PDA

View Full Version : Advanced iPod Dock?




MacRumors
May 12, 2003, 01:18 AM
MacWhispers claims (http://www.envestco2.com/cgi-bin/MT/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=65) that a more advanced iPod dock is heading towards production soon. Added features appear to make the iPod interface with your home stereo system and are said to provide data management, multiple i/o, file management and possibly a wireless remote.



nagromme
May 12, 2003, 02:58 AM
Wireless remote would finally make iPod BE my stereo!

sparks9
May 12, 2003, 03:26 AM
Macwhispers suck, they have the worst rumor-record. They are always just guessing. Don't trust those fooools.

yoyogi
May 12, 2003, 05:42 AM
i always think how i need a wireless remote!
that would be amazing.

actually.. i always think of how i need an ipod.

does anyone in japan want to sell a used ipod for cheap?

sighhhhhhhhhhh

yoyogi

MacFan25
May 12, 2003, 06:05 AM
A wireless remote would be pretty nice.

onemilkid
May 12, 2003, 06:33 AM
I actually use my T68i as a remote for my 12" PowerBook with Clicker. It's so neat to sit even in another room, have the current song displayed on the cell phone an then Skip Tracks, adjust Volume and ****.

I would love to have a little PowerPod, with colorscreen to scroll thru the Playlists and remote the future Apple TiVo.

Just dreaming

dubweiser
May 12, 2003, 07:37 AM
Could this be the possible "communicating" device?

D*I*S_Frontman
May 12, 2003, 07:49 AM
I'd love to see a in-dash docking station for vehicles. Imagine just slammin' your iPod into a standard-sized dashboard dock and jammin' away. You could put the same LCD interface on it and have it keep the battery charged.

Beats a 100-CD beast in the trunk...

starflyer
May 12, 2003, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
I'd love to see a in-dash docking station for vehicles. Imagine just slammin' your iPod into a standard-sized dashboard dock and jammin' away. You could put the same LCD interface on it and have it keep the battery charged.

Beats a 100-CD beast in the trunk...

i would buy one in a heartbeat!!!

VGN
May 12, 2003, 08:38 AM
I agree with the poster above. macwhisper has the worst record of all rumor sights. As far as I recall, none of his "rumors" have come true. He's even gone against thinksecret which easily has the best record.

big
May 12, 2003, 09:08 AM
yoyogi- I would be thrilled to sell my 5 gig iPod.. its still a good working unit

Jaykay
May 12, 2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by starflyer
i would buy one in a heartbeat!!!

Me too.

t^3
May 12, 2003, 12:24 PM
Not that I'm an advocate of MacWhispers, but didn't they predict the FireWire/USB 2.0 cable?

lmalave
May 12, 2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by MacFan25
A wireless remote would be pretty nice.

Hey, in the future I could see an "Advanced Remote". What if the remote was a Rendezvous-enabled device unto itself and actually had an LCD display that let you browse the iPod's navigation, with a scroll wheel and everything? Heck, I'd be willing to pay maybe even up to $100 for such a wireless remote/dock setup, since it would really allow me to use my iPod as my home stereo.

Heck they could even add an FM tuner to the dock, and allow you to tune the radio with either the scroll wheel, or use the forward/back buttons to skip to the preset stations. That would be freakin' schweeeeeeeeet!

Oh, jeez, I'm on a roll, let me take this even further. How about if they added "superdock" which either had built-in Airport or even an ethernet jack, and you could actually tune in to the iTunes internet radio stations!!! OMFG, that would be sweet for a home stereo. I mean, you can already do that through your computer, but it would be so much more convenient to use and navigate through your iPod, superdock, and super-remote.

macguymike
May 12, 2003, 01:57 PM
Can't you already plug the iPod dock into your home stereo?

allpar
May 12, 2003, 02:16 PM
Isn't macwhispers the site by that Mac scammer? If so, why is it getting any mentions here, even on page 2?

I mean, from my experience with Chrysler news & rumors sites, I know the path to getting lots of visitors is keep on having the tasty tidbits even if you have to make them up...but I'd hope a clever bunch like MacRumors would get wise to that pretty quickly.

(PS> I was the credible source...!)

nagromme
May 12, 2003, 03:15 PM
MacWhispers is still an unknown. They did predict the USB/FW cable, which suggests real (and unique) sources. They have also misinterepreted some sources and placed trust in the wrong ones--which is all guesswork, trial and error, and experience, so what do you expect? When the site has been around longer, next year, we'll have a good idea whether MacWhispers has grown into a useful site or just a curiosity. Until then, I don't think it can simply be discounted.

