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.
Mysterious Minijacks on iPod AND iBook...
- Thread starter G4scott
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The question isn't why replace one remote with another, the question is why replace 12 remotes with one?
I have a Sony Universal which after 2 hours of programming controls my TV, my DVD player, my Mac, my PC, all components of my stereo, my lighting, my cable box, my VCR, and my clock radio. It is a glorious thing.
I think the iPod would be a wonderful replacement for the Sony, and even with a limited number of buttons, could easily handle even the most complex tasks. I don't mind going thrugh an extra step or to to access seldom used functions (how many of you need a button to turn on second language closed captions?).
It has a jog/shuttle, as well as directional buttons. This handles most tasks very well.
For channel selection, one could list channels numbers relevant to thier area, and spin the dial to send the whole number, rather than keying it.
Then again, as we've had similar debates over PDA/phone/mp3 player functionality in the past, it is clear you prefer to have many devices, while I prefer to have few. The reason I would like to see Apple doing this, is that the have the talent to do it well (both the remote, or the über MP3DAphone), whereas smaller 3rd parties will often create something that works, but does not work well.
I would prefer to have a few devices that do what they were designed to do perfectly, then one device that does not do any of them better then mediocre at best.
Same with the scanner/printer/fax machines... they don't do any one of those things all that well. Having seperate devices do all of them very well. You also get the benefit that if one device goes down, you still have the others to use. If your multi-function device has one aspect fail, you are without all of the features while it is repaired (can you say dumb-a$$?? I think you can
).
Same with the scanner/printer/fax machines... they don't do any one of those things all that well. Having seperate devices do all of them very well. You also get the benefit that if one device goes down, you still have the others to use. If your multi-function device has one aspect fail, you are without all of the features while it is repaired (can you say dumb-a$$?? I think you can
).
Originally posted by AlphaTech
I would prefer to have a few devices that do what they were designed to do perfectly, then one device that does not do any of them better then mediocre at best.
Same with the scanner/printer/fax machines... they don't do any one of those things all that well. Having seperate devices do all of them very well. You also get the benefit that if one device goes down, you still have the others to use. If your multi-function device has one aspect fail, you are without all of the features while it is repaired (can you say dumb-a$$?? I think you can
I totaly agree with you about those scanner/printer/fax things that are aimed at the SoHo market. I even think the TV/VCR or TV/DVD player is generally a failure.
The point I'm really trying to convey is that if anyone can pull of the effective merge of disimilar devices, while maintaining usability, and functionality, its Apple. The iMac (and even the original compact Macs) combined the computer and the monitor VERY effectively. The Newton was also a very versatile device that was just a bit too early. The PowerCD is another good example of an Apple product that does distinctly different things, all of them well.
And since Apple hardware tends to be a bit better built than most, I wouldn't worry as much about being without a device, especially because if it were a remote enabled iPod, I could always dig out the original remote from a drawer somewhere.
Plus, my PDA and my phone are so intertwined, I'm lost when either fails. The phone holds 99 numbers, so I need the rest from the PDA. The PDA has every number, but I can't effectively use commute time if I'm at a payphone, etc.
Very True Nipsy...
And the reason that Apple does so well, is because the don't aim for a price range, like most companies do, but they aim for a usability goal. They make their products to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, these days people are more concerned with price than quality, especially when buying a computer, since they're used to the routine of buying a new one every year, or two years. My G4 is more than 2 1/2 years old, and it runs fine! It even has a GB of RAM... PC companies make cheap crap computers now, and are expecting for consumers to buy new ones every year. Not only does this hurt Apple, but it hurts consumers... A pristine example of what happens when the budget and marketing people take over computer companies...
And the reason that Apple does so well, is because the don't aim for a price range, like most companies do, but they aim for a usability goal. They make their products to the best of their abilities. Unfortunately, these days people are more concerned with price than quality, especially when buying a computer, since they're used to the routine of buying a new one every year, or two years. My G4 is more than 2 1/2 years old, and it runs fine! It even has a GB of RAM... PC companies make cheap crap computers now, and are expecting for consumers to buy new ones every year. Not only does this hurt Apple, but it hurts consumers... A pristine example of what happens when the budget and marketing people take over computer companies...
The plug is for transfer
I think Since the iPod AND iBook have the plug, the PodMate or watever might be for remotely transferring songs to your iPod so you don't need any firewire cable; like the new gameboys! i would bet that it would be VERY slow, so that might be why it wasn't released with the iPod and iBook, maybe Jobs is diveloping a faster model and waiting till everyone has an iPod. You all know he's very smart about that.
I think Since the iPod AND iBook have the plug, the PodMate or watever might be for remotely transferring songs to your iPod so you don't need any firewire cable; like the new gameboys! i would bet that it would be VERY slow, so that might be why it wasn't released with the iPod and iBook, maybe Jobs is diveloping a faster model and waiting till everyone has an iPod. You all know he's very smart about that.
