." A marginal product of that name for anything would immediately be labeled "do-doPod."

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 01:44 PM
I'm still not too sure how gestures would work to control such a device unless there was a camera. Have you see the "gestures" video? It would be done by physically touching the iPod. No camera needed.

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 02:02 PM
Have you see the "gestures" video? It would be done by physically touching the iPod. No camera needed.

Do you have a link? I have not seen them.

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 02:12 PM
Do you have a link? I have not seen them. At the moment no I don't but I'm sure someone else does. Come on guys.. help him out! :)

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 02:21 PM
I still don't have a desire to touch my LCD screen

Unless they can figure something out where that doesn't happen, I'm not impressed.

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 02:28 PM
I still don't have a desire to touch my LCD screen

Unless they can figure something out where that doesn't happen, I'm not impressed.
When this is released you'll be touching it like a sick middle-aged bastard drooling over on screen images of kiddieporn.

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 02:33 PM
When this is released you'll be touching it like a sick middle-aged bastard drooling over on screen images of kiddieporn.

I never said I wasn't going to buy/drool over this mystery product.

I'm just not going to be impressed.

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 02:37 PM
I never said I wasn't going to buy/drool over this mystery product.

I'm just not going to be impressed.
Why would you buy a product you're not impressed with? "Man, this iPod sucks so hard. *drool* I think I'll buy it!" Is this some kind of new teenage lingo? :D

enda1
Jul 26, 2006, 02:39 PM
Have you see the "gestures" video? It would be done by physically touching the iPod. No camera needed.

Did ye all not read the report. The whole point is that it is a "Proximity sensor" . That it can detect your gestures while "spaced away" from the ipod. This would be no big deal if it required rubbing your greasy fingers all over the display!!

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 02:40 PM
Why would you buy a product you're not impressed with? "Man, this iPod sucks so hard. *drool* I think I'll buy it!" Is this some kind of new teenage lingo? :D

Sometimes I buy products I'm not impressed with to impress the people who don't understand my cool new teenage lingo.

crees!
Jul 26, 2006, 02:50 PM
Did ye all not read the report. The whole point is that it is a "Proximity sensor" . That it can detect your gestures while "spaced away" from the ipod. This would be no big deal if it required rubbing your greasy fingers all over the display!! Yes and it states "a touch screen display" "For multifunctional handheld devices".

"The method includes sensing an object spaced away and in close proximity to the electronic device. The method also includes performing an action in the electronic device when an object is sensed." Meaning when I'm close to touching the darn thing do/show this when this is happening on screen.

Did you read it?
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/part_1_apple_files_proximity_detector_in_handheld_device_patent_application/

EDIT: Still not "touchless" either....
"For example, when using a touch sensing device along with a proximity detection system, advanced gestures may be performed that combine proximity gestures along with touch gestures."

playaj82
Jul 26, 2006, 02:55 PM
I can look at diagrams all day long, but unless I see it in action, I can't see it working without a ton of complications.

hayesk
Jul 26, 2006, 03:52 PM
Although it still isn't perfect - if you listen to music in the dark (I often listen to music in bed), it's difficult to find the buttons without pressing the wrong one. The 1G iPod was better in this regard.

The 3G buttons illuminated. Although yes, in essence, I agree - you don't want the buttons lit up all the time, and you don't want to look at it.

BrianMojo
Jul 26, 2006, 03:54 PM
I can look at diagrams all day long

I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)

hayesk
Jul 26, 2006, 04:02 PM
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click.


Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.

When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.


What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.

Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.


The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.

yac_moda
Jul 26, 2006, 05:04 PM
I sent Apple a long description about how to build a GPS location service into .Mac, iPods, PowerMacs, and with a proximity sensor.

This was right after the kid in NY was killed for his iPod.

Remember SJ promised a fix for this.

I wonder if the proximity sensor will be wiresless disposable earphones :confused:

As for REMOTE TOUCH I still think all touch screen actions will work best with the fingers on the BACK of the device and with them graphically and transparently reflected over the interface.

And probably the ULTIMATE use of finger laser tracking would be a keyboard that has keys with multiple depths, dispose of those shift keys ! I also sent them a suggestion for a keyboard like this but that idea did not use laser tracking, it used a new type of button :eek:


If the touch area for the hands were just flat wings on the back the swung outwards, they could also act as a support for the screen EXACTLY LIKE the traditional book holder:eek: :eek: :eek:

Hunabku
Jul 26, 2006, 05:20 PM
Here we have a PDA device - virtual keyboard, gesture recognition, etc. with a strong possibility of direct connection to the internet (sans computer).