I'd say MacRumors is the best rumors site, with the best track record. ThinkSecret has done well also. But that doesn't mean there's nothing useful to be found at sites without that record.

Other sites have speculated that the docking connector may be for more than we yet know.

iJon
May 12, 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
MacWhispers is still an unknown. They did predict the USB/FW cable, which suggests real (and unique) sources. They have also misinterepreted some sources and placed trust in the wrong ones--which is all guesswork, trial and error, and experience, so what do you expect? When the site has been around longer, next year, we'll have a good idea whether MacWhispers has grown into a useful site or just a curiosity. Until then, I don't think it can simply be discounted.

I'd say MacRumors is the best rumors site, with the best track record. ThinkSecret has done well also. But that doesn't mean there's nothing useful to be found at sites without that record.

Other sites have speculated that the docking connector may be for more than we yet know.
my favorite is still macosrumors. i love how the begged for a radeon 8500, poked with it with a pencil and hosed it. they are idiots and its so funny to read. they take eveyone else rumors and say "yep, this seems to fit our conclusions."

iJon

Le Big Mac
May 12, 2003, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by lmalave
Oh, jeez, I'm on a roll, let me take this even further. How about if they added "superdock" which either had built-in Airport or even an ethernet jack, and you could actually tune in to the iTunes internet radio stations!!! OMFG, that would be sweet for a home stereo. I mean, you can already do that through your computer, but it would be so much more convenient to use and navigate through your iPod, superdock, and super-remote.

If there were airport or ethernet access, why would one need an ipod? Just network the computer to the dock, plug the dock into the stereo, and listen away. Doesn't HP already make a product along these lines? It's basically an ethernet appliance that permits access to music on one's computer.

bennetsaysargh
May 12, 2003, 04:28 PM
they could add a FM tuner into the super-dock, along with 802.11x for internet radio streams and to make the iPod a music server. and the airport in it could also pick up streams from a network.

now that is possible!
they have the technology, so why not?

shadowfax
May 12, 2003, 04:56 PM
a way to get the iPod more functionally connected to my stereo would be very welcome. i think a wireless remote would be sweet. especially a rechargeable one with an LCD display on it so i could do everything from across the room. like an economized iTunes faceplate, basically. that would rock.

jettredmont
May 12, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by t^3
Not that I'm an advocate of MacWhispers, but didn't they predict the FireWire/USB 2.0 cable?

Sorta, but not really.

They said that a cable with PCB leads on one end and a breakout to firewire/USB plugs on the other end was being produced, and that it was about 5 feet long. (see: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000045.php and http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000047.php)

The actual device component has two separate cables (ending in firewire and USB, respectively) attached to a single PCB board (see: http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html). The length appears to be about right (5') though.

Probably close enough, but I can't give them 100% of a credit on that one.

Bob Knob
May 12, 2003, 06:03 PM
There was talk that Woz was doing some kind of work for Apple, and Woz did do some work with universal remotes, who knows.
A car dock and dock for my existing stereo would be enough for me to get off the fence and buy one of the new iPods.

Flowbee
May 12, 2003, 06:03 PM
Haw Haw! Jack Campbell strikes again! He's just trying to sell his DV Forge / MacMice crap. Fake rumors = more macwhispers hits = more views of ads for his 'businesses.'

For those of you who are unfamiliair with this guy's story, read here: http://www3.macintouch.com/mactable.html

I, for one, wish that MacRumors would stop promoting his site by repeating his "rumors."

melchior
May 12, 2003, 08:20 PM
i don't think there is any doubt that MacWhispers past and present is a shady one. But everyone has an angle, it's just a fact of life.

Just because he's trying to make money means you are going to say he has NO sources. nada. zip. nothing?

real-life journalism around the world is a sham right now, more so than it's ever been before but that doesn't mean you can stop reading the news just because the writer has been told to take a particular perspective, you just have to read between the lines. that's life.

i think he belongs firmly on Page 2 and everything needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

P.S. I have a sneaking suspicion that the main reason Page 2 came about was MacWhispers. :rolleyes: what a privilege.

Flowbee
May 12, 2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by melchior
Just because he's trying to make money means you are going to say he has NO sources. nada. zip. nothing?

No, not at all. Clearly the New York Times exists to make money through advertising. This does not mean that they make up news to attract readers (recent scandals notwithstanding). The reason I don't believe he has sources is because none of his breakthrough rumors are ever true. I believe he makes up rumors solely for the purpose of promoting himself and his "businesses." That is what I object to.

