Beyond AirTunes?

[CoreForce]

Uhm

Uhm... turn down your stereos then. The idea is if you are in one room but cannot hear the stereo in the other room. You wouldn't broadcast to two devices within earshot of one another.

So the idea is you want your music everywhere but to get there you have to have spaces where you can't hear anything or what? Or teach people where they are not allowed to stay within their home?

Make a practical test: put two radio receivers in your flat, into different locations. Have them receive the same station.
You will notice that things become ugly, even if you turn down loadspeakers to a level it becomes uncomfortable to listen to it. An those radios are pretty much in sync! There are other things like different speaker characteristics coming into play as well that would contribute to this oddness.

Another point:
You assume anyone in an household does listen to the same music. How practical is that?
Look at the ordinary people. The buyers of iPod etc. Does multi-point streaming bring them any benefit?

Bottom line: Forget about it.

 

[CoreForce]

Why?

Sonos is gonna get sued because apple patented the scroll wheel on the ipod.

If they pay the royalties, why should they get sued?
Typically one pays that royalty per unit sold and this thing is pretty expensive. Therfore, I assume it is the case and anything is fine.

BTW: IMHO it's a bit too expensive considering it does not play songs purchased from ITMS.

 

[mclosers]

I agree

If they pay the royalties, why should they get sued?
Typically one pays that royalty per unit sold and this thing is pretty expensive. Therfore, I assume it is the case and anything is fine.

BTW: IMHO it's a bit too expensive considering it does not play songs purchased from ITMS.

I'm pretty sure they aren't playing roalties and i agree it is way to expensive and it doesn't play itunes songs....
My point was apple should make something simmilar to that remote just make it for arounf $100-150
How many of you would like that?
http://www.sonos.com/graphics/products/lg_ctrl_3.jpg
BTW that is a remote control not mp3 player

 

[Ja Di ksw]

check out this picture of the remote apple should and is going to make for Air Tunes
http://www.sonos.com/graphics/products/lg_ctrl_3.jpg

Sonos is gonna get sued because apple patented the scroll wheel on the ipod.
But i think Sonos got it right as that is the exact remote i described a few days ago.
Things I would change. Way smaller. make sure it uses wifi or RF. Maybe a B&W screen and smaller to make overall device smaller.

sheesh, how much can you copy? even that middle button looks like an inverse of the refresh button on safari. The scroll wheel looks the exact same. c'mon people, come up with your own ideas

 

[JGowan]

I agree with the few here that think the IPOD would be the perfect device. Not to stream the songs, but just act as a pointer ("voice", remote, etc.) for the songs to be played by the computer.

1) IPOD says to Computer: "Play 'We Will Rock You'".
2) Computer sends that song to the Base Station.
3) Base Station sends it to the stereo via the hardwire connection.
4) Consumer rocks out wirelessly.

The ipod would probably would hold a much longer charge just sending short commands of what to play rather than playing songs from it's harddrive and listened through headphones.

What about people who's computer music collection was bigger than their ipod? Well, what if there was a WiFi section of the ipod which job was simply showing what music was on the main computer? With Apple's ease-of-use, one could easily tell the music on their IPOD and music on the computer. They would only be able to hear music either that was on both devices, or music that existed soley on the computer, which was doing all of the heavy lifting.

When you think about it, it would be just like sharing music with two computers except instead of sending the music between computers, the music is just relayed on to the basestation from the computer. The IPOD is just the VOICE to command. It would also be able to tell the computer "hey, I'm going to the bedroom, so shift over to THAT AirportExpress device" and shut everything else down.

I agree that the IPOD should not stream its own music, but having another device other than the ipod acting as a remote makes NO SENSE.

 

[iGen]

Multiple stereo streaming

Make a practical test: put two radio receivers in your flat, into different locations. Have them receive the same station.
You will notice that things become ugly, even if you turn down loadspeakers to a level it becomes uncomfortable to listen to it.

Could Apple make it so you could calibrate a delay in the signal of the stereo that is playing sooner? Probably too complicated for the consumer, but could it be automated?

 

[GregA]

Make a practical test: put two radio receivers in your flat, into different locations. Have them receive the same station.
You will notice that things become ugly, even if you turn down loadspeakers to a level it becomes uncomfortable to listen to it. An those radios are pretty much in sync! There are other things like different speaker characteristics coming into play as well that would contribute to this oddness.

It certainly works better for radios in 2 ends of the house, more so because of the change in tone from quite a different system.

