6G iPod User Interface Redesign and Videos

[Evangelion]

Yeah right, if the new iPod was to have all that then what was the point of making an iPhone.

The point was to make a phone for people who want/need a phone? iPod is not a phone.

That said, I expect the 6G iPod to be "less" than "iPhone - phone". I would guess that it would be the iPhone, without the camera, cell-phone and WiFi and all related functions (email, safari etc.). It would have Bluetooth, however. That would be pretty much ideal. Although I would welcome WiFi, I'm not really expecting it.

If Apple can sell an iPhone with all those features for $499 and $599, I can easily see them selling multitouch iPod with less features for $299 and $399 (for example). And since Apple is very good at re-using their design and R&D (iPod Shuffle == Apple Remote etc.) I really don't see them maintaining two similar (they are both iPods, after all) yet radically different designs (multitouch vs. wheel).

If Apple does NOT release an iPod that has similar tech than the iPhone does, Apple might end up cannibalizing the sales of the iPod. Everyone is concerned about the sales of the iPhone, yet no-one remember the fact that iPod is bringing Apple billions of dollars as we speak. Why not worry about cannibalizing THOSE sales? If Apple comes up with a wheely-iPod instead of Multitouch, people will feel disappointed. They know that iPhone is the "best iPod we've ever made", and they don't want to get the second best. And they can't (for some reason) get the iPhone, so they want the best iPod Apple can make. Apple has shown what they can do when they released the iPhone. Best iPod ever would mean that that technology gets transferred to the standalone-iPod.

Plus an iPod is for music, how often would you really watch videos on it anyway?

I guess that's why they didn't release the 5th gen iPod that plays back videos? Oh, wait....

 

[k2k koos]

It IS real!

Why would Apple Legal bother if it wasn't real but pure speculation??

This is new, and probably pretty close to the real thing!

 

[willybNL]

Hopefully they will also include my suggestion from a little while ago:


----

When you sort on Artist, but you just bought a album with a lot of different artists, you artist list grows enormous, but they all just include 1 song.

As searching for your favorite artist becomes quite impossible then, i suggest the following:

Allow the ipod/itunes/frontrow to have a option to NOT SHOW an artist in the artist list if he has less than X (e.g. 1-3) songs or just gray it out.

 

[gloss]

last post on this thread by me... one final clarification since I dislike misinformation... is that as some have suspected, the interface is indeed supposed to be for an ipod nano, despite the mis-titling of the original story.

arn

Thank God. Hope restored.

 

[whooleytoo]

Dude...what world do you live in? If the company you are reporting about constantly (aka MacRumors) tells you to do something you probably better do it. I'm sure Arn just wants to keep halfway decent relationship with Apple.

Why?

Unless Apple are big advertisers here, and I haven't seen Apple adverts here, personally.

 

[sanford]

Thank God. Hope restored.

You really want the click wheel for more than a 1,000 songs or so. Trust me. Friend went overseas for a couple weeks and lent me his new iPhone because he didn't want to hassle with international roaming rates and whatnot for business calls, and his firm hands him a local loaner phone when he gets to their UK office, anyway. He likes his iPhone and thinks I should get one -- me, who uses about 50 minutes of voice time per month, and the mobile Internet from Wi-Fi or wireless carrier virtually never. But he thinks I should get , so he's was trying to get me hooked. I promised to give it a work out. I used the phone and Internet/e-mail/widget features enough to give them a fair shake: they're very nice for that sort of thing, but not enough to make me change from a non-mobile user to a mobile communications enthusiast. The calendar is nice. But the touch interface is definitely what makes all those features unique enough that I would consider buying the iPhone. But a minimum plan of $60 per month, I'd only be using about $15 of voice and data services. I already overpay for mobile service. Just seems like a waste, as when they new wears off I want to need and use the features. But if I were to buy a *smart-phone* this would be it, I'm sure, over the Blackberry or Treo or anything else I've tried or seen. (I wouldn't want to type a lot on that keyboard, but I wouldn't be typing a lot, so it wouldn't matter.)