Remeber, Macwhispers is the site that reported that new iPods were going to be released months ago (with a firm date) and then disputed Thinksecret's story on the iPod re-design. It seems as though he's operating on imagination alone.

bigjohn
May 12, 2003, 09:49 PM
I dug back into the MacRumors archives and found this Page 2 article from March 11th on an enclosure (not coincidentally also from MacWhispers):

Enclosure (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/03/20030311014740.shtml)


Anyways, it basically has info about a 5x7x1 inch enclosure. Other articles I saw talked about a new product that would further enhance the digital lifestyle motif.

That size box sounds impossible for a mobo, but for an iPod dock that could fit into a stereo rack - not a big stretch there.

The real question is, do I wait and try and get an iPod that includes the advanced dock?

iSmell
May 12, 2003, 09:57 PM
Most of the rumors that have been posted on MacWhispers have neither confirmed, nor desicively proven wrong at this point. I consider the firewire/USB cable to be a +1 for that site, even if the actual cable didn't fit the prediction to the last detail, it seems to me that he had some real info on that one. He was wrong on the iPods, which is a definite -1, but at least he wasn't just going along with all the other sites on that one.
We still have to wait and see about the supposed 30" cinema display, which seems plausible to me, although it might still just be a prototype or something (maybe they made just one for Steve's desk), aluminum faced powermac, which also seems plausible, and the 15" powerbook revision (I forget exactly what predictions he made for those). These are all still open ended at this point, so I'm not ready to ignore MacWhispers completely.
I'll just ignore their advertisments.














I can't believe I haven't started studying yet...

Snowy_River
May 12, 2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by nagromme
MacWhispers is still an unknown. They did predict the USB/FW cable, which suggests real (and unique) sources. They have also misinterepreted some sources and placed trust in the wrong ones--which is all guesswork, trial and error, and experience, so what do you expect? When the site has been around longer, next year, we'll have a good idea whether MacWhispers has grown into a useful site or just a curiosity. Until then, I don't think it can simply be discounted.

I'd say MacRumors is the best rumors site, with the best track record. ThinkSecret has done well also. But that doesn't mean there's nothing useful to be found at sites without that record.

Other sites have speculated that the docking connector may be for more than we yet know.

Ah... a voice of reason... for the most part.

From what I've seen, ThinkSecret has the best track record of any of the rumor sites. MacRumors holds its own, but also spends a lot of time rebroadcasting rumors posted on other sites (like this one).

In general, if TS prints it, I have a high degree of faith. If I see it anywhere else, I'm much more sceptical.

Snowy_River
May 12, 2003, 10:07 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Sorta, but not really.

They said that a cable with PCB leads on one end and a breakout to firewire/USB plugs on the other end was being produced, and that it was about 5 feet long. (see: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000045.php and http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000047.php)

The actual device component has two separate cables (ending in firewire and USB, respectively) attached to a single PCB board (see: http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html). The length appears to be about right (5') though.

Probably close enough, but I can't give them 100% of a credit on that one.

Okay, give me a break. If he was legitimately reporting on an actual product (and not just getting lucky with a guess - which seems unlikely in this case), he would have been reporting on a prototype, not the final product. Do you have any idea how many minor changes (like where the two connectors breaking out) are made from first concept to finished product? I think that this was easily close enough to warrant 100% credit.

Sun Baked
May 12, 2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by t^3
Not that I'm an advocate of MacWhispers, but didn't they predict the FireWire/USB 2.0 cable? ROFLMA...

This is getting to be a rather ugly MacWhispers bash. :eek:

marcsiry
May 12, 2003, 10:49 PM
One of the voids in the mystery enclosure is supposedly just about the size of an iPod.

We all know that the iPod is practically a PDA, with storage for contacts and other info, and the potential for much more.

What it's missing is input. What if the alleged tablet is just a shell- or dock- for the iPod? Slide it in, carry it around, and you've got an iPod-powered tablet PC.

It certainly won't run OSX, but it should kick a Palm's butt, performance-wise. And all your MP3s, too!

I want one. :-)

MacWhispers
May 13, 2003, 02:26 AM
Yes, I have been trying an entirely new approach to publishing behind the scenes Mac info this year, and it's taking me a while to get a real feel for which of the people I deal with in Taiwan and China are accurate and reliable. So, as I've admitted very openly on my site, I have made errors... almost exclusively, errors of making conclusions from less than known-accurate source material. That said...