Imagine your in a cafe with friends, some one says hey have you heard this song...? you go online (itunes) right there (wifi) access the song and load it up to your device - pop it into a new play list, rate it etc.

Apple can remove a big barrier of complexity (computer) by making it all in one simple ipod-like device. So there is pobably an entire market strategy with itunes store, etc that extends from this new device. i just bet ya...

yac_moda
Jul 26, 2006, 05:28 PM
Here we have a PDA device - virtual keyboard, gesture recognition, etc. with a strong possibility of direct connection to the internet (sans computer).

Imagine your in a cafe with friends, some one says hey have you heard this song...? you go online (itunes) right there (wifi) access the song and load it up to your device - pop it into a new play list, rate it etc.

Apple can remove a big barrier of complexity (computer) by making it all in one simple ipod-like device. So there is pobably an entire market strategy with itunes store, etc that extends from this new device. i just bet ya...

With eBooks this type of device would be awesome for corp. training and documentation access, even better for military type applications, mechanical work, and combat conditions -- a bastion for podCasters.

AND the Airport has a cheap harddrive in it that watches internet access and downloads locally the most often popular sites, and monitors them for change, to GREATLY speed access and low connection band width requirements.

I also told Apple to build this.

Of course this would have to catigorize sites to do this, so it can avoid things better kept live, and screen for porn, this would be the hard part but this IS just a better firewall :eek: :eek: :eek:

yac_moda
Jul 26, 2006, 05:31 PM
Yes and it states "a touch screen display" "For multifunctional handheld devices".

"The method includes sensing an object spaced away and in close proximity to the electronic device. The method also includes performing an action in the electronic device when an object is sensed." Meaning when I'm close to touching the darn thing do/show this when this is happening on screen.

Did you read it?
http://www.macsimumnews.com/index.php/archive/part_1_apple_files_proximity_detector_in_handheld_device_patent_application/

EDIT: Still not "touchless" either....
"For example, when using a touch sensing device along with a proximity detection system, advanced gestures may be performed that combine proximity gestures along with touch gestures."

UW, sounds like reflecting the fingers to the screen ...


... THAT IS ONE CREEPY BOWSER :confused: :eek: POOR OLD BABY POOP !!!

Snowy_River
Jul 26, 2006, 05:52 PM
...
As far as the trademark stuff goes, it is the same logic. Apple needs to protect as many derivations of the "*Pod" mark in order to make their Pod trademarks even stronger. Apple will probably never produce something with the "doPod" trademark, but any other company thinking about naming their product the "doPod" will think twice before getting into a legal battle with Apple, who has one of the most recognized digital entertainment trademarks in the world.
...

Trademarks must be able to be shown to be in use to be defensible. You cannot simply trademark any name or phrase you want. You have to demonstrate the current or intended future use of the name or phrase.

With regards to "doPod", Apple doesn't need to trademark that, as they could argue that the name of a device that was called a doPod was too similar to their, already trademarked, device called "iPod".

enda1
Jul 26, 2006, 05:58 PM
Of course I read the damn thing. Is it not clear from the report that the invention really is the proximity detector. Synaptics or whatever they are called already have advanced touch devices on the market, thats nothing new. Maybe the software side of things, ie. how to interpert the inputs is novel but really its the ability to "remote control" your ipod without anything but your bare hands.

By the way, just watched Superman Returns there, not too shabby!

Snowy_River
Jul 26, 2006, 06:08 PM
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.

tactile |?taktl; ?tak?t?l|
adjective
• of or connected with the sense of touch
• perceptible by touch or apparently so; tangible
• designed to be perceived by touch

Tactile means that you touch it! If you touch something you get a tactile feedback from it, unless your finger is numb. Thus, if you're waving you hand over control, you get no tactile feedback. Whereas, even if the control doesn't push in, the simple act of touching a control does give tactile feedback. (Perhaps less tactile feedback than a control that does push in, but it still gives tactile feedback.)

When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.

Irrelevant. If you push a key on the keyboard of a dead computer it behaves the same as pressing the key on the keyboard of a working computer. So, by your logic, these keys that press down give no tactile feedback.

Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.

My point was not to say that your suggestion was not possible, just that it was a small step above what already exists, as opposed to a revolutionary leap forward based on the description in the patent. Of course, for anyone who knows a little bit about patent writing and patent law, what's written in the patent is probably the broadest possible applications that Apple can think of to include in their patent.

A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.

