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.
iControl iTunes Player for iPhone?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure if 
can add the option of utilizing the iPhone/Touch screen to access and control the MacMini remotely or through a cable. 
Imagine the possibilities:
Have all your music on a MacMini hook it up to a sound system and control it via an iPod/Touch and you now have a Digital DJ.
or
Have all your movies on a MacMini hook it up to a home entertainment system and you have yourself a pseudo Cineplex.
or
Hook up a USB Jump Drive to a MacMini connected to a projector in the office and you are set to do you presentations via the iPhone/Touch.
There work on those solutions.
can add the option of utilizing the iPhone/Touch screen to access and control the MacMini remotely or through a cable. Imagine the possibilities:
Have all your music on a MacMini hook it up to a sound system and control it via an iPod/Touch and you now have a Digital DJ.
or
Have all your movies on a MacMini hook it up to a home entertainment system and you have yourself a pseudo Cineplex.
or
Hook up a USB Jump Drive to a MacMini connected to a projector in the office and you are set to do you presentations via the iPhone/Touch.
There
work on those solutions. 
I tried Remote Buddy and found it to be dissappointing. There was a lot of lag in the UI. Simple things like changing volume, pausing, and fast-forwarding could take a few seconds, especially if you had been outside of Safari for awhile. Browsing playlists or searching was positively unusable. I decided not to pay for the app after my trial ended 'cause it just wasn't that good.
Perhaps some of this is because it's a web-app. I'm sure RemoteBuddy will go native and improve it's performance. It better. Whether it's a third-party solution or Apple's own, the most important thing is that UI is quick and slick.
I don't know a thing about it, really, but maybe the best way to do it is to sync the library xml file so that the iPhone has a list in memory of what songs and playlists you have. The xml might be slightly out-of-date, depending on how often you sync your phone, but that shouldn't be much of a problem—how often do you actually delete songs from iTunes?
Anyway, this is great news. I just had a deck put in my backyard, and will get some outdoor speakers driven by an integrated amp and APX. I knew I'd be able to control the sound out there with my PB... now I trust I'll be able to control it with my iPhone. Huzzah!
yes, me too.
that sounds like a sweet idea if it comes out. I wish i had the money for an iphone...
always seems to make smart products that are easy to use, and I expect this to be no different.
always seems to make smart products that are easy to use, and I expect this to be no different.
sufermonk, I'll reply to your points. I'm not going to reply to mccldwll for the same reason I don't reply to those mad people who talk to themselves on the bus.
Anyway...
Yup. Lessons learned thankfully.
You still pay a premium for equivalent Apple hardware. This remains a fact. As for 'crippleware', that's just silly. I think OSX Leopard is better for the casual user than Vista but the latter is not dysfunctional.
Partially. New stuff doesn't always equate to new market share - you have to convince new people to buy it first or you're just satisfying the same segment of customers.
There are millions of iPod users in their 20's and 30's (of which I am one) who use iPods now and yet who haven't switched to Macs. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Why? Like I say it's not happening now with the millions who own an iPod already.
I agree here, I just don't think it makes that much difference to most people.
I don't think so. There is an illusionary belief that using a Windows based PC is a problem and it simply isn't. Price will still remain the main driver here.
Not really. The Sinclair Spectrum, Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and others were out well before then. MS based PCs though? You're right there but the same could be said of Apple.
They're a separate company and always have been. I don't think MS are whiter than white because they most certainly aren't -they're duplicitous and nasty but then they're also successful. Sure, they weren't nice to Apple but then Apple weren't very nice to Xerox, were they?
I think you're confusing 'stable' and 'staple'.
Fine, well see. As for the tired lie about MS and innovation, didn't you earlier claim that MS were developing Office for Apple? Can't have it both ways.
But it's not a 'third rate product'. It's perfectly acceptable.
Another popular misconception here - the vast majority of the PC market is Corporate and they simply don't by junk. However neither do they pay a premium for extraneous features. Also, as mentioned, there are high end alternatives to Apple's products.
I own MS and Apple stock. Neither are my company though.
I don't bash Apple's accomplishments but I'm highly critical of the appalling marketing strategy they have outside the US. I also hate it when people start the old "Apple are the rockz0rz and Ms suckzorz!1!!" line because it's irrelevant - MS and Apple are two fine companies.