1. I published the OEM source for the 20.1-inch Cinema Display well ahead of anyone else... and, I've been the only source for info on the continuing evolution of the budding Chi Mei - Apple partnership.

2. I published the existence of this totally inexplicable (at the time) FireWire/USB cable, though, yes, from descrambling pigeon English from the other end, I did mis-state that it was one single-sheathed cable, not a split-assembly as it has turned out to be.

3. I published the fact that Apple was continuing to use the stainless steel back on its new iPods... at a tiem when many people on the web were saying, "white plastic."

4. If anyone with a studious mind will sift slowly back through my reports since the site was started, you'll see that I've been doing a pretty good job of sorting out dozens of bits of OEM gossip each week, and converting it into useful intelligence from that end of the Apple pipeline.

Perfect record? Far from it. "Made up?" Not a bit of it.

Although there are a few idiots floating around who seem to get a cheap giggle out of perpetuating the myth of my somehow doing something illegal on my MacTable site last year, and making a hobby out of flinging mud my way whenever possible, I don't worry too much about those folks, as they are a tiny minority. Mainly, I care about staying with my OEM source approach, and continuing to refine my judgment and the accuracy of my reports, so that the majority of web-savvy Mac users can have a good place to go to get some fairly on-point advanced info about Apple hardware developments.

As my MacMice company moves more and more into electronics products later into the year, I'll have even more OEM contacts to develop, judge, and "pump" for Apple related info.

And, one more time: If any of you operated a high-traffic hobby site, and also owned a business, wouldn't you put one of your own ads on the site?

Of course you would.

MacWhispers
May 13, 2003, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by Flowbee
Remeber, Macwhispers is the site that reported that new iPods were going to be released months ago (with a firm date) and then disputed Thinksecret's story on the iPod re-design. It seems as though he's operating on imagination alone.

Actually, I published info from a fellow who is well placed, but who has turned out to be full of... well, non-accurate stories. I apologized to Think Secret, and have recalibrated my who-to-trust meter substantially.

Sorry, but really, I've only been doing this four months, and it takes time to figure out who to trust and who to laugh off.

MacWhispers
May 13, 2003, 02:42 AM
I can't help but reprint here my very first MacWhispers report. Anyone remember this?

January 16, 2003
Apple 22-inch Cinema Display Killed


Sources in the LG-Philips distribution channel confirm that the venerable 22-inch LCD panel used in Apple's first Cinema Display was EOL'd by LG in December, and that current stocks will be exhausted before the end of January, 2003.

Then, the next story was:

January 20, 2003
New Apple Cinema Display Coming


According to sources in Taiwan, Chi Mei Optoelectronics is producing a new 20.1-inch widescreen desktop LCD panel for Apple, which went into product around Christmas, and has been shipping to Apple's Taiwan assembly plant for about three weeks. The new display is said to have a resolution of 1600x1024 pixels, which is the same as the 22-inch Cinema Display it is replacing in Apple's line. The new display should be announced within 30-days.

I missed the precise screen resolution. Otherwise, this was two weeks before Apple surprised the rest of the Apple world.

Sorry, folks, but I don't pull this info from my imagination, as is being suggested here. If I did, I would have a pretty amazingly accurate imagination... I should go to 'Vegas, instead of building Mac products for a living.

tribalogical
May 13, 2003, 11:12 AM
funny no-one is mentioning 'loop rumours'... they've got some new bits on the 970 chips hitting the assembler in asia... nice, if it's true!

they've done ok so far in their predictions....

I think the little plastic "enclosure", too big to be a PDA, too small to be a tablet, is most likely a "super-dock" device...

Someone here mentioned the opening on the top was just right for an iPod, and they may be on to something... I did a little 'blueprint' based on dimensions (which have since been said to be off a bit), and an iPod would fit nicely into it...

I'm willing to guess (again) that at WWDC we'll see, or at least get the announcement for, the new Power Macs w/PPC970, a new "device" (super dock?), a 64-bit ready OS X (panther), and some new software announcements/releases...

