Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

First WiFi MP3 Player

Rendezvous in iTunes + iPod

With the iTunes Rendezvous "radio station" feature, we can already connect to others' iTunes libraries within a private LAN.

It doesn't seem much of a stretch to think Apple will add a little bit of wireless hardware and a single submenu to an iPod (e.g. "Local iTunes Stations").

Then the iPod will be able to browse through and play iTunes libraries that are shared by someone with an Airport card in their desktop or Powerbook/iBook Mac.

There are two major engineering details to take care of on both ends:

-- 802.11b/g eats batteries, as PDA users will attest, and the extra hardware and antenna need to be squeezed into the iPod's small form factor

-- how to manage multihoming on the Airport-end for the iTunes library file sharing

This would require a revision of the iPod (or some kind of add-on, possibly more likely with the antenna requirement) and a "v5"-like upgrade to iTunes.

Maybe an add-on wouldn't be required if Apple can get the smaller hard drives at the same prices they pay now.

I'd recommend patience. This will come if it can be engineered properly and if Apple thinks the market will pay for it (which I think it will).

-Alex
 
Well, wifi is ok. I'd much rather have bluetooth wireless headphones.

Also, not sure if anyone even noticed, but to get this great "automatic sync while you sleep", its only available with their OPTIONAL (read: extra bucks) software package.
 
Originally posted by PRIME CHUCK
Well, wifi is ok. I'd much rather have bluetooth wireless headphones.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that Bluetooth doesn't have enough bandwidth to send stereo, uncomressed cd-quality sound. To do bluetooth headphones, you'd need to recompress the sound, and have the headphones decompress it.

Decompression is CPU intensive, and therefore power intensive, and exactly what you don't want to require on a chip that's going to be recharged and sit in your ear.

Finally, recompression of a decompressed signal can often result in observable signal distortions.

Bluetooth just doesn't yet cut it (yet).
 
I think it looks good, but size of harddrive is too small for this price. For laptop owners the Wifi connectivity is very nice. I use my powerbook on the couch and don't want to use cables all the time. Powerplugs are far more durable so not a problem.

But FM sending is not allowed in Europe so it won't sell here.
 
Browsing the iTMS from my iPod or other music device is the one main use I can see for wifi in an iPod or similar.

Syncing - good. Purchasing - even better.

If they could pull this off, they may expand the market to folks who don't have, don't want or can't use a computer at all times to get new music.

To illustrate: While at Borders (a bookstore chain) I can listen to full length CD's - not just 30 second previews - in their music section. Then what I would LIKE to do is head to the Cafe' (a T-Mobile hotspot) and download the album or song directly to my iPod.

That, my friends, is how you steal revenue from other companies and still capitalize on the "impulse buy" of it all.

Syncing - good. Purchasing - even better.
 
I don't understand the big syncing problem related to speed. I think wireless is a very cool idea. When I first got my iPod I needed to charge it for several hours before I could use it. During that time it also synced my songs. Now when I plug it in, syncing is done in a few seconds because, MAYBE 1 new album is transferring. How many people are changing their entire collection every time you plug it in to sync? After the initial sync, there are very few changes made to it.
 
yeah folks, some of you seem to be arguing for different things here all under the concept of "wireless". I agree that FM tuner and transmitter are nice features to have (although if it means I have to get 1/10th the disk space on my ipod for the same price -- no thank you!), but that's totally seperate from WiFi.

I personally see very little use for WiFi in an MP3 player. In fact, since you still need a computer to sync to (and it probably takes various levels of setting this whole wireless connection up!! anyone else done WiFi on a PC before? ugh!), and you still need power, the iPod is, in effect, easier than this. With the iPod, you can bring with you that very slim little FW cable Apple gives you, plus the iPod.

With this Mp3 player, you need to bring an AC adaptor cable, which is bulky and heavy (in fact, according to a friend at CES, the AC adapter is heavier than the iPod!!). So what exactly are we gaining here?

I think the main selling points on this product are: FM transmitter/receiver. And, frankly, that's not enough for me to justify getting 1/10th the space as an iPod for the same price. Even if it somehow integrates as perfectly as iPod/iTunes do (which is veryunlikely!), it still doesn't make a lot of sense. WiFi may have it's possibilities as we move forward, but WiFi for syncing just isn't all that interesting. It's just a large added expense (and bulk!) that provides little to no advantage.
 
Slowwwwwwwwwwww

That would be one slow ass sync. Keep to the firewire Apple, so I can transfer a whole cd in a matter of seconds. And what would happen if the song was in the middle of syncing, and you walked to far away, does the song get kept for when it gets back into range it continues to sync or does the song get deleted.
 