But what really, really annoys me most - and perhaps it shouldn't - is when people start coming up with stuff that's poorly researched or thought out, based on wild speculation, and just plain wrong.
Anyway...
Yup. Lessons learned thankfully.
You still pay a premium for equivalent Apple hardware. This remains a fact. As for 'crippleware', that's just silly. I think OSX Leopard is better for the casual user than Vista but the latter is not dysfunctional.
Partially. New stuff doesn't always equate to new market share - you have to convince new people to buy it first or you're just satisfying the same segment of customers.
There are millions of iPod users in their 20's and 30's (of which I am one) who use iPods now and yet who haven't switched to Macs. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Why? Like I say it's not happening now with the millions who own an iPod already.
I agree here, I just don't think it makes that much difference to most people.
I don't think so. There is an illusionary belief that using a Windows based PC is a problem and it simply isn't. Price will still remain the main driver here.
Not really. The Sinclair Spectrum, Commodore Amiga, Atari ST and others were out well before then. MS based PCs though? You're right there but the same could be said of Apple.
They're a separate company and always have been. I don't think MS are whiter than white because they most certainly aren't -they're duplicitous and nasty but then they're also successful. Sure, they weren't nice to Apple but then Apple weren't very nice to Xerox, were they?
I think you're confusing 'stable' and 'staple'.
Fine, well see. As for the tired lie about MS and innovation, didn't you earlier claim that MS were developing Office for Apple? Can't have it both ways.
But it's not a 'third rate product'. It's perfectly acceptable.
Another popular misconception here - the vast majority of the PC market is Corporate and they simply don't by junk. However neither do they pay a premium for extraneous features. Also, as mentioned, there are high end alternatives to Apple's products.
I own MS and Apple stock. Neither are my company though.
I don't bash Apple's accomplishments but I'm highly critical of the appalling marketing strategy they have outside the US. I also hate it when people start the old "Apple are the rockz0rz and Ms suckzorz!1!!" line because it's irrelevant - MS and Apple are two fine companies.
But what really, really annoys me most - and perhaps it shouldn't - is when people start coming up with stuff that's poorly researched or thought out, based on wild speculation, and just plain wrong.
Good news. Allowing users to play music or video remotely would free up some of the space on the devices with already limited capacity. Some the current third-party IP remote control devices I've tested are a bit cumbersome to navigate.
Another app, FarFinder, allows directory viewing and emailing files. Something I am really hoping for from Apple is remote file Quick Look and network shared printing.
Another app, FarFinder, allows directory viewing and emailing files. Something I am really hoping for from Apple is remote file Quick Look and network shared printing.
This is complete speculation. There is nothing there that states what it controls or how it controls it.
Must be a slow month, we are speculating too much.
Must be a slow month, we are speculating too much.
Thanks for the laugh. If you had said any other word but "developing" you would not be guiltly of rewriting history.
Haven't been on a bus or owned msft (thank god) for years, but have been in aapl since 2004. I've never seen or heard an aapl long (even a naysayer along for a short term ride) spend so much time and energy knocking Apple. The overall takeaway from Bongo's posts is that Apple products are not that great, are generally overrated, and won't be able to achieve the market penetration many anticipate. Since stock price reflects future expectations, no reason for someone who thinks those expectations won't be attainable to own that stock.
I think were close to bottoming out our differences here
1) Yes, but I said 300 million ipod users = 20 million mac users - so obviously not all will switch - you being a case in point, but enough will and the iPhone will bring a new professional customer. I've seen big business users making the switch in droves - and they are not regretting it one little bit. Vista is one level of complexity too much for them. (Glad to see you had the good taste and sense to at least buy a great MP3 player...)
3) Xerox - aah this old chestnut - I think Apple were pretty fair but FUD tries to paint it otherwise - They took the humble beginnings of an R&D project from a Lab that Xerox top brass had rejected as irrelevant and developed it into shippable products. Without Apple that R&D may well have stayed in that lab. Regardless, Apple paid the license fees to Xerox and spent a long time taking it to their own place - they, in short, made it work. MS, on the other hand, came along after all the hard work had been done by Apple on refining, evolving and developing the 'desktop' as a computer interface and simply stole it - FROM APPLE - the licensee and the owner of the intellectual property rights. There is a major difference! MS most certainly are the villain in this piece - and they just love to reel out the old 'aaah but you took it from Xerox Parc' line as a defense..