I wouldn't read too much into the the whole plug thing. Computer developers do that routinely where they run extra lines so to speak to expansion slots and such. Remember the original imac being able to take a specially developed voodoo card? Commodore also did this with their Amiga systems back in the day. They do this many times for various reasons ranging from debugging tools to requests from 3rd party developers to the most common we might want that there someday for something but we don't know what.
I very much doubt it, but who know's, it could be just about possible.
I think it's much more likely to be for something like an in-line remote control for the iPod istelf, so you don't have to use the buttons on the front of the iPod to skip tracks etc, I would love that feature in the iPod, for me that's the only thing lacking.
Very true Cappy. Apple does watch prices, but they also watch the quality of their products more than most other companies.
My opinion on the PodMate- it's a bad idea. I believe the way that it works, is that you tell it to play a certain "song" that is just a sound file with a certain frequency, and the connector that you put on just translates the sound into an infrared signal that is sent do the device of your choice. I don't see it using the pins around the outside of the connector. That's just my idea of how it works. I may be wrong, but I don't think that it uses the special connections.
My opinion on the PodMate- it's a bad idea. I believe the way that it works, is that you tell it to play a certain "song" that is just a sound file with a certain frequency, and the connector that you put on just translates the sound into an infrared signal that is sent do the device of your choice. I don't see it using the pins around the outside of the connector. That's just my idea of how it works. I may be wrong, but I don't think that it uses the special connections.
Could be
Perhaps Griffin will release it someday.
Chris
Could be. Without the real thing in front of us, it's only a WAG. Only one way to know for sure, though...
Perhaps Griffin will release it someday.
Chris
Okay, here is my guess: You can hook up some bluetooth-device up to it which can transfer wirelessly... think about it, why would an iBook need a remote? The device you'd hook up would get power from the additional connections around the headphone-plug. How about that? Or maybe Apple just built it like that and it has no function at all... besides making Apple-Freaks taklk about it
Bluetooth
As much as I like the Bluetooth idea, it's just too slow. Apple has worked so hard to make the transfer fast (with Firewire), I have a hard time imagining they would go with such a slow transfer.
I remember this one time I was wrong, though...
Chris
As much as I like the Bluetooth idea, it's just too slow. Apple has worked so hard to make the transfer fast (with Firewire), I have a hard time imagining they would go with such a slow transfer.
I remember this one time I was wrong, though...
Chris
Re: Simple!
I thought they connected through USB, or was that the iSub? I don't know. I could be wrong. But... The TiBook doesn't have the 3 pins on the outside, unless I was looking at an older model in the Apple store... Never know, but I could be wrong...
I thought they connected through USB, or was that the iSub? I don't know. I could be wrong. But... The TiBook doesn't have the 3 pins on the outside, unless I was looking at an older model in the Apple store... Never know, but I could be wrong...
Everyone remember the Rendezvous software from Jaguar? What was there main ploy? You remember..."I could listen to yada yada's playlist from upstairs..." Perhaps it's a jack for the upcoming ::drumroll:: bluetooth output device, or Airport, or whatever, so you can simply, ummmm, save space on your HD! There you go! No seriosuly though, I think it might have something to do with that Perhaps turn on the HD functionality, and there you ahve it, portable file server!
Perhaps turn on the HD functionality, and there you ahve it, portable file server!
Royal Pineapple
macrumors 65816
smooth one shadowOriginally posted by shadowfax0
...oops, just read that thing on the Pro Speakers, I'll shut up now...
but the speakers seems to be the best idea so far, i was just complaining today how i couldnt hook my iSub up to an ipod, so the pro speakers would be a good bet.
pro speakers
who ever said about the port being for pro speakers, i think the are right on the money.
www.apple.com/speakers
Third paragraph on the right
'Apple's proprietary speaker minijack'
the only thing left to say is why hasn't apple told us already???
who ever said about the port being for pro speakers, i think the are right on the money.
www.apple.com/speakers
Third paragraph on the right
'Apple's proprietary speaker minijack'
the only thing left to say is why hasn't apple told us already???
Well, the actual pro speakers don't fit in the iPod, the plug itself is too small... but I have a new iMac and an iPod right here, and the technology is defenetly the same, meaning this 'outer ring' is meant as a power-supply. On Apple's homepage it says the G4 has an internal 20-Watt amplifier for the speakers... doesn't the iPod have a 16-Watt one?
With the iBook having the same kind of plug, this can only mean one thing: There will be new Pro Speakers, featuring great sound for the portable devices.
Now I'm happy, but i don't get why Apple waits so long to realease that, I mean the iPod is not that new anymore... but better later than never. Hurry up Apple!
With the iBook having the same kind of plug, this can only mean one thing: There will be new Pro Speakers, featuring great sound for the portable devices.
Now I'm happy, but i don't get why Apple waits so long to realease that, I mean the iPod is not that new anymore... but better later than never. Hurry up Apple!