And yet, I've had multiple speaker systems before (indoors and outdoors) and as I walk out of the living room (internal speakers) to the deck (external) the sound was quite good. Great for parties. That is the kind of effect I'd like to find.

 

[Xgreed]

UPnP... my 2ct

A couple of days ago I was researching AirTunes. And like many of you, I am sure you've seen the articles and subsequent threads on MacWorld. I just thought I'd copy my entry on the Editor's Notes forum here. When I read about AirTunes I was reminded of the Philips Streamium products, that use UPnP. Here is how I think UPnP would/could/(might even do today) on the Apple productline:

Your computer is a media server. The Airport Express is a media player. The remote is a controlling device. The remote makes sure it knows all players and servers. It connects to a server and lets me browse the library, select a song and hit play ... what the remote then does is tell the server "play song X using media player Y" and it tells the player "server Z is going to send you media". Sound familiar? Perhaps because this is the way the UPnP forum has standardized it's way of dealing with media. Check out more information at http://www.upnp.org/standardizeddcps/mediaserver.asp

Now, then how would iTunes work? Well, it would work exactly the same. The iTunes GUI is nothing but another controller device, like the remote control itself. Underneath, the actual music database is hosted by the "iTunes Media Server". Like you would use the remote control, the GUI would tell the iTunes Media Server (Z) "play track X using media player Y".

And how would the iPod hook into all this? Well, the iPod is a player, controller and server rolled all into one cute little device. Hook some wifi connectivity and you're flying. The controller built into the iPod could then be used to search the library of the server built into the iPod, or any other server (such as the server Z that I mentioned earlier). And it could play that track using the player built into the iPod or using media player Y (which is an Airport Express hooked up to your stereo). And ofcourse, you could send tracks from server to server, which means you can copy tracks (or 'sync') from your Powerbook to your iPod.

As I am a fairly new Apple user, I am uncertain how UPnP compares to Rendezvous, which seems to be a strong protocol in Apple world. UPnP can use any carrier network though. Anyone who can clear this up for me?

UPnP has stalled before it really started, the story is this:
MS created UPnP a few years ago and got several supporters for it. In the meantime web services technology matured and MS got a problem. With all their investments into web services (.net etc.) UPnP didn't fit into their technology roadmap anymore, so they stopped pushing it.
Now, they are trying to create a UPnP 2.0 successor which will be incompatible to 1.x and take another few years to take off.

I think, it becomes clear now that Apples Rendezvous technology is the better approach to ad-hoc networking. It concentrates to one task, i.e. discovering services, and leaves the definition of protocols to others - either established protocols or future emerging ones and is thus much more stable than too narrow solutions.

 

[whenpaulsparks]

isn't UPnP just a ripoff of Rendezvous, or maybe its the other way around?

 

[Tulse]

To be fair, Rendezvous is just Apple's name for Zeroconf, a standard that already existed, much like AirPort (and FireWire, and USB, and even ADC).

 

[thatwendigo]

To be fair, Rendezvous is just Apple's name for Zeroconf, a standard that already existed, much like AirPort (and FireWire, and USB, and even ADC).

Apple invented FireWire, or that's what's widely reported in a number of trade documents that I've see online. Mind pointing at your sources for claiming they didn't invent it or ADC? FireWire 400 is a streaming protocol that Apple implemented with a 6-pin powered connector, and which others have used with a 4-pin unpowered connector under the name iLink.

 

[MCCFR]

Hmmmm, no they're not…

check out this picture of the remote apple should and is going to make for Air Tunes
http://www.sonos.com/graphics/products/lg_ctrl_3.jpg

Sonos is gonna get sued because apple patented the scroll wheel on the ipod.
But i think Sonos got it right as that is the exact remote i described a few days ago.
Things I would change. Way smaller. make sure it uses wifi or RF. Maybe a B&W screen and smaller to make overall device smaller.

As I mentioned on an earlier thread, the Sonos controller may well be based on the original iPod scroll wheel, but the original iPod wheel actually turns up in almost identical earlier incarnation as the control interface for a Bang & Olufsen DECT phone which existed from around 96-97, so prior art will be a problem.

The patented version is the version that appears on the iPod mini (and can be reasonably expected to appear on iPod 4G).

 

[Xgreed]

To be fair, Rendezvous is just Apple's name for Zeroconf, a standard that already existed, much like AirPort (and FireWire, and USB, and even ADC).