4) 'acceptable' - that's about right, but it should not be 'acceptable' to buy a $2000 computer and run an 'acceptable' O/S on it - that's what Apple were doing in the 90's!! Today, however, Leopard on Mac hardware is the best experience money can buy - if you can afford it - but I agree many can't so they have to buy a cheap nasty Acer or Dell for $400 and 'get by'.
5) What choice did they ever have - corporates may buy better hardware but they've always been stuck with running MS O/S. Just 3 years ago that was ok but things have changed - Leopard IS better by a good margin. I don't expect that to change corporate minds quickly but if Apple keep changing themselves at the rate they have been and becoming inclusive to enterprise then MS may well have a real fight on it's hands...The point I'm trying to make you see is that we are now in the past few years only seeing what Apple should have been all those years ago. Today's Apple is a company we have never yet seen so the old rules, the old stories, lies and FUD do not apply.
Bottom Line is Apple will continue to grow because they know where they are going - MS will continue to decline because they don't and therefore can only follow Apple.
There aren't that many:
iMac
iPod
iPhone
iWork
iLife
iTunes
iMovie
iDVD
Apple is moving away from i in many places:
Garageband
Safari
Keynote
Pages
Aperture
Numbers
MacBook
TVetc.
The only i left in the Mac range is iMac.
They'll use it where strategically important like iPhone, because of the association with iPod.
While I agree with many of your points, on this one I just can't. Windows is seen as a problem by many, many people. In my sphere of influence alone 5 people are Mac users now and 2 are seriously considering them simply because Windows has been so problematic for them. All I have to do is let them use my PowerBook for a while and they're sold.
Vista is pretty dysfunctional, compared to XP, especially if you have UAC turned on (there is no way to turn off WGA). Unfortunately, Leopard, in the name of security, has also added some of the stupid ideas such as a confirmation on opening a new application. However, new and useful features such as Time Machine, more than make up for this.
Office is not a sign of MS innovation. Do you know how OLD it is? It started off as a great product, and got entrenched in business circles when MS made the correct decision to model Excel less as a mathematical spreadsheet, and more as a list building application. Lotus, and the other competitors took the other route, and suffered because of that.
This is assuming that Apple is more expensive. Apple hardware is certainly more expensive, but their software is FAR cheaper. Especially at the server level, moving to an Apple base can save a mid-size company tons of money. This does not hold true for larger companies which owing to their size can negotiate with MS to bring down their costs, however.
Apple does not have an appalling strategy outside the US. What is true, however, is macs did not have a market outside the US. The reason was not marketing, but the fact that computer markets have had cycles. Computers started off being very expensive, then got extremely cheap and became a commodity. In the US, there is now a move away from this commodity status of computers and people are buying high-end expensive computers. (Dell's purchase of Alienware, and the rise in Apple macs is a sign of this). However, the rest of the world has always been behind the US as far as computer markets are concerned. Most of the world has not moved out of the commodity period, and so there will never be a mac market internationally until that happens.
On the other hand, the ipod is a striking example of how Apple does indeed understand international markets. Its tremendously popular all over the world (except, maybe China, where IP theft and lots of entrepreneurial activity allow Chinese companies to undercut the ipod price tremendously).
In general, however, I can see why Apple might want to license out the iphone OS. I think there might be parallels between the computer market of the 80's and the phone market of now, with Google's Android being the DOS of the old. However, these parallels only go so far, because a) phones are currently a primarily consumer oriented market, while computers in the 80's were a business and technical market. b) RIM has shown that companies are not afraid to purchase their phones from a single company (however, even they have begun interoperating with Symbian and Windows Mobile phones). Maybe Apple needs to focus on inter-operability rather than licensing out the OS.
should apple license osx?
Kudos, this simple question kicked-off the most tedious point-by-point quote-and-respond debate I've seen in a long time, with all parties apparently overlooking obvious ways in which this market is different from the one that allowed MS to dominate. (Forgive me if someone hid this observation amidst soporific detritus...)
I was in personal computing in 1978 so I recall clearly what led to Microsoft's consolidation of the market: back then the state of the art in both software and hardware was so primitive that the only way to ensure "compatibility" (either with your own existing investment or with associates) was to own the exact same software package at minimum, and the same hardware at worst.
