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.
Remote iTunes Streaming to iPhone or iPod Touch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. It would make the difference for me too. It's just so hard to cram 900+ GB of music and video into my 80 ipod. I was thinking that ipods would never catch up to my media library in size, but this will change all that if apple makes it happen. However, they would have to allow me to stream video across the 3G network, which thanks to at&t may not happen.
i still can't understand why the wifi streaming isn't included in the Remote app right now. i see no reason why ya need to use the phone AND an airport express to control and listen to your itunes in another room in your house
Probably has something to do with rampant speculation based on a patent.How could anyone vote this as negative?!?
Still, it is a cool idea, and unlike many Apple patents, I can picture this one seeing the light of day.
How could anyone vote this as negative?!?
I voted negative because of all of the crazy, OMG!-this-is-going-to-happen-next-week comments it has generated in this thread.
x2, and even if it did, I can't see it working with my Apple Lossless format files. I cant stand lossy audio.
Internet surfing. Even though I dont own iphone, I have used one. Check email real quick..facebook..etc..3G is still slow..yest faster then EDGE...but what isnt.
about time!!! EyeTV offers this functionality...but like everyone has stated, it must be through wifi, which sucks!! it's really hard to find wifi in the middle of no where, but when I was ever able to find wifi, EyeTV worked perfectly...if Apple can do this but through the cell network, it would be WOW moment for me!!!
I suggested this to Apple (for OS X, MobileMe, and iTunes). That way if you have a computer at home you could use your laptop to listen to your library with out waisting space on the hard drive.
It's a cool idea, but it would only be useful to me if you can stream over the cell network. My iPhone gets the most music playback when I'm in the car.
I don't think AT&T would allow us to stream giant libraries over their precious cell network. Companies in other countries might, but definitely not here in the States.
I don't think AT&T would allow us to stream giant libraries over their precious cell network. Companies in other countries might, but definitely not here in the States.
Sounds cool, if we had enough wireless coverage. Only thing I'd be worried about is security. It would only be a matter of time before someone could hack into your computer w/ an iPhone. That makes me think of something: it would be cool if you can also access your own files on your computer. Although security would be an issue.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5B108 Safari/525.20)
I really hope that we see this in the very near future. I have wanted something like this for a while now.
I really hope that we see this in the very near future. I have wanted something like this for a while now.
You've got a point but I believe thats the most that any current cellular device (at least in the US) can offer! And thats not because of the iPhone....
Of course..... I've been to Japan and there these speeds are..... average! FOMA is widely used and 2G is almost negligible! UMTS v8 is also becoming popular and iPhone wont really stand a chance there if SJ decides to stick to 3G in the next revisions!
This is already available for jailbreaked iphones. I forget the name of the program but a friend of mine showed me how he could stream music and videos from his home computer to his iphone. It was pretty cool. If its already available for jaibreaked iphones should'nt be too hard to bring to ones that are not.
Not having a hard drive, or flash memory would free up space for a much larger battery. The use of more power could be counteracted pretty easy by a slightly bigger battery.
voting is for the opinion of the article/statement, not who writes what in the threads. Otherwise i would consistently vote negative every single time.
You're absolutely right, but it just goes to show that the voting system needs to be better implemented, because people are not sure what they're voting for. For all I know, this guy voted negative because his cubicle mate just gave him a wedgie for spending too much time on Macrumors.
Seriously, if everybody voted the original article negative every time they thought there was going to be stupid, insulting, or inane comments in an internet forum, the entire internet would have been Dugg into dust by now and we'd be using typewriters.
I thought about a few scenarios. The first one is being at home (or away, together with your MacBook). An iPod Touch or an iPhone in a docking station would then be much better, allowing me to play _all_ of my music anywhere in the house. Saves me buying a separate device for that. Or I can listen to _all_ my music in the garden with headphones, or in the car if I have my MacBook with me. That should be quite easy to implement, both on the iPhone and on the Mac.
The other situation is away from home. On the iPod Touch the music library should switch back to only the music that is available on the iPod; no point showing music that I can't play. I am not sure how this is supposed to work through the phone - the iPhone can't connect directly to my computer, so this would have to go through Mobile Me or some similar service, and probably needs some change in iTunes. I expect that this wouldn't be streaming, but each song would be downloaded as it is played, to keep the connection time down and battery use down. Maybe iTunes could store some ten second excerpt at 128 Kbit quality on the iPhone for those who like to listen into dozens of songs. (I forgot WiFi. But WiFi isn't necessarily cheap or fast, depending on where you are).
Apple would probably need to check if there are any legal problems with this; I think Apple would not be allowed to ever store my music on their servers. For that reason, I guess my Mac would have to be turned on permanently and not sleeping. Bit unfortunate for MacBook/Pro users.
The other situation is away from home. On the iPod Touch the music library should switch back to only the music that is available on the iPod; no point showing music that I can't play. I am not sure how this is supposed to work through the phone - the iPhone can't connect directly to my computer, so this would have to go through Mobile Me or some similar service, and probably needs some change in iTunes. I expect that this wouldn't be streaming, but each song would be downloaded as it is played, to keep the connection time down and battery use down. Maybe iTunes could store some ten second excerpt at 128 Kbit quality on the iPhone for those who like to listen into dozens of songs. (I forgot WiFi. But WiFi isn't necessarily cheap or fast, depending on where you are).
Apple would probably need to check if there are any legal problems with this; I think Apple would not be allowed to ever store my music on their servers. For that reason, I guess my Mac would have to be turned on permanently and not sleeping. Bit unfortunate for MacBook/Pro users.
What about allowing you to stream music you've already bought from the iTunes store directly from the iTunes store server?
Of course, I could store more music on my iPod than I've bought from the iTunes store, so, neato but useless.
This could be quite big!
Years ago on a walk into town I wondered how long it would be before we could get music streamed to iPods, rather than storing them on the iPod. My friend said I was silly but who's laughing now!?
Nobody. Since it's not out yet.
Years ago on a walk into town I wondered how long it would be before we could get music streamed to iPods, rather than storing them on the iPod. My friend said I was silly but who's laughing now!?
Nobody. Since it's not out yet.