Yet I missed my 30GB video iPod with about 600 albums on it -- I missed the click wheel. The click wheel is ideal for a full-sized iPod. Since I'm not the mobile maven, I spent most of the time using the media features of the iPhone. The large screen is a bit better than my video iPod, but I'd still only want to watch very short films, like short shorts on it, over a TV. But on this 8GB model, besides a couple of TV shows, he had a lot of music, around 1,500 songs, and since it wasn't my music, I wasn't intimately familiar with the collection, I did a lot of scrolling around in it checking things out. The touch interface was much slower and more frustrating than the click wheel interface on my 30GB video. But when I dropped into a short-ish playlist, the touch interface was fine. So it's great, even more intuitive, for smaller amounts of media, but the click wheel still is significantly superior to the touch interface for large amounts of media files. That's my opinion, but I think it might be Apple's too, as opposed to just product category differentiation. On a device that doesn't use or require all that touch offers, the click wheel is superior -- it may be almost the end-solution, the best solution possible.

 

[apfelmann]

Steve already told us what the new ipod will be like ...

Steve said the iphone is the "best ipod we ever made".
Having said that, a new full ipod without touchscreen would be a "worse ipod". they can't do that. that's a FACT.

... on the other hand, it would be boring if steve would announce an iphone without the phone as the new ipod (nothing new). this brings me to my prediction ...

My prediction:
the new ipod euqals the rumored subnotebook, which means we get an ipod with touchscreen (bigger than iphone), hard drive (120 GB) and wifi and even more widgets and OS X features than the iphone. that would be the ipod PRO for at least 599 Dollars.
this subnotebook-ipod would even be very different to the iphone (bigger in size, no phone), so there is no overlapping, no fear of cannibals ...

 

[gloss]

But on this 8GB model, besides a couple of TV shows, he had a lot of music, around 1,500 songs, and since it wasn't my music, I wasn't intimately familiar with the collection, I did a lot of scrolling around in it checking things out. The touch interface was much slower and more frustrating than the click wheel interface on my 30GB video. But when I dropped into a short-ish playlist, the touch interface was fine. So it's great, even more intuitive, for smaller amounts of media, but the click wheel still is significantly superior to the touch interface for large amounts of media files. That's my opinion, but I think it might be Apple's too, as opposed to just product category differentiation. On a device that doesn't use or require all that touch offers, the click wheel is superior -- it may be almost the end-solution, the best solution possible.

I had a nice long response written up, but the forums ate it.

Suffice it to say: You're totally correct when applying the current iPhone interface to a larger-capacity, HD-based player. However, I think multi-touch is extremely adaptable, and that there are plenty of measures (alphabet-strip, quicksearch) that could be taken to allow for painless navigation of large collections. The iPhone doesn't have them in place, I'm guessing, because as a 4-8gb device, it doesn't have so much of a need for them. I think if Apple were to go with multi-touch for a full-sized iPod, it would adjust the system and add nav features as necessary.

 

[johnee]

This post is to arn :

when apple asks you to remove something from your site, do you require them to prove the images/words come from apple documents or request some other form of proof that the information is proprietary?

Or do you have some sort of understanding with apple (maybe even an NDA?) that you can post anything you like, but if they ask you to take it down, it is because it's proprietary info?

I guess a third alternative is they have a team of lawyers make threats, suggesting lots of civil action?

I ask because if you acquiesce at the drop of apples hat, then that would be proof corporations stifle free speech more than politicians/laws ever could.

 

[SiliconAddict]

not necessarily. if it isn't true, apple might not want a backlash of people expecting one thing and getting another. also, i don't think apple appreciates people making videos copying their look and feel.

There is nothing in Apple's history that has them doing this. 99% of companies out there don't have their legal teams contact a website if its fake.

Nope this is real. Or close enough to the real thing to make Apple 's legal team open up an eye and growl at Macrumors.

Anyone else notice the resolution on this thing? It didn't go widescreen. So I guess the wheel is staying.

 

[dejo]

4) Apple has pushed the envelope with freedom of speech. So why not fight back?

Because this is a privately-run forum and, as such, there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Mirrored them on my site on this blog post: click me!!!!

FYI: Your three links all point to only one of the videos!

 

[dextertangocci]

This post is to arn :

when apple asks you to remove something from your site, do you require them to prove the images/words come from apple documents or request some other form of proof that the information is proprietary?

Or do you have some sort of understanding with apple (maybe even an NDA?) that you can post anything you like, but if they ask you to take it down, it is because it's proprietary info?

I guess a third alternative is they have a team of lawyers make threats, suggesting lots of civil action?