Back then it was a terrifying prospect, for consumers, that they couldn't take their 5.25" floppy disk from an TRS-80, put it in in their PC, and see the files (let alone run the program that could open the files!) The word "Compatible" became a short-hand for "I must buy the same platform and software" amongst the unwashed, and Microsoft exploited this to the fullest by splicing the latin qualifier "de facto" right before the nascent "standard" meme. After that, all the passengers rushed starboard and the whole boat very nearly tipped over.
The world is very different now. Microsoft is no longer the master of newspeak that they once were. Software and hardware now routinely handles the question of whether two instances can talk to each other by using things like protocols, document formats, ABIs, etc. Simple things that we take for granted today like the fact that I don't need to care that there is an ARM processor running the OSX code on my iPhone would have made me weep joyfully back in the 80s.
Floppy disks are gone, replaced by a network that "just works" by virtue of a large stack of openly-specified standards with multiple, interoperable implementations. iWork, Abiword, OpenOffice now open Word documents. The list goes on.
Consumers are in a very different situation because the overwhelming fear that forced them to choose ubiquity over quality has evaporated.
That said, licensing OSX is always an ace that Apple can keep up their sleeve to play at the right time. It would be unwise of them to play that card during their meteoric rise, however.
I can't wait to use my iPhone as a remote. I tried RemoteBuddy but the latency was too bad and it wasn't able to make iTunes go into full screen mode when I started a video.
Kudos, this simple question kicked-off the most tedious point-by-point quote-and-respond debate I've seen in a long time, with all parties apparently overlooking obvious ways in which this market is different from the one that allowed MS to dominate. (Forgive me if someone hid this observation amidst soporific detritus...)
I was in personal computing in 1978 so I recall clearly what led to Microsoft's consolidation of the market: back then the state of the art in both software and hardware was so primitive that the only way to ensure "compatibility" (either with your own existing investment or with associates) was to own the exact same software package at minimum, and the same hardware at worst.
Back then it was a terrifying prospect, for consumers, that they couldn't take their 5.25" floppy disk from an TRS-80, put it in in their PC, and see the files (let alone run the program that could open the files!) The word "Compatible" became a short-hand for "I must buy the same platform and software" amongst the unwashed, and Microsoft exploited this to the fullest by splicing the latin qualifier "de facto" right before the nascent "standard" meme. After that, all the passengers rushed starboard and the whole boat very nearly tipped over.
The world is very different now. Microsoft is no longer the master of newspeak that they once were. Software and hardware now routinely handles the question of whether two instances can talk to each other by using things like protocols, document formats, ABIs, etc. Simple things that we take for granted today like the fact that I don't need to care that there is an ARM processor running the OSX code on my iPhone would have made me weep joyfully back in the 80s.
Floppy disks are gone, replaced by a network that "just works" by virtue of a large stack of openly-specified standards with multiple, interoperable implementations. iWork, Abiword, OpenOffice now open Word documents. The list goes on.
Consumers are in a very different situation because the overwhelming fear that forced them to choose ubiquity over quality has evaporated.
That said, licensing OSX is always an ace that Apple can keep up their sleeve to play at the right time. It would be unwise of them to play that card during their meteoric rise, however.
I can't wait to use my iPhone as a remote. I tried RemoteBuddy but the latency was too bad and it wasn't able to make iTunes go into full screen mode when I started a video.
control the Apple TV..?
they need to use this to control the apple tv.
as much as i've enjoyed the apple tv, the interface on the clickwheel remote is horrible. made even worse that apple are heavily marketing their buzz tech of 'touch'.....yet i'm patiently, clicking up and down 12 times, then down 6 to delete some letters after fiding out they don't have what i'm looking for.
entering searches for films, account info, or just browsing the UI...... all would be so much quicker and pleasurable if done using a touch UI on the iPod / iPhone / iRemote...
they need to use this to control the apple tv.
as much as i've enjoyed the apple tv, the interface on the clickwheel remote is horrible. made even worse that apple are heavily marketing their buzz tech of 'touch'.....yet i'm patiently, clicking up and down 12 times, then down 6 to delete some letters after fiding out they don't have what i'm looking for.
entering searches for films, account info, or just browsing the UI...... all would be so much quicker and pleasurable if done using a touch UI on the iPod / iPhone / iRemote...
