Apple None-Touch iPod Interface?

[Snowy_River]

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?

 

[BigReg]

Patent filing marketing

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]

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

 

[donlphi]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Macnoviz]

Yeah, if you read the whole patent, 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. 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:

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

iPod shown sith a Dreamworks animation movie?

 

[Macnoviz]

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]

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]

This may be the first step towards Future Shock

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]

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]

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]

So would it be stupid to buy an IPod now ??

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]

interresting

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]

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]

none-touch while still making contact.

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.