I ask because if you acquiesce at the drop of apples hat, then that would be proof corporations stifle free speech more than politicians/laws ever could.

Didn't Appleinsider win a lawsuit with Apple last year in that the court decided that bloggers have the same rights as journalists? Can't you write what you want if you are a blogger?

 

[Fluffymuff]

Why would Apple Legal bother if it wasn't real but pure speculation??

There is a distinction that lots of people seem to be missing in this thread. Please let me clear it up once and for all.

There are TWO issues of "Real vs. Fake," not ONE.

The first is whether the source of the videos was Apple, whether that was real Apple swag. The answer to that is unequivocally YES. The videos were Apple's property which is why Apple could ask Arn to take them down. He explained and confirmed that. Those were from Apple and therefore "real."

The second is whether they were the real design for a next generation iPod, and the answer to that is we don't know. Some have suggested they were released as part of a misinformation campaign, and while that's possible, it's not likely. When Apple designs anything, there are numerous draft versions of various features. Sketches. Mockups. Prototypes. Of these very few make it to a shipping product. It's possible that these videos could be in-house materials, part of thousands of similar in-house materials, and will never become part of a shipping product because they do not bubble up. Alternatively, they may be videos of features that have indeed made the cut and will be part of a next generation iPod (like the Nano, which Arn suggested).

In any case, the "realness" of whether these came from Apple is not in question. They did. However, the "realness" of whether these will appear in an iPod is in question. So if you're going to squabble, that's what you should squabble about.

I'm just so glad, so very glad, so very very very glad, I could clear this up.

 

[Fluffymuff]

Didn't Appleinsider win a lawsuit with Apple last year in that the court decided that bloggers have the same rights as journalists? Can't you write what you want if you are a blogger?

Yes, you are correct. Apple was also ordered to reimburse legal fees.

 

[sanford]

I had a nice long response written up, but the forums ate it.

Suffice it to say: You're totally correct when applying the current iPhone interface to a larger-capacity, HD-based player. However, I think multi-touch is extremely adaptable, and that there are plenty of measures (alphabet-strip, quicksearch) that could be taken to allow for painless navigation of large collections. The iPhone doesn't have them in place, I'm guessing, because as a 4-8gb device, it doesn't have so much of a need for them. I think if Apple were to go with multi-touch for a full-sized iPod, it would adjust the system and add nav features as necessary.

I agree. I just don't think they'll have this ready for the 6G -- to a lot of people's disappointment. I think you're likely right, multi-touch is the future for Apple interfaces in all products lines, even Macs, be it via a trackpad or touch screen. But since Apple's product design groups most usually operate as discrete entities, it's my bet the 6G iPod has been in development with the click-wheel interface for some time, but using "mobile" or "mini" OS X, which accounts for the new interface -- nothing new here as Apple TV runs on a specialized "mini" OS X. The iPod is long overdue for a refresh since last year's video iPod was virtually the year before's 1.01, maybe 1.1, version. Nothing near compelling enough to replace the your original video iPod only a year later. Releasing an OS X new software interface 6G without the touch hardware interface would provide a compelling reason for owners of both subtle variations on the 5G to upgrade. And give Apple more time to see how the iPhone vs. video iPod market will break out. There will probably be three groups: people who want the phone and communications features enough to live with the 8GB of storage, people who want the traditional iPod over the iPhone due to storage capacity, not wanting or needing phone/communications and cost, etc., or people who will eventually buy both. The latter group being something like those people who have a nano for running and cycling and a video iPod for all their regular full-featured iPod use. Except of course the iPhone provides many more compelling reasons, cost aside, to own both over a nano.

Basically, I'm saying I think I'm right now -- click wheel 6G -- and you're right later, touch interface 7G, probably no more than a year after the 6G, which will only be stop-gap to provide a compelling reason or people to keep buying full-featured iPods.

As for the iPhone, even having spent two weeks with one, I'm still on the fence. I want, sure, but will I use, really? If my guesses about the 6G iPod are true, I'd probably be in the group that owns both a full-sized 6G iPod and an iPhone, but my speculated version of the 6G, if I buy an iPhone, won't be compelling enough for me to upgrade from my perfectly good 5G right away. Eventually, probably within 6 months of release, but not right away. And then the addition of touch features in the 7G won't bother me to upgrade from a click wheel 6G, as I'll already have that touch interface experience.