I know of at least 2 people that are waiting for 2.0 to buy an iPhone. I myself will upgrade one of my phones to 2.0.
Never forget that the 'don't ever buy the first generation of anything' crowd exists. Once 2.0 comes out, I think you'll see a serious spike in sales over and above what 1.0 did.
OK, give me your version then. After all, any fool can make statements and not back them up.
Go on, I'm waiting - and bear in mind I'm talking about DOS here, not its precursors.
besides the fact that what all you said is mostly crap, and i would not want to waste my time to counter all of it, ill just say that yes, MS are not standing still.
they're going down.
they're losing.
wake up.
i think you haven't read much of economics, target markets, product diversification and pricing either.
simple fact, what currently apple has, MS wish they had. so they went out copying and knocking over whatever they could.
but couldn't do a good job of that too.
well this is what i think of when i hear iControl:
http://www.timex.com/gp/browse.html/ref=sc_iw_c_9_0_237130011_1/104-4248328-8983139?ie=UTF8&node=364827011&no=237130011&timexBrand=core&me=A1S5XB33AHYRMX
http://www.timex.com/gp/browse.html/ref=sc_iw_c_9_0_237130011_1/104-4248328-8983139?ie=UTF8&node=364827011&no=237130011&timexBrand=core&me=A1S5XB33AHYRMX
It would be brilliant if Apple/Jobs has the long-term strategy to keep the competition constantly behind the game by having a a feature-set release ready to go about the time the competition has geared up to attack the present feature-set.
As short as current product development cycles have become, Apple seems to be able to keep the competition just enough off-balance to screw up any solid new product response. What's so amazing to me is that they are doing it with really innovative ideas that are like smack-yourself-on-the forehead-why-didn't-I-think-of-that super ideas while the competition (including Microsoft) keep trying to move forward with incremental unimaginative improvements.
surferfromuk & BongoBanger have been verbally fencing over market-share and the ancient history of computing while Apple's eye seems to be on owning mind-share which leads to dominance in whatever markets they redefine as theirs to take.
What's going on now reminds me more of the shifts forced onto the staid and fossilized thinking driving technology businesses of the 1970s. Back then having a stable business was so highly valued that it nearly killed IBM and ATT when they couldn't see beyond the current quarterly report and recognize that their business plans were no longer relevant since their markets had shifted away from their control.
I've watched where this forum has struggled to define what the iPhone really is. I'm certain that that discussion has been played out over and over in board rooms world wide as Apple morphs the product in ways unanticipated. For starters, who'd have guessed Apple could and would address every shortfall of the iPhone for enterprise use essentially within the first year of releasing the first iPhone?
What I see going on amazes me to no end. I really can't believe that Apple is as intelligent as they seem to be, yet it is evolving the market so rapidly it can't be random inspiration.
New argument: Apple... intelligent design or evolution?
As short as current product development cycles have become, Apple seems to be able to keep the competition just enough off-balance to screw up any solid new product response. What's so amazing to me is that they are doing it with really innovative ideas that are like smack-yourself-on-the forehead-why-didn't-I-think-of-that super ideas while the competition (including Microsoft) keep trying to move forward with incremental unimaginative improvements.
surferfromuk & BongoBanger have been verbally fencing over market-share and the ancient history of computing while Apple's eye seems to be on owning mind-share which leads to dominance in whatever markets they redefine as theirs to take.
What's going on now reminds me more of the shifts forced onto the staid and fossilized thinking driving technology businesses of the 1970s. Back then having a stable business was so highly valued that it nearly killed IBM and ATT when they couldn't see beyond the current quarterly report and recognize that their business plans were no longer relevant since their markets had shifted away from their control.
I've watched where this forum has struggled to define what the iPhone really is. I'm certain that that discussion has been played out over and over in board rooms world wide as Apple morphs the product in ways unanticipated. For starters, who'd have guessed Apple could and would address every shortfall of the iPhone for enterprise use essentially within the first year of releasing the first iPhone?
What I see going on amazes me to no end. I really can't believe that Apple is as intelligent as they seem to be, yet it is evolving the market so rapidly it can't be random inspiration.
New argument: Apple... intelligent design or evolution?