And if a better material were easily available, don't you think they'd be using it? :rolleyes:

BigReg
Jul 26, 2006, 08:43 PM
I think Apple Marketing thinks they're slick with their blatant patent advertising/marketing to create buzz on potential new products. I think its fairly lame.

Detlev
Jul 26, 2006, 09:06 PM
I'm going to assume it doesn't mean that you actually control the thing without touching it, rather it just makes the wheel disappear when you aren't holding it. That seems to be a more useful idea.

I mean, otherwise, it's a useless feature, except to prevent screen scratching.
That is more likely. Even if a user did not have to touch the screen it would be extremely foreign to people to type or control a piece of hardware without actually touching it—air typing. Look at the new ATMs that are controlled on screen. You can see people reactions to the machine when it does not operate as assumed. They press harder on the screen :rolleyes:

donlphi
Jul 27, 2006, 03:39 AM
I think Apple Marketing thinks they're slick with their blatant patent advertising/marketing to create buzz on potential new products. I think its fairly lame.

How is getting people in Blogs to react to something "LAME"?

I love the fact that Apple gets the world excited about new products that are coming in the future (or not coming). I love the idea of being kept in the dark until the release date. I love checking back on this site and other sites to see what the predictions are. I even love it when there is a slight let down because what I thought was coming, didn't make it.

APPLE doesn't have much in a choice about keeping patents secret. We (the over-curious consumers) are the ones making all the hype for them.

I don't see Steve Jobs thinking, "YES... now all we need to do is up our advertising by coming out with a new PATENT!!!"

That is rediculous. Sure, he knows there are losers out there that have nothing better to do than sit in their home and research stuff like that so they can be the first ones to post it in their blog, but I doubt they sit around and think about how this helps advertising.

If nothing else, I would think they do not want these patents to be talked about because they want consumers to purchase the products that are out now, not WAIT AROUND for the better product to come out. LOOK at powermac sales as they switched to intel. The average consumer doesn't look at this sight, they just go to BEST BUY and see what item cost the least amount of money.

I think after this CREATIVE lawsuit and countersuit mess, they are just making sure they have everything covered if they are going to stay on top.

"BLATANT PATENT ADVERTISING" - it's like saying a woman that is 9 months pregnant is BLATANTLY ADVERTISING she is about to have a baby.

Anybody that is paying attention is going to notice!

Other than that... I agree with everything you said.

playaj82
Jul 27, 2006, 01:18 PM
Trademarks must be able to be shown to be in use to be defensible. You cannot simply trademark any name or phrase you want. You have to demonstrate the current or intended future use of the name or phrase.

With regards to "doPod", Apple doesn't need to trademark that, as they could argue that the name of a device that was called a doPod was too similar to their, already trademarked, device called "iPod".

You can file an anticipatory mark. The key is intent to use. For instance, I've developed a product and want to start marketing it, i.e. Zune. I file my mark with the PTO before the product has ever actually entered the stream of commerce. Now getting "real" protection from infringers would require you have used it in commerce rather than intended to use it in commerce. But the PTO doesn't handle infringement, they primarily handle validity.

If I don't use it, oh well, the next person who comes along and uses the mark with their product gets to argue that I never used it in commerce. My point is that the little guy who comes along and uses the mark is better off coming up with something else rather than getting into any legal dispute with a company the size of Apple.

Snowy_River
Jul 27, 2006, 03:05 PM
You can file an anticipatory mark. The key is intent to use. ...

I get the feeling you missed this:

...You have to demonstrate the current or intended future use of the name or phrase...

I acknowledged the intent to use aspect. :rolleyes:

Macnoviz
Jul 27, 2006, 04:18 PM
Yeah, if you read the whole patent (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1902), you'll notice that it makes mention of "force sensors" underneath the display to tell if it is a "light" or "hard" touch. A finger being waved above an object doesn't have force to sense, and in looking at the more tablet-oriented part of the patent, you can see that a hand is clearly holding the object (http://images.appleinsider.com/patent-ipod-touch19.gif). The document also makes several references to the input devices appearing or disappearing based on the proximity of a finger.

It would seem that the main purpose of this is to make overlays like this possible:
http://guides.macrumors.com/images/thumb/d/dd/1fullipodav.jpg/800px-1fullipodav.jpg

This isn't a "none-touch" patent.

iPod shown sith a Dreamworks animation movie?