 

[maverick808]

I'm just so glad, so very glad, so very very very glad, I could clear this up.

Indeed, it's been clear to me from the start that Apple would have no right to order the video and post pulled unless they owned the video. It's good you have explained it clearly now.

 

[apfelmann]

Basically, I'm saying I think I'm right now -- click wheel 6G -- and you're right later, touch interface 7G, probably no more than a year after the 6G, which will only be stop-gap to provide a compelling reason or people to keep buying full-featured iPods.

do you really believe APPLE will release a new ipod that is worse (click-wheel) than "the best ipod we ever made" (Steve J.)?

(see my thread above about the "iPod Pro")

 

[sanford]

Indeed, it's been clear to me from the start that Apple would have no right to order the video and post pulled unless they owned the video. It's good you have explained it clearly now.

They don't have to own the video. They just have to own the trademark. So if someone made a fake video for the 6G iPod with the "iPod" mark in it, or the "Apple" mark, or any number of things, they could issue the cease-and-desist on those merits alone. Whether that cease-and-desist would hold up in court is another matter, but the point is that if Apple -- deep pockets -- went after arn -- I don't know arn, but if not small pockets then pockets not quite so deep as Apple, and no giant media company to back him up -- he would have to defend it. This would cost an a large amount in legal fees, and even if he were to prevail there's no assurance Apple would ordered to reimburse the fees arn paid. So rather than claim journalist's privileges and fight the cease-and-desist, he posts what he gets and if he receives a cease-and-desist, he immediately complies. Which, if you consider that he runs a rumor site for fans of a technology company products and isn't reporting on, say, an ongoing, largely ignored genocide in Rwanda or Uganda, is the wise thing to do.*

*arn: Not trivializing your efforts in running this site, just saying that you have to pick your battles, which you apparently already know.

 

[Fluffymuff]

zub3qin, I want to try and not be too offensive, but...

you have no sense of context and are showing yourself to be very, very, very ignorant of the actual world around you. I'm sure you are young and this will be one of many lessons that will hopefully shape you into someone who can reason, so that's something to look forward to.

What's the harm in asking questions? Inquiring minds want to know, which is why they flock here in the first place. If Arn has some interesting tidbits, then it's perfectly reasonable to inquire about them. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for him to decline. But no harm in asking.

As for pontificating about the value of your post to zub3qin's development as a human being, and the hope that the "lesson" of your post will be one of many that will shape him into "someone who can reason, so that's something to look forward to", that's simply funny. So if I may take your lead and share the love, I'd like to say that I'm sure my post to you will be one of many that will hopefully shape you into someone who is an excellent... gymnast (not neccessarily world class, but excellent nonetheless), so that's something to look forward to.

 

[sanford]

do you really believe APPLE will release a new ipod that is worse (click-wheel) than "the best ipod we ever made" (Steve J.)?

(see my thread above about the "iPod Pro")

Almost anytime Apple releases a new version of a product it is "the best [fill in the blank] we've ever made." It's a signature line, like his "one more thing" bit.

So here's how it goes:

Press: But you said the iPhone with it's touch interface was 'the best iPod we've made' so we're to assume this new video iPod isn't as good as the iPhone's iPod's features.

SJ: I said it was the best iPod we've made. I didn't say it was because we use the touch interface instead of the click-wheel. The click-wheel is a beautifully designed, efficient hardware interface for managing large media collections -- it's perfect for our full-size iPods. It's the software interface of the iPhone that so enhances the iPod features. And we've put that incredible software interface in the new iPod.

Press: Oh.

**

It's all marketing speak, which is infinitely malleable. If you want to do the reverse -- which no one seems to be doing -- and counter the claim the iPhone is the best iPod ever made, there are a lot of features missing from the iPhone iPod. No video out is important since it is after all a video iPod. I don't think you can create your own playlists on-the-go -- at least in two weeks of borrowed use, I didn't manage to do it. Etc. The bottom line is that the iPhone makes for a good iPod and the 6G iPod will be a good iPod. As for the marketing speak and it's effect on the general consuming public, if you haven't forgotten it by the time the product comes -- "the iPod is a music device and we won't put video in it" -- the public hasn't forgotten what you said, they will forget it for you.

 

[P.B.]

Hopefully they will also include my suggestion from a little while ago:
----
When you sort on Artist, but you just bought a album with a lot of different artists, you artist list grows enormous, but they all just include 1 song.