I'm sure they have protocols on what to do if that happens. I'd assume it would be similar if I pulled the plug on a firewire transfer with my iPod.
 
WiFi Bashing

I can't wait for reading this forum after apple has announced their WiFi-enabled iPod. The exact same persons (you know who you are :) ) wo are writing that adding WiFi to a MP3 player basically does it nothing good will praise TheSteve to heaven for doing the exact same thing...

One thing about the integrated FM Transmitter though... There are countries where it's illegal to transmit in the 88-108 MHz band, even using very small power (<10mW). So in order not to exclude oneself from these markets Apple most probably won't include it. I doubt we'll see different iPods for different countries.

I personally can't wait for a iPod with integrated WiFi, cardreader and other nize gizmos.
 
While I did post above basically in favor of WiF-iPod I should be clear that I would rather support an add-on to the iPod to accomplish this. A SMALL add-on, but an add on nonetheless. Integrated is great, but the cost should be optional IMHO.

Then again, Apple isn't likely to do it this way - it would have to be 3rd party.
 
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Um, yes, wireless is slower than USB 2.0 and MUCH slower than FireWire - what exactly is your point? The point of incorporating wireless is the convenience factor, not the speed. Is your next question going to be, "Isn't the processor used in the iPod like a lot slower than a G5?" ;)

Thanks to the wireless aspect, this player has many features built into it (FM capacilities, etc.) that are only available as ad-ons with the iPod, and also has the Flash component which again, is only available as an ad-on with the iPod.

I agree with the previous poster - this sounds like a really neat product, and I'm just going to sit back and wait for all the non-Apple bashing to start - I'm sure it won't take long....
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the value of a wireless connection to sync songs, although interesting as an idea, practically Firewire moves files at 400mps while Wireless moves at 54 max. For a large music collection, say 5 or 6 gigs this is going to take a couple of hours to move files across. Although once the initial sync is done, I guess moving only new songs or playlists won't be so bad.
I'm a freak about cables, I hate them and avoid them whenever possible, but in the case of the iPod I would hate to wait for my collections to sync just for lack of a single firewire cable.
Now, if Apple did this I'd think it's the greatest thing ever :)
 
I think this is really cool, wish digital cameras would adopt wifi.

Only complaint is this... has anyone ever used an iPod as a hard drive and have it unpowered (like via USB 2.0)? It lasts about 5 minutes with the disc spinning constantly before the battery dies. If you transfer a lot of files via wifi, its going to really suck the batteries from both the drive and the wifi... so if you have to plug it in it really defies the purpose.
 
This is why it's a bad player

I first want to state that I like the idea of wireless MP3 players. There's functionality that could be useful.

However, this MP3 device is horrible.

First, the article says that it can't play music from Apple, MusicMatch or Napster. Huh? No online music ability on a wireless enabled device?

Second, this player holds a 1.5 gig drive and costs $300. Huh? Well, I guess you need room for the wireless antenna and batteries. (You'll need that wireless syncing to continually change your music to fit on the device.)

Fourth, the slot is for SD media, not the widely accepted Compact Flash. I would assume this is to save space, but it makes it useless for most cameras.

Fifth, in terms of MUSIC features, they list only a "media and playlist browser" and an "equalizer." Compare that to Apple's sound check, cross fading, on-the-go playlists, bookmarking for audio books, play count and rating features.

This is what we don't know (it's not listed on their web site, and several web review sites did not know the information):
• Battery life.
• Size
• Weight
• USB 1.1 or 2.0
• Is there a backlight?

Summarizing, this "music player" holds one-tenth of the music of the same-cost (and likely much smaller) iPod, can NOT be used with on-line music, has only basic music management features, and is of unknown size and weight. Is this a good trade-off for the extras? I for one want a portable music player.

Now if Apple wanted to add these extras to the iPod, I'd be very happy. But in life there are trade-offs, and deciding what to trade off is what makes you sucessful.
 
You know what i think this is a great idea just needs some improvments.

A. Better looks
B. Speed
C. Mac as well as PC problay works but i am not to bothred

as for mobile network ah yes grand idea
 
New products with rich feature sets are always welcome but I prefer to wait until the product actually ships and gets "exercised" by some aggresive users before I'd give it serious consideration.

How many of the devices out there with built-in FM transmission/reception actually work well?

Anyone can announce a new product with lots of features, few can actually produce the product that works well (hardware and software), has great ergonomics, and is well-built. The more products that do that the better (whether they're made by Apple or not).
 
