Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple None-Touch iPod Interface?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
crackpip said:
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?
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.
dongmin said:
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.
Snowy_River said:
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.
CoMpX said:
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.
hayesk said:
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.
Macnoviz said:
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.
hayesk said:
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.
hayesk said:
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.
Macnoviz said:
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.
Snowy_River said:
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.
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.
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.
And at WWDC Steve Jobs announces...
the new consumer MacPro tablet... 1" thick, 15" widescreen,
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?)
the new consumer MacPro tablet... 1" thick, 15" widescreen,
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?)
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!
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!
enda1 said:
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.
WWDC Keynote
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.
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.
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.
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.
whooleytoo said:
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.
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.
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.