And 6 months from now, I'll be ordering a dual 2Ghz(+!) 970-based Mac... mark my words! :)

tribalogical

dbraschi
May 13, 2003, 01:28 PM
Hi I'm new to this forum and I was wandering about the next generation of iPOD.

iPOD Extreme
200,000 songs in your pocket

Hardware feature:
30-45-60 GB HD
Color LCD
Integrated Airport extreme
Integrated bluetooth
Mobile iTunes with music store access
Rendevouz enabled to stream to other iPOD

Imagine sittig at Starbuck drinking java with a WIFI access ready iPOD dowloading the last new song of your favorite rock band from the Apple music store!

bennetsaysargh
May 13, 2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by dbraschi
Hi I'm new to this forum and I was wandering about the next generation of iPOD.

iPOD Extreme
200,000 songs in your pocket

Hardware feature:
30-45-60 GB HD
Color LCD
Integrated Airport extreme
Integrated bluetooth
Mobile iTunes with music store access
Rendevouz enabled to stream to other iPOD

Imagine sittig at Starbuck drinking java with a WIFI access ready iPOD dowloading the last new song of your favorite rock band from the Apple music store!

that's a good idea, but it won't hppen soon. it just won't because they'll piss off the new iPod customers (like me) with even more features less than 2 months from when the first were available!

terry29
May 13, 2003, 03:03 PM
am i the only one who doesnt quite understand why the itrip isnt the solution for this problem? i mean, that would make ipod the remote really. why would you shell out more money for an advanced dock when you can just buy the itrip for $25? is the quality bad or something?

also, would bluetooth do a better job?

bennetsaysargh
May 13, 2003, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by terry29
am i the only one who doesnt quite understand why the itrip isnt the solution for this problem? i mean, that would make ipod the remote really. why would you shell out more money for an advanced dock when you can just buy the itrip for $25? is the quality bad or something?

also, would bluetooth do a better job?

iTrip doesn't work with the new ones. that's the only thing. they are supposed to hav ones for the new ones soon. probably easier to do with the different pins on the bottom. power by fw pins on the bottom, and then the line out pins all in one place.

iMook
May 13, 2003, 05:39 PM
That iPod will also need an AC adaptor/fuel cell compartment. [AirPort] + [ColorLCD] + [Rendezvous mesh networking] + [extended HDD spinups due to desire to skip around to your new songs] = ubermassive power drain.

Nice things to think about, but unless you can get that jacks into your body a la Matrix, I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that for at least ten years, barring any great innovations in energy storage.

P.S. - While you're at it, how about 100GB solid-state memory?

mim
May 14, 2003, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by jettredmont
Sorta, but not really.

They said that a cable with PCB leads on one end and a breakout to firewire/USB plugs on the other end was being produced, and that it was about 5 feet long. (see: http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000045.php and http://www.envestco2.com/macwhispers/archives/000047.php)

The actual device component has two separate cables (ending in firewire and USB, respectively) attached to a single PCB board (see: http://www.apple.com/ipod/accessories.html). The length appears to be about right (5') though.

Probably close enough, but I can't give them 100% of a credit on that one.

Man, you sure are harsh! Imagine getting second hand information from somebody probably who hasn't actually >seen< the thing themselves (reading a description on a contract for instance) and then having this translated from cantonese or mandarin or in english from a non-english speaker?!

Well...I'm reasonably impressed. He's made a mistake or two...but I'm looking forward to seeing how MacWhispers does in the coming months.

Wacwhispers: if you're still reading this thread, was the info about the "small enclosure" from a souce you have now discredited? Any further info?

a.

Snowy_River
May 14, 2003, 02:38 AM
Originally posted by dbraschi
Hi I'm new to this forum and I was wandering about the next generation of iPOD.

iPOD Extreme
200,000 songs in your pocket

Hardware feature:
30-45-60 GB HD
...


Not to rain on your parade, but your math is off (unless you're also proposing some very impressive new compression algorithm - not talking about the former Vice Presidents music).

On average, one song takes up about 5MB. That's why the original iPod (5GB) was said to be '1000 songs in your pocket'. Now, to have


200,000 songs in your pocket


you'd end up needing a HD capacity of

(200,000 songs) x (5 MB/song) = 1 TB

That's one tera-byte of disk space. I wouldn't hold my breath for a 1TB iPod, if I were you. ;)

Snowy_River
May 14, 2003, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by MacWhispers

Sorry, folks, but I don't pull this info from my imagination, as is being suggested here. If I did, I would have a pretty amazingly accurate imagination... I should go to 'Vegas, instead of building Mac products for a living.

Hey, MW, I've never doubted that you had real sources. I have consistently thought that information from all such sources should be taken with a grain of salt, but I've never thought you were making anything up.

I look forward to seeing what you have in the future, as you get better aquainted with your sources, and determine how reliable they are. Perhaps, as you do, you could actually provide us with a reliability meter, based on your confidence in the source. Just a thought...

melchior
May 14, 2003, 02:44 AM
hey, we're a quarter of the way there with regular HD's. 280GB now all you need is a portable raid enclosure.