Originally posted by Photorun

I wonder how secure it's WiFi signal is and could someone "borrow" someone elses music collection should one figure out a way to hone in on it? Then again, anyone who buys something this ugly (or is on a peecee in general) usually has zero good musical taste.
Click to expand...


Sometimes I wish this board could be a bit more focused on products and rumors rather than attempting to generalize the majority of the population. And we wonder why Apple products can be such a hard sell at times. The best way to get someone to speak your language is not by insulting theirs.

Peace
 
slow upload for lage music collections? you upload your initial collection by wire and as you increase your collection you maintain with wireless. besides the thing only holds up to 1.5b gigs

battery drain due to WIFI? i may be wrong but your not constantly using the WIFI

im not saying that i will but this particular product, im saying that this is a great idea and could be made into another variation of the ipod? iPod, mini iPod, wireless iPod. or maybe intergrated into the 4th gen iPods?
 
Originally posted by ColdZero
I don't understand the big syncing problem related to speed. I think wireless is a very cool idea. When I first got my iPod I needed to charge it for several hours before I could use it. During that time it also synced my songs. Now when I plug it in, syncing is done in a few seconds because, MAYBE 1 new album is transferring. How many people are changing their entire collection every time you plug it in to sync? After the initial sync, there are very few changes made to it.
Click to expand...

i'm not changing my entire collection every time i sync b/c i have 20GB and i don't have to! i take my entire collection w/ me all the time. why do i want to take the time to pick & choose which 1.5GB worth of music i feel like listening to today??!?

i LOVE wi-fi, i think it's great to surf the internet. when i was doing the dot-com thing a couple years ago in San Fran, i would sit in one of the 5 Starbucks near my apt and hop in the network, do my web design & sip on my venti mocha. but i don't want to wait on this thing to suck down all my music via the wi-fi.

if this thing was USB, people would be freaking out b/c it was so painfully slow, so now it's UNPLUGGED and slow. i'm sure wi-fi will be brought more & more into music players for some purpose, but if it's just to sync, i'm not excited. as a few here have pointed out, if i have to plug the thing in to charge it anyhow, who cares ? the only time i plug my iPod in is in the morning on the way out the door if i've bought new music on iTMS or if i ripped a new CD the night before. i plug it in, by the time i get my coat on, it's ready to go & i'm out the door.

and as far as FM goes, that's why i bought an AUX input for my car stereo so i wouldn't have to listen to the crap on the radio! nice addition for some, though, i'll admit. i'm just not the target audience for that feature either...
 
Not everbody has that much music. There is a market for such devices. Say on average each song is 3 minutes long. Thats 500 songs on that player. Which if purchased from an online store is 500 of the songs you want for around the price of $500 in music. I have a 15 gb iPod that I carry around with me that has my whole collection on it, but I don't listen to my whole collection, I have 3 playlists I use. If this player doesn't fit what you need, there are 50 million other ones on the market.
 
Originally posted by MorganX
You get a lot for the price, and price matters. But it's kind of chunky and ugly. I don't think it will be an iPod killer (high end MP3 players) but it will do well.

"I" wouldn't leave the iPod for it. But I may leave the iPod, my battery won't hold a full charge anymore :(

I think I'll stick with it until PMCs arrive.
Click to expand...

I wasn´t very serious. Prolly a crappy player. Ugly, and it doesn´t look goot either. And it will prolly break before long.
 
Originally posted by Poff
I wasn´t very serious. Prolly a crappy player. Ugly, and it doesn´t look goot either. And it will prolly break before long.
Click to expand...

That seems like a very solid evaluation, could you mind telling us of the obviously vast personal experiance you've had with this player.
 
And that means what? So IF there was a portable player that supported firewire 800, what are you going to do with the data once it is there? There is no hard drive in any of these mp3 players that will support the speeds of firewire 800. It makes that whole argument mute. While firewire 400 is faster than 802.11g, I still ask, how fast does it need to go for just updating songs besides the initial sync?
 
To summarize . . .

What I'm hearing is that some people, based on how they use their iPods, would have a use for wi-fi syncing, and others (like me) wouldn't. So wi-fi capability appears to be a niche feature, at least for the moment. Maybe a year or two down the road, it will be more of a mainstream "need", and Apple will add it in to the iPod. Personally, I hope they don't, as I'll be paying for features I don't want. Maybe a dedicated wi-fi product?

In the meantime, I'm curious as to how many people would sacrifice the iPod "experience" for the sake of wi-fi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back