To be even fairer, the interesting parts of Zeroconf - on which Rendezvous is based - i.e. Multicast DNS and DNS-Service Discovery have been authored by Apple engineers Stuart Cheshire and Marc Krochmal (c.f. http://files.dns-sd.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-dns-sd.txt and http://files.multicastdns.org/draft-cheshire-dnsext-multicastdns.txt). So Rendezvous is actually the reference implementation of Zeroconf.

The chapter 16 of the latter document also mentiones a forthcomming extension called 'Sleep Proxy Servers' which will allow to wake up a host which is sleeping from any other node (e.g. your computer running and serving iTunes could be wakened up by AirportExpress or some other Rendezvous enabled node).

 

[iChan]

had there been a FW port on the APEXP, i would imagine that there would be many more future possiblities with the new device. however, the APEXP seems to be a fairly closed device.

i would have much preferred so see a firewire port in place of the USB port because compatibility with printers is limited at best and a beast to set up. (from my experiences with a HP PSC950 and Airport Extreme basestation anyway)

seeing as firewire can be powered, the port could have doubled as a charging socket for ipods.

my understanding of firewire is not all that great, however, i do know that firewire allows two devices to talk to each other without a computer and that is something that USB can't do. therefore, having firewire would lends itself to add-on peripherals like a small display.

If i have made any mistakes, please feel free to correct them.

 

[Sabenth]

What makes me laugh is the fact that everyone is dreaming of remotes... Some one pointed it out earlier the only remote you might want to use and its a huge one is a laptop.... as for all this networking stuff people invented it big companys bought it of them and hey presto stamp apple MS OR COMPAQ or who ever had the most dosh at the time on it lovely ..

Great idea by the way now will it make toast for me 🙂

 

[Tommy Wasabi]

Yummy How about this idea?

i wonder how much battery life a wifi ipod could expect

Apple has figured out a way to charge your iPod wirelessly. A wireless power source.

Now THAT would be really cool.

 

[edgar_is_good]

Not everyone wants an ipod

I agree with the few here that think the IPOD would be the perfect device. Not to stream the songs, but just act as a pointer ("voice", remote, etc.) for the songs to be played by the computer.

1) IPOD says to Computer: "Play 'We Will Rock You'".
2) Computer sends that song to the Base Station.
3) Base Station sends it to the stereo via the hardwire connection.
4) Consumer rocks out wirelessly.

The ipod would probably would hold a much longer charge just sending short commands of what to play rather than playing songs from it's harddrive and listened through headphones.

What about people who's computer music collection was bigger than their ipod? Well, what if there was a WiFi section of the ipod which job was simply showing what music was on the main computer? With Apple's ease-of-use, one could easily tell the music on their IPOD and music on the computer. They would only be able to hear music either that was on both devices, or music that existed soley on the computer, which was doing all of the heavy lifting.

When you think about it, it would be just like sharing music with two computers except instead of sending the music between computers, the music is just relayed on to the basestation from the computer. The IPOD is just the VOICE to command. It would also be able to tell the computer "hey, I'm going to the bedroom, so shift over to THAT AirportExpress device" and shut everything else down.

I agree that the IPOD should not stream its own music, but having another device other than the ipod acting as a remote makes NO SENSE.

I think part of the problem is that not everyone wants an ipod. If all you want is a pointer, then just a remote with some flash memory and bluetooth/rf communications would be better (but with the same interface). This would be MUCH cheaper, and much lighter, and could use regular batteries instead of the Li ion. With rendezvous, discovering multiple computers would be simple. Apple has done well with the ipod by keeping it simple - I don't see a reason to change now.

 

[gogoplex]

How about an Ipod "WiFi/Airport" Dock?

1. Put up Airport Express.
2. Slam any Ipod that has a dock connector in the new "Ipod Express Dock"
3. Broadcast your music from the Ipod over AE.
4. Sync your Ipod with your Mac over AE.

How about it?
An Ipod with WiFi will eat batteries. But at the same time - the Ipod is the best "remote" for any Airtunes scheme. Enter the "Ipod Expresss Dock" for say 69 USD.

And instead of pissing of all those 3gen Ipod owners you just created an enormous market...

/morris

 

[Tulse]

Apple invented FireWire, or that's what's widely reported in a number of trade documents that I've see online. Mind pointing at your sources for claiming they didn't invent it or ADC?

I was indeed mistaken about FireWire, but ADC seems to be a version of a (little-used) VESA standard.