200,000 songs though, that is a lot. i mean... i get annoyed about the people saying "32,000 is impossible" while i only have about 13,000 32,000 is quite doable if you were for example a professional musician. but 200,000 songs. i stagger to think what artists would be missing... =)

mim
May 14, 2003, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Snowy_River
That's one tera-byte of disk space. I wouldn't hold my breath for a 1TB iPod, if I were you. ;)

Snowy, this quy is quite right - we've been messing around in the sandpit..."ohhh, I hope it has a 40 gig hard drive, oohhh Creative have a 60 gig drive in their's...etc etc".

Let's just get with the program. 1T pods now, thank you Apple!

X-Raid, pocket edition ;)

a.

dbraschi
May 14, 2003, 03:17 AM
I mean that you can access 200.000 songs from your pocket, if you have an iPOD that can browse music from the Apple music store, you don't need a bigger internal HD, with WIFI connectivity you just select the song to download and voila'.

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Not to rain on your parade, but your math is off (unless you're also proposing some very impressive new compression algorithm - not talking about the former Vice Presidents music).

On average, one song takes up about 5MB. That's why the original iPod (5GB) was said to be '1000 songs in your pocket'. Now, to have



you'd end up needing a HD capacity of

(200,000 songs) x (5 MB/song) = 1 TB

That's one tera-byte of disk space. I wouldn't hold my breath for a 1TB iPod, if I were you. ;)

mim
May 14, 2003, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by dbraschi
I mean that you can access 200.000 songs from your pocket, if you have an iPOD that can browse music from the Apple music store, you don't need a bigger internal HD, with WIFI connectivity you just select the song to download and voila'.

Or sit in a cafe with wifi and listen to a music station stream....hmmmm.

Imagine a technology like that. I should patent the idea and call it Free Music. FM for short. FM Radio. Nice one! :p

a.

bennetsaysargh
May 14, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by mim
Or sit in a cafe with wifi and listen to a music station stream....hmmmm.

Imagine a technology like that. I should patent the idea and call it Free Music. FM for short. FM Radio. Nice one! :p

a.

not free because you have to p[ay for the batteries or the radio itself:p:P;)

Panther
May 14, 2003, 08:34 PM
When I first read of the "wireless remote" thing, I envisioned the fabled open faced enclosure to some kind of uber remote control like the Philips Pronto (imagine a remote with Bluetooth/Rendezvous, and a color touch screen running something as purdy as OSX... yum)...

Then I compared the stated 5x7" size with the size of the iPod... It seems pretty big for a remote...

But at the same time, if this is the dock side of things, why would the whole face need to be open... If the enclosure were only a little larger than the iPod I could imagine it being something like the sleeve you can get for the iPaq PocketPC, but this is a lot bigger... That open face would swallow your iPod whole...

http://homepage.mac.com/xmlguy/images/enclosure.gif

So it feels like it must be a tablet... possibly the uber-remote... Perhaps Panther will make Mail and so on Rendezvous-enabled, and this things is something like the "Mira" tablet that allows you to remotely access/control your PC...

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/mira_preview.asp

mim
May 14, 2003, 08:54 PM
Originally posted by Panther
So it feels like it must be a tablet... possibly the uber-remote... Perhaps Panther will make Mail and so on Rendezvous-enabled, and this things is something like the "Mira" tablet that allows you to remotely access/control your PC...

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/mira_preview.asp

I think this is akmost exactly what it will be. I also think that wireless display will be an option, if not built in to all the Apple studio displays (with rumors now that they are under revision) - except the small tablet enclosue will have a bit of pda/ipod functionality too, so it can be either a secondary screen/remote device or carried out of range to be a pda type computer.

Lets face it, if Microsoft are >thinking< about this, Apple has already done it. We're just waiting for it to be released now.

Maybe this superdock will not just be for the tablet, but also for all the displays....?

a.

Panther
May 14, 2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by mim
Maybe this superdock will not just be for the tablet, but also for all the displays....?As I understand it there are a few complaints about Mira...

