Kinda funny! You'd think when SJ said its 5 years ahead of any phone... it dropped all present technology.... lol!
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.
iPod Nano, Touch Disassembled. iPod Touch has a Bluetooth Chip.
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Kinda funny! You'd think when SJ said its 5 years ahead of any phone... it dropped all present technology.... lol!
FM antennas are being printed on circuit boards, as a thin trace wrapped in a spiral.
Similarly for 2.4 Ghz for high power wifi, or low power bluetooth. They are separate because they are simultaneous operation.
But as long as it is a square fractional wavelength. (full-wave, 1/2 wave, 1/4, 1/16, 1/256, and continuing squaring down the line)
A digital transceiver is a digital transceiver, an analog transceiver or receiver is an analog transceiver/receiver.
It is just a matter of the content of the signal transmitted. That is software protocols, which are managed by OS hooks into the hardware control level, allowing software applications to use and interpret the data, both received, and to be transmitted.
Nike+ may use bluetooth frequencies, or a frequency very close to it. When they refer to "proprietary" it simply means that it has it's own protocol rules to translate the transmitted bits, rather than keeping to the bluetooth standards. Maybe that is more sophisticated, but perhaps it is simply a non-versatile signal that doesn't require, nor allow "pairing" with versatile bluetooth devices. Maybe it only works with itself, and now specific software code in the iPod touch software, via the bluetooth transceiver hardware.
It would be interesting to compare the innards of a bluetooth dongle/internal transceiver, with the Nike receiver attachment, and see if there are significant chipset differences. However, the nike+ receiver needs only be that, a receiver, rather than a transceiver, (transmit and receive in half or full duplex). Bluetooth requires a transceiver, which can operate in receive-only mode simply by not transmitting anything.
I REALLY wish Apple would include the hooks. (and maybe they do, I don't know... maybe they are hidden, maybe they are disabled.)
It would be fantastic to be able to enable A2DP stereo bluetooth playback if one wants to. It would also be nice to handle short incremental syncing with a nearby computer that is paired with it.
But the Nike+ software is probably even easier. Just a listener as part of an application.
Enabling FM radio is probably just as easy. A signal listener in a simple tuning control application. But then who would listen to podcasts and purchased music from the music store? Wouldn't want to give people a free choice, now would we?
Apple doesn't have to provide the apps, but if they would enable or install the hooks, and publish the information in the SDK on how application writers can use them. Let others sell an FM tuner. Let Nike release the Nike+ app, or jointly release it with Apple.
It is like Apple produces a revolutionary device than can do EVERYTHING, and then they decide to dial it back 5%.
Then they make a variation, or a couple of variations, and they dial that back 5% in a different way. The potential for 100% is there, but they hesitate or hold back from it, as if people just couldn't handle a device that did EVERY LAST THING that it is capable of doing.
Similarly for 2.4 Ghz for high power wifi, or low power bluetooth. They are separate because they are simultaneous operation.
But as long as it is a square fractional wavelength. (full-wave, 1/2 wave, 1/4, 1/16, 1/256, and continuing squaring down the line)
A digital transceiver is a digital transceiver, an analog transceiver or receiver is an analog transceiver/receiver.
It is just a matter of the content of the signal transmitted. That is software protocols, which are managed by OS hooks into the hardware control level, allowing software applications to use and interpret the data, both received, and to be transmitted.
Nike+ may use bluetooth frequencies, or a frequency very close to it. When they refer to "proprietary" it simply means that it has it's own protocol rules to translate the transmitted bits, rather than keeping to the bluetooth standards. Maybe that is more sophisticated, but perhaps it is simply a non-versatile signal that doesn't require, nor allow "pairing" with versatile bluetooth devices. Maybe it only works with itself, and now specific software code in the iPod touch software, via the bluetooth transceiver hardware.
It would be interesting to compare the innards of a bluetooth dongle/internal transceiver, with the Nike receiver attachment, and see if there are significant chipset differences. However, the nike+ receiver needs only be that, a receiver, rather than a transceiver, (transmit and receive in half or full duplex). Bluetooth requires a transceiver, which can operate in receive-only mode simply by not transmitting anything.