As searching for your favorite artist becomes quite impossible then, i suggest the following:

Allow the ipod/itunes/frontrow to have a option to NOT SHOW an artist in the artist list if he has less than X (e.g. 1-3) songs or just gray it out.

Actually you can solve this problem:
Just select the effected Songs, i.e. the Compilations and mark the checkbox "part of a compilation" ==> The included songs wont be listed independently.

Can someone PLEASE send me the video? macrumors took it down and unfortunately i don't have time at work to read through all 17 pages.
Thank you

 

[sanford]

What's the harm in asking questions? Inquiring minds want to know, which is why they flock here in the first place. If Arn has some interesting tidbits, then it's perfectly reasonable to inquire about them. Just as it's perfectly reasonable for him to decline. But no harm in asking.

As for pontificating about the value of your post to zub3qin's development as a human being, and the hope that the "lesson" of your post will be one of many that will shape him into "someone who can reason, so that's something to look forward to", that's simply funny. So if I may take your lead and share the love, I'd like to say that I'm sure my post to you will be one of many that will hopefully shape you into someone who is an excellent... gymnast (not neccessarily world class, but excellent nonetheless), so that's something to look forward to.

What I can't figure out is where in zub3qin's original post he demonstrates a lack of context or understanding of the actual world? He's right. This is how things should work. He demonstrates an understanding that this is how things should work -- like transparency of the press -- and also that this is not, in the actual real world, how things always work. And he then described an argument for following how things should work through a list of questions. Rather than missing the point that things sometimes don't work according to what we expect of journalism and a free press, he knows it doesn't and argues against this distortion of the ideals of our system. That's inarguably reasonable, even if it's not practically achievable.

So what's wrong with zub3qin's post? Fight for what's right? God forbid.

 

[sanford]

Didn't Appleinsider win a lawsuit with Apple last year in that the court decided that bloggers have the same rights as journalists? Can't you write what you want if you are a blogger?

Is that precedent real? If not, good Lord, don't scare me like that.

I'm not strictly speaking opposed to bloggers having the same rights as journalists, but in order for that by precedent to become part of our laws pertaining to a free press, bloggers are going to behave more like journalists -- or what we expect of ethical journalist.

I'm hardly what you'd call a conservative or a speech-restricter, but I think it's a dangerous precedent to assign *all* rights of journalists to *all* bloggers. For now and the indefinite future, I think these things should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The mainstream press has fallen out of favor lately, but there's inherent value in having layers of editorial control over stories -- rather than one guy calling all the shots. It's just like the system of checks and balances we have in government; which, granted seems to have fallen out of favor lately, too.

 

[gkarris]

do you really believe APPLE will release a new ipod that is worse (click-wheel) than "the best ipod we ever made" (Steve J.)?

(see my thread above about the "iPod Pro")

That's like saying "why would GM make Chevys when they have Cadillacs?"

Who wants to pay $499 for a Widescreen Video iPod when all you can afford is a $249 clickwheel one?

Like I've been saying all along:

6G iPods will still have clickwheels, 5G owners can upgrade to the 6G interface.

The new Video iPod to be introduced later when costs of iPhone parts go down... maybe October with Leopard?

If the vids were taken down, even though fake, they've must have been pretty close...

 

[macnews]

Because this is a privately-run forum and, as such, there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

Dejo is right but this being a privately run forum has nothing to do with it. Freedom of Speech is ONLY from the government. The government can't control your speech. But if Apple denied Macrumors or any person associated with Macrumors access to the next Mac Expo because the site "leaked" info and refused to pull it down, this is NOT a violation of freedom of speech.

Macrumors or any site or person can say anything they want to about anything. It does not stop a company or individual from attempting to sue or take any other action if you slander, libel, violate contracts (NDA's) or release company secrets. Freedom of speech does not let you say anything with out consequence from the private sector. You could argue it does, or should, allow you to say anything with out consequence from the government.

I suspect Arn doesn't want to go through a legal battle to keep this posted or deal with any long term implications from keeping it up - regardless if Apple is an advertiser or not. The rumor is almost better served by having Apple remove it. As I didn't get to see the original files or how many posts were made before Apple asked to have them removed I can't say for sure but I would imagine traffic on this story went up afterward. More traffic=more ad revenue for Mac rumors. Why should he keep it posted?