802.11 is still a pain to set up ... I'm assuming any such Apple device would be Bluetooth based (given that it was intended for home use in the first place, and the newer systems have it built in)
Folks don't want to lumber a 17" tablet (17" now becoming the bottom end of the LCD flatpanel market) around with the house ... The 5x7" dimensions proposed here are much closer to an ideal here ... large enough to be useful, but not so big as to be awkward to carry/use
Mira relies on Remote Desktop Connection (aka Terminal Services), which is only in XP Professional (not in XP Home that most home systems ship with) ... Again not a problem Apple has.
Its also interesting that a new version of iSync is in the works ... I wonder if they would look to use that to sync contact, calendar, email etc. to this "tablet" as they do to the iPod today (but over Bluetooth, which... hmm... iSync already supports)

On this last point... check this out:
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/isync11.html
"FusionOne's Web site also said that it was working with Apple to develop over-the-air synchronization services for Mac users, and that Apple would make an announcement soon. The blurb was removed and the company denied that it was ever on its site, but cached pages confirmed the news."

"over-the-air" synchronization to what?

On 5/13 ThinkSecret posted an update stating that the over-the-air thing isn't in this upcoming release... That might mean the tablet/dock thing is further out than the end of May... or it might mean it isn't Mac-to-Mac syncing per se, but Mac-to-tablet ...

OK, thats me all guessed-out :D

Panther
May 14, 2003, 09:59 PM
I'm guessing the dock is a much simpler affair...

Allowing it to be remote controlled from the "uber remote" tablet (say, via Bluetooth) would be neat.

I'd like to see something like the new TiVo setup that allowed me to stream my iTunes songs to my stereo. At 1mbps, Bluetooth is certainly fast enough to stream a 192kbps MP3/AAC file. Of course, if you had the iPod this would be kind of superfluous...

On the other hand, the fact that this so-called "dock" supposedly has file management capabilities makes me wonder if it can play MP3/AAC files without the iPod being there...

At that point it sounds more like a non-portable iPod (i.e. not a dock at all, but a standalone music player), so you'd still be forking out several hundred US$ on it :(

And the tablet thing would doubtless add many hundred more... The Philips Pronto Pro was almost US$1000 when it first came out :( :(

If this is "all" it is, then I don't know... Dell and Gateway (amongst others) had non-portable MP3 jukebox products that connected to your stereo, neither or which really caught the public's attention... Still, with Apple's ability to nail the ergonomics and make the software super-sexy, perhaps this will work out for them...

astray
May 16, 2003, 06:20 AM
Macwhispers updatted their info today:

Macwhispers Advance iPod Dock Report

www.Macwhispers.com reports:

Details Emerge On Coming iPod Super Docks

Continued investigation on the previously reported upscale iPod docking product has painted a fairly detailed picture of not one, but two upcoming products. One is a mild step up from the basic dock, with more I/O features for integrating into a home stereo system; the other is much, much more than that.

Both of the new advanced 'Pod docks are slated for near-term production, and are to be released concurrently with a host of updates in v3.0 of the iPod software, and about the time that Apple unveils its iTunes Music Store for Windows, later in 2003.

The first product we will see released is a white plastic dock, physically similar to the stock iPod dock, but with stereo RCA jacks on the back, and an IR remote "eye" on the front. A small, white plastic IR handheld remote will be included that provides not only basic transport functions not handled by the stock wired remote, but also gives forward/back controls for album, chapter, and playlist, as well as adds a mute control. We have not been able to confirm whether the remote will include an LCD display, but this has been suggested as possible by one unproven OEM source.

The second dock product, possibly released at the same time as the "hi-fi dock," will include all of the above mentioned features, plus will add recording and playback of line input or microphone level stereo audio, as well as Rendezvous-enabled 802.11G Airport networking capability. This much we have verified with a high degree of confidence. Beyond these features, we have, again, an unproven OEM source telling us that that this "network dock" will go "well beyond" these core features in a way that "seamlessly integrates the iPod into both the home stereo system and the home LAN." We consider one suggested feature to be farfetched, and offer it here only as a claim that has been made to us: this particular dock is said to be able to surf and control the iTunes Music Store as a standalone client, over an Airport or Ethernet-based shared internet connection to a Mac or PC.

To clarify this report, we have established the reality of two upcoming upscale iPod docks from Apple. One adds RCA jacks and an IR remote for fairly advanced iPod remote control. The other adds some degree of on-board processing capability, Rendezvous-enabled Airport networking, and stereo audio recording. Any more than these points are offered more in the sense of informative speculation, until such time as we have more history established with the particular source of these more advanced claims.

Panther
May 16, 2003, 07:16 AM
Two different kinds of "advanced dock"... I dunno ... Apple has always been fairly good about making it clear what one product is for vs another. Witness how they have 2 iBooks (cheap and cheerful) and 3 PowerBooks (bells and whistles), then compare that to all the different notebooks someone like Dell sells.

