I dont like streaming either, but at this point were only considering it in this context because a string of hypothetical things may happen. If Apple moves to flash by the end of 2007. If the capacity is smaller, which as suggested, they may not be if multiple drives are combined. If they rely on Wifi for streaming.
It comes down to differentiating between three things here:
1. Live streaming (almost always sucks)
2. Live down load with local cache (similar to how Quicktime, iTV works)
3. Load slow, play fast (Bluetooth, wifi, wimax, edge, firewire, usb, ethernet) (iPod).
Current large capacity iPods assume you need your entire music collection on the PORTABLE device.
Current iPod Nano's assume your main collection is on another device and you load "playlists" onto the portable device occasionally. This paradigm is what Apple is gravitating toward on all portable devices. I endorse it too.
A third option is a device whose local storage is used only for cache (Quicktime model), so you can, say, play enough content to consume most of your batery life and not much less, or maybe only offer skip protection of 20-60 minutes.
Rocketman, whats up with your persistent use of that acronym for the iPhone? I do love nearly everything you say on MR. But it seems brutal and unfair to use such an acronym without giving ignorant readers, like myself, any hint as to what each of the letters represent.
I made a post some time ago in another thread where people were complaining abot the price of the iPhone. I pointed out that iPhone, while the marketing name of the device, is only ONE application on a multi-application device which ships with several killer applications. More later. This is a new "ecosystem". Mac was an "ecosystem" with numerous hardware and feature implementations over the years. iPod was an "ecosystem" which while more closed was the basis for several device implementations.
iPhone as a multi-aplication device with a "new" OS and justifies an "ecosystem catagory".
I called it ATN for Apple Tablet Nano. I happen to like literal, descriptive names. Nobody has "adopted" my "coined term", although I would have no objection to it. It serves my very self-centered purpose of enlightening those readers in the know about the term, the iPhone is WAYYY more than a mere iPhone. It is a PORTABLE, HANDHELD, TABLET FORMAT device with MULTI-TOUCH operation and WIRELESS access via Wifi 802.11 presumably a,b,f,n now and Wimax 802.16 later, bluetooth and a dock.
So ATN=Apple Tablet Nano.
That top level description of this first implementation within an ecosystem implies there might be a second, and a third, etc. I have been stating ATNN Apple Tablet Not Nano is what we saw with the bottom CD patent and the announcements by Seagate of microdrives with 80 and 120 gb capacities. I could be wrong. Apple sold Asteroid when it was disclosed.
Will we see WiMAX before CDMA2000 and UMTS? It seems like a pretty serious trickle down will have to take place before its widely deployed. And certainly a while before its in any iPod. Why nearly free?
Why always sign your posts? Isnt the space that says Rocketman macrumors 6502 and shows your avatar enough? Plus it smacks of immodesty. Perhaps rocket scientists dont like applying the principle of redundancy reduction to their personal communications.
The cellular protocols you cite are already deployed but only regionally due to proprietary issues. Wimax is an open standard several carriers, Sprint included, have stated they would deploy next to cellular since the ranges are similar to analog cellular, albiet at higher data bitrates and better overall bandwidth.
I sign my posts probably because it is a holdover from usenet and email. Call it a habbit. I have been on the internet since 1992 and online before that as early as 1981. I am old and stuck in my ways. Sorry.
Rocketman
no sig file here
Phone to "the thing they showed at MacWorld" is fine. But the ATN Acronym is just wrong, it's not a Tablet (no stylus) and too big to be called a Nano.