 

[daven20]

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_features.html

i've just set up slimserver on my computer and stream music to my palm over wifi. i can access over 160 gigs of music anywhere i can get online. i can plug the palm into my stereo or listen through headphones. i can also control everything through a web browser, including creating and editing playlists. once wifi is more widespread (wimax), this setup will be the ultimate ipod killer, there will be no need for a harddrive. apple needs to add wifi to the ipod which could access a subscription service through itunes. this would allow you unlimited access to hundreds of thousands of albums for less than the price of 3 blockbuster rentals a month.

any thoughts?

 

[JGowan]

If they pay the royalties, why should they get sued?
Typically one pays that royalty per unit sold and this thing is pretty expensive. Therfore, I assume it is the case and anything is fine.

CoreForce, I think you're making a very big assumption that Apple would license that technolgy out. If you have other knowledge, please include a link and I'll step off.

We may be knocking of the 4th generation of this thing, but we are truly seeing the infancy of the IPOD. The "little device that could" isn't going anywhere and will be with Apple, in one form or another, from here on out. I don't think Apple would let anyone use the scrollwheel technology, no matter the amount offered.

 

[JGowan]

I think part of the problem is that not everyone wants an ipod. If all you want is a pointer, then just a remote with some flash memory and bluetooth/rf communications would be better (but with the same interface). This would be MUCH cheaper, and much lighter, and could use regular batteries instead of the Li ion. With rendezvous, discovering multiple computers would be simple. Apple has done well with the ipod by keeping it simple - I don't see a reason to change now.

Edgar_is_Devil's_Advocate: I think you're thinking of this backwards. The way I see it, Apple is not counting on BRAND NEW customers who only own a computer+iTunes to sell the Airport Express and an additional remote. I think they want to sell Airport Express to the 3,000,000+ people who already OWN an iPod. If Airport Express is something an iPod can control, people will see that they are already considerably vested in having this technology in their home. What's another $129 when you've spent the bulk of the cash already?

Of course, there will be some who only have a computer and will need to buy not only Airport Express but an iPod as well, but I firmly see this as something that mostly existing iPod customers will gobble up. Apple will want to focus on these people who are already very happy with their iPod. These owners that have already proven that they are willing to spend the extra money to have the very best technology. Not just for the geek factor, but truly because it makes their lives better and a lot more fun. Honestly, while Airport Express will work with PCs too, I firmly see this as a way for more and more people to see the value in Apple and make the decision to switch. I can't tell you how many times PCers have said to me, "Man Apple has all the cool stuff".

Think about Apple laptops... all but the bottom 2 iBooks have AirportExtreme cards BUILT IN. Apple realizes that asking for people to buy both items might not get them 2 sales, but, by giving their customers 1 item, it ups their chance of making a basestation sale.

It's the same principle here. The customer already has 1 device,... that helps the success of another sale... this time: the $129 Airport Express.

------------------

Now, perhaps a THIRD party will jump in an put together a modestly-priced remote for those who don't want an ipod (although, everyone I've ever shown mine to was green with envy, especially in the MAC-ONLY days.) But I don't think it will be Apple who'll try and sell a $69 remote.

 

[fluidinclusion]

New iApp (Mac and Windows)?

Perhaps the new Airport Express signals not only a neat new device that can network computers, and perhaps home stereos, perhaps a new iApp relating to video will be forthcoming. Something that would work with TIVO, a new piece of Apple software, etc. (maybe even iMovie for editing clips you can record - a lot of people do this for presentations), and other PVRs.

 

[fluidinclusion]

Too bad I just bought a G base station

Too bad I just bought a wireless G router for my DSL hookup, or I would have bought one of these in July. I just got a new Powerbook last month (my first, I had a clamshell 300 MHz in 2000), so I upgraded my ethernet only router to a wireless one in my home.

I really would like the idea of the USB port on the hub to share the printer without having to have my G4 tower on to print from my laptop. Oh well, maybe I can find a friend that will use the wireless router or maybe eBay it.

 

[smorr]

remote remote remote!!! and it would have to be able to display all the songs/albums/genres/playlists/etc just like the ipod. Or give the ipod a wifi card and i'll play my music from there (this would be my personal preference as it would also be sweet to have the same setup in the car). That's all I need to be happy so get to work Apple.

What Apple really should do is license the technology to stereo component manufacturers (Toshiba, technica, Aiwa, Sony etc) so that they can cheaply add air express technology straight into their systems and make the protocol (with Fairplay) pervasive in Stereos in addition to iPods.