At the end of the day, the first one described here is really little more than the dock we have today. If you have a 3.5mm-to-RCA cable you could hook up to your hifi already. And while the remote is ok, its not a revolutionary upgrade.

The second one is more interesting...

>> will add recording and playback of line input or microphone level stereo audio

That sounds like it might allow you to rip MP3/AAC from your regular CD player (if you fed that via this dock).

I read on another forum that there was talk that this advanced dock would be built around a Sony PS2, giving you the CD/DVD playback of the PS2, plus these recording capabilities, plus of course TV connectivity ... oh and all of the PS2 games back-catalog ...

http://www.pstheme.com/cgi-bin/think/ikonboard.cgi?s=3ec303185effffff;act=ST;f=2;t=869

PS2 + Apple know-how + iTune Music Store ... that would be an Apple Media Center in anyones book.

Wombatronic
May 17, 2003, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Panther

"over-the-air" synchronization to what?


It is for cell phones. Nothing to do with tablets any more than toasters.

Panther
May 18, 2003, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by Wombatronic
It is for cell phones. Nothing to do with tablets any more than toasters. Seems strange in that case that they would both to pull that part of the announcement from the website... I mean, iSync does over-the-air to Bluetooth cell phones already, so whats the big deal.

It just looks a lot like they said something they shouldn't, and Apple leaned on them... Same thing happened with SanDisk who accidentally announced a FW800 drive a few days before MWSF, then quickly pulled it again.

bennetsaysargh
May 18, 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Panther
Seems strange in that case that they would both to pull that part of the announcement from the website... I mean, iSync does over-the-air to Bluetooth cell phones already, so whats the big deal.

It just looks a lot like they said something they shouldn't, and Apple leaned on them... Same thing happened with SanDisk who accidentally announced a FW800 drive a few days before MWSF, then quickly pulled it again.

apple does that a lot more ofte than that. they can get the president to be quiet about the 970 chip.

not saying that george bush knows anything;)

Panther
May 18, 2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
not saying that george bush knows anything;) nuff said :p

bennetsaysargh
May 18, 2003, 09:30 AM
i meant to say about the 970 chip;)

Wry Cooter
May 25, 2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by terry29
am i the only one who doesnt quite understand why the itrip isnt the solution for this problem? i mean, that would make ipod the remote really. why would you shell out more money for an advanced dock when you can just buy the itrip for $25? is the quality bad or something?


That just adds wireless transmitting... Is that all folks are suggesting this vapordock rumor is doing? Not much of a rumor then.

I don't think bluetooth has the bandwidth, but I would like to see something the size and form of the iTrip that had more range.

Regarding a dock, I would want a enhanced dock to allow RECORDING.

I also think that the iPod could be an ideal storage medium for a tablet.

Or someone should make a small boombox that takes the ipod... it could fold into a brick and the speakers could be separated, and could run on battery car adapter or AC.

Panther
May 26, 2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
That just adds wireless transmitting... Is that all folks are suggesting this vapordock rumor is doing? Not much of a rumor then.

I don't think bluetooth has the bandwidth, but I would like to see something the size and form of the iTrip that had more range.Bluetooth will run at 1mbps. As assuming most MP3/AAC files are encoded at 128-256kbps that would still leave a lot of bandwidth to spare.

I just wondered about the streaming given that iTunes lets you share your music catalog by streaming to other Macs over Rendezvous... The iPod/uber-Dock thing just seemed to close the loop (by letting your stereo play them back too)

I agree it would be cool to be able to record too, but that would require a *lot* more bandwidth if you were to use PCM ("raw" CD format, which requires around 32mbps). I'm reasonably sure the iPod's CPU (if you can even call it that) doesn't have the minerals to be able to encode in real-time (decoding is a lot less CPU intensive)

Wry Cooter
May 26, 2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Panther


I agree it would be cool to be able to record too, but that would require a *lot* more bandwidth if you were to use PCM ("raw" CD format, which requires around 32mbps). I'm reasonably sure the iPod's CPU (if you can even call it that) doesn't have the minerals to be able to encode in real-time (decoding is a lot less CPU intensive)

I have heard a lot about the abilities of the chip inside present iPods, without having anyone nail down the details, from being able to encode toi MP3 on the fly, to merely being able to digitize sound as AIFF. We KNOW it can record 6 second soundbites in mono, which is probably not all it can do.

The problem even if it could only digitize to AIFF at best, would be that it would be a lot more drive and battery intensive. A iPod that would usually go for ten hours, would last closer to one hour on a charge if recording continously, because the files filling the RAM buffer are ten times as large, and the disk would have to spin that much more often.