Macnoviz
Jul 27, 2006, 04:22 PM
I like your idea and I think it would work in many situations if there is indeed going to be a "transition phase" toward a new type of connection format. However, I'll stick by my prediction as it offers the maximum benefit for Apple and its third party partners while keeping the whole user interaction simpler and more elegant. The Nike situation is different in the respect that it is really the only way to make a product like that work–can't have a bunch of wires getting in the way of running. I know the iPod Hi-Fi probably isn't selling well enough for Apple to worry that a new connection format would hurt their own profit margin much, but there are a LOT of third party partners out there that have only recently given it their best because Apple has probably assured them that the dock connector will be around for quite some time, so third party R&D won't be a black hole or recurring expense in that area. It is what has helped the accessory market evolve to the point it has, which has benefitted Apple immensly-don't think Apple doesn't realize that fact! It is also what is missing from the also-ran MP3 manufacturers: not enough consistency to make it worth their investment to produce for those products.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, it COULD have both....

how about

a 30 $ optional wireless receiver that acts as a female dock connector to plug into the existing iPod docks?

BigReg
Jul 28, 2006, 10:16 AM
APPLE doesn't have much in a choice about keeping patents secret. We (the over-curious consumers) are the ones making all the hype for them.
This is where you are *very* uninformed and making assumptions. I work for a Fortune 100 company and I have a patent pending that is *not* visible in a search for patent applications. The only time they must become visible is when they are issued. In pending state, they very much *do* have a choice.

gopher
Jul 31, 2006, 12:59 PM
The Future Shock video here:

http://www.mprove.de/uni/asi/futureshock.html

Which was among the Knowledge Navigator videos sounds remarkably like this technology.

iFry
Jul 31, 2006, 02:52 PM
while the technology would be very cool IMO... i could see it causing a lot of problems... it's a lot easier to accidentally move over a surface than to accidentally press keys/etc...

seems like it'd be more of a hassle in the end for a portable music player...
for a based application, say... touchless displays, etc, that aren't mobile... that might be more advantageous

iMeowbot
Aug 1, 2006, 12:18 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings?
The Dopod application is almost certainly that, or rather a preparation for a challenge. It comes a month after an application for the exact same name with the exact same classifications 9, 38 and 42, filed by an Italian phone firm named Dopod, which is apparently a division of Dopod International from Singapore.

BigHat
Aug 1, 2006, 12:32 PM
I've had them all since Gen one excpet for the Video. Lost my Nano and gave other away. Now just have a Gen 3. Need a new one here soon when they make a car adaptor for the optical bus equipped BMWs. Gen 3 will go there and the new one will be for home, work and travel.

Is the smart play to wait a month or two?

psychspirit
Aug 5, 2006, 03:19 PM
I guess the next step for apple is to take it even further. A touch-screen would be perfect. If the scroll wheel is incorporated into the screen, then wouldn't that mean more space, hince bigger screen? I can only hope.;)

psychspirit
Aug 5, 2006, 03:22 PM
I've had them all since Gen one excpet for the Video. Lost my Nano and gave other away. Now just have a Gen 3. Need a new one here soon when they make a car adaptor for the optical bus equipped BMWs. Gen 3 will go there and the new one will be for home, work and travel.

Is the smart play to wait a month or two?


eh..I heard the next generation of ipods will be released next year. Probably in November, just before Christmas. I didn't know they were going to release the video ipod or else I would've waited two months before getting my ipod photo!

vand0576
Aug 16, 2006, 05:20 PM
Many people have brought up how it may be a difficulty to control a "none-touch" type interface by never coming in contact with it (try holding your current iPod and making swirls around the clickwheel without contacting it, not the easiest or most comfortable thing to do). Others are worried about getting the screen all smudged by placing fingers on it.

I currently use a 4G iPod with a polycarbonate casing from Contour Design. It even has a mylar cover for over the click wheel where it is exposed. I would never be caught without the case, as I fear scratches most as I plan to resell it sometime in the future. The remarkable thing about the clickwheel is that you (or at least I) can still control it through my pants pocket on the outside of my jeans. That essentially is a "none-touch" concept my finger having never been in direct contact with the iPod. I remember the reports of the "none-touch" design to be able to distinguish contact from non-concact through the medium within direct proximity to the device. What would be great in my mind is that if the next gen iPod did have a full screen and could be controlled through "non-touching" is that you could enclose the entire apparatus in polycarbonate while allowing the sensors to detect the "none-touch" still (something the current click wheels cannot do, aside from a few thin layers of fabric), but having it be easier to control because you can then come in contact with the polycarbonate casing. It would fully protect from scratches, and i have never noticed any fingerprints on the polycarbonate casing any way, so it would seem that this implementation of the "none-touch" would be win-win. Complete enclosure and no fingerprints.