I REALLY wish Apple would include the hooks. (and maybe they do, I don't know... maybe they are hidden, maybe they are disabled.)
It would be fantastic to be able to enable A2DP stereo bluetooth playback if one wants to. It would also be nice to handle short incremental syncing with a nearby computer that is paired with it.
But the Nike+ software is probably even easier. Just a listener as part of an application.
Enabling FM radio is probably just as easy. A signal listener in a simple tuning control application. But then who would listen to podcasts and purchased music from the music store? Wouldn't want to give people a free choice, now would we?
Apple doesn't have to provide the apps, but if they would enable or install the hooks, and publish the information in the SDK on how application writers can use them. Let others sell an FM tuner. Let Nike release the Nike+ app, or jointly release it with Apple.
It is like Apple produces a revolutionary device than can do EVERYTHING, and then they decide to dial it back 5%.
Then they make a variation, or a couple of variations, and they dial that back 5% in a different way. The potential for 100% is there, but they hesitate or hold back from it, as if people just couldn't handle a device that did EVERY LAST THING that it is capable of doing.
Yeah, i see. From the wording I thought it might possibly be something of an electronic appendix with possible uses evolving later when software and further accessories could access it.
But I misled myself.
it can, but doesn't necessarily, use a single antenna. in fact, one could use the chip with one, two, or three antennas depending on needs and performance requirements. on the BCM4325 there are actually two 2.4GHz physically separate antenna ports; one for wlan and one for BT. it is left up to the engineer involved to make use of external switches for single 2.4GHz antenna applications. it is quite possible to use one antenna only for wi-fi and leave BT unconnected. in applications where BT was not required this would save cost on an external rf switch that would otherwise be necessary. the third antenna port is for 4.9-5.8GHz wlan.
so, BT support may or may not be there. would need to see more of the insides of the new ipod to see if either the rf switch or seperate BT antenna were present. btw, two or three separate antennas could be present on the same antenna flex-strip/pcb.
BC has an nda on this component, but nothing above stated is any different than publicly available info from their own website or product brief.
ciao,
I assume that when/if they release an update that unlocks these features, it'll do so for both the touch and the iphone.
Why doesn't someone just ask Apple (at a reporters conference, or similar) why the device has a blue tooth chip yet fails to allow integration with it. Or even acknowledge it's existence? (sounds like the US government, sorry just too similar).
I think people are getting a little tired of this "classified information" approach to it's products. I just wish they were a little more transparent as I'm really wanting to buy a Touch, but won't, because of alot of unexplained information.
I think people are getting a little tired of this "classified information" approach to it's products. I just wish they were a little more transparent as I'm really wanting to buy a Touch, but won't, because of alot of unexplained information.
There wont be an iPod Touch Nano anytime soon! I dont want to have to carefully tap on a 2 inch screen and neither does Apple want to hamper its iPhone/Touch sales! Why should it invest in building a new platform when the current one is great and growing exponentially!
PS.: The mock up looks good!
Why was this original artical posted in the iPhone section of MacRumors?
This should have been posted on the main MacRumors page. Please don't clutter the iPhone page with all the iPod crap.
http://macrumors.com instead of http://macrumors.com/iphone
Thank you.
This should have been posted on the main MacRumors page. Please don't clutter the iPhone page with all the iPod crap.
http://macrumors.com instead of http://macrumors.com/iphone
Thank you.
Well, the buttons would be the same size as iphone/ipod touch, just less of them. And I think the fact that when the iPod Touch gets bumped up to 64GB, that would be a good time to introduce the Nano Touch at 8GB/16GB.
LOOK
Attachments
now why would someone rate this as negative?!
Because there is a chip that Apple will never allow to be used in any meaningful way?
Well, the buttons would be the same size as iphone/ipod touch, just less of them. And I think the fact that when the iPod Touch gets bumped up to 64GB, that would be a good time to introduce the Nano Touch at 8GB/16GB.
LOOK
I really laughed at the fact you're using the iPhone icons in that pic; especially that you left the SMS one there when there would clearly be no way it's possible to SMS from an iPod (oh that's right, it can't connect to a cellular network!) and to a lesser extent the iPod app, when on the iPod touch it's 'Music' and has a totally different image.
Using Safari on a screen that small would be an incredible pain...in fact, typing in general would be very annoying.
super cool
I just think this stuff is SUPER COOL!
http://kiimofactory.blog44.fc2.com/blog-entry-3.html
is it only for iPod Touch 2G??
I just think this stuff is SUPER COOL!
http://kiimofactory.blog44.fc2.com/blog-entry-3.html
is it only for iPod Touch 2G??
There is still some ambiguity. We know a few things with a reasonable degree of certainty:
1) The stereo audio output functionality of these new headphones will, in all probability, work with any industry-standard 3.5mm headphone jack.
2) The remote control and mic features of these new headphones will work with the new iPod Nano.
3) Jobs said during the news conference that the new headphones would "work with" the 2nd generation iPod Touch.
4) The Apple Store says that the new headphones' extra features are compatible with the 2nd generation iPod Touch, the 2nd generation iPod Classic, and the 4th generation iPod Nano.
5) The Apple Store also says that the ordinary audio output portion of these headphones are compatible with every iPod.
6) The Apple Store also says that the voice memo feature is only available on "supported iPod models".
Points 3, 4, and 5 taken together indicate that there is *something* different about these headphones when they're used in conjunction with a 2nd generation iPod Touch and the 2nd generation iPod Classic. Extra credence is lent to this supposition by the fact that there is an extra wire running into the 2nd generation iPod Touch's headphone jack which wasn't there in the previous generation of iPod Touch. However, neither the iPod Touch nor the iPod Classic literature advertise anything about it.
It's conceivable that the extra wire is only there to provide remote control support, but that mic support is still not present in hardware.
It is equally conceivable that the mic support is present in hardware, however there is no software written for the iPod Touch yet which would be able to take advantage of it. In that case, it would be useless to the average user because until software was written they would obtain no benefit from it, therefore Apple isn't bothering to confuse the issue by advertising it as a feature.
If mic support is present in hardware, we're still left with the unanswered question of whether or not Apple would expose access to the mic through the SDK as they do with the iPhone's mic. (Keeping in mind that the ability to use the iPhone's mic outside the domain of making phone calls isn't advertised in any feature list either.)
Why would I buy a Nike+ when I have an accelerometer.
That does not make sense. Nike+ is just another accelerometer, is it not?
Just configure the software to use the built-in accelerometer and there you go.
Am I missing something here?
That does not make sense. Nike+ is just another accelerometer, is it not?
Just configure the software to use the built-in accelerometer and there you go.
Am I missing something here?
The nike one measures distance between strides, which is why it is on the shoe. you cannot reproduce this effect with it being on an arm or a waistband.
Accelerometer is actually a 3 axis motion sensor which essentially tells your iPhone it's position with respect to the ground!
GPS is what you're essentially confusing it with... right?
I saw that too, and I thought that was kinda strange. But I think Apple will "unlock" the Bluetooth capability with another $20 update. I still think they should have added Bluetooth to the entire iPod line, they could start marketing a Bluetooth set of headphones.
Assuming that the Broadcom BCM4325 Bluetooth chip is in no way modified then you would expect the touch to be a firmware update away from many BT options.
I hate to say it, but given the way Apple will charge for all iPod Touch updates except the 2.1, assuming you had paid to get to 2.0
Makes me wonder whether or not I might delay my iPod purchase a while longer, I haven't been in any rush and normally the stores sell the latest firmware rev. devices for the same price and cut the price of the old firmware models.
But does it have a Bluetooth antenna? If there is no antenna then you have no Bluetooth.
Reverse engineering
I think its awesome that iFixit disassembled the ipod... but aren't you not supposed to do that? Something about reverse engineering or some such?
Are they gonna get in trouble? Imagine finding an NSA bugging device in your iPhone! You probably wouldn't have time to blog about it before you were vaporized by an NSA satellite.
I think its awesome that iFixit disassembled the ipod... but aren't you not supposed to do that? Something about reverse engineering or some such?
Are they gonna get in trouble? Imagine finding an NSA bugging device in your iPhone! You probably wouldn't have time to blog about it before you were vaporized by an NSA satellite.