balamw said:
I was going to mention this. With this chip and a nice OLED display Apple could boost the battery life about 100% up. That would give you more than enough battery for wireless.
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.
Wireless Internet iPods?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I was going to mention this. With this chip and a nice OLED display Apple could boost the battery life about 100% up. That would give you more than enough battery for wireless.
Well, accordign to EDGE, it's based on 2G2 or 2.5G. WOuldnt it make sense to develope a wirless iPod for the emerging 3G network?Metatron said:
WiFi is RF. In fact any wireless (besides IR) is RF.xejn said:
EDGE, as an extension of GSM, is more deployed than EV-DO (today). Why develop something for one carrier in the US (Verizon) when you could have a bigger worldwide footprint of existing sites?
B
.Mac
I was thinking in somewhat the same direction, but not quite what you had in mind...
(1) Apple makes agreement with cellphone carrier(s) to support...
(2) Limited capability iPod that connects via TCP only to Apple, where (as added features of .Mac)...
(3) You can update your podcasts while traveling (synch). Apple may - with the consent of podcast originators - cache episodes to:
(a) reduce bandwidth for the provider (while notifying them of the download for statistical purposes)
(b) eliminate the need for the iPod to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses (security and cost: the cell carrier would likely give a better deal for this to Apple, who will pay for it from .Mac subscriptions)
(4) Browse the iTMS and purchase music - again on the road. When you return home, they're copied to your iTMS library - making synching somewhat two-way.
(5) Remote iPod/iCal synching, again via .mac
(6*) mac.com email (receive only) on the iPod when travelling
(7*) Receive-only SMS
*With the addition of a microphone (giving audio recording as a side benefit, obviously, and maybe actual cell phone functionality (perhaps within the framework above, using VoIP through Apple)) and adequate speech-to-text software (along with the means to edit by selecting text and re-speaking it) the SMS and email could be two-way...
It sounds suspiciously like a PDA with neither handwriting input or physical controls more complicated than the existing iPod.
All that said, I doubt this is where Apple is headed. But it'd be interesting if they were...
cwoloszynski said:
I was thinking in somewhat the same direction, but not quite what you had in mind...
(1) Apple makes agreement with cellphone carrier(s) to support...
(2) Limited capability iPod that connects via TCP only to Apple, where (as added features of .Mac)...
(3) You can update your podcasts while traveling (synch). Apple may - with the consent of podcast originators - cache episodes to:
(a) reduce bandwidth for the provider (while notifying them of the download for statistical purposes)
(b) eliminate the need for the iPod to be able to connect to arbitrary IP addresses (security and cost: the cell carrier would likely give a better deal for this to Apple, who will pay for it from .Mac subscriptions)
(4) Browse the iTMS and purchase music - again on the road. When you return home, they're copied to your iTMS library - making synching somewhat two-way.
(5) Remote iPod/iCal synching, again via .mac
(6*) mac.com email (receive only) on the iPod when travelling
(7*) Receive-only SMS
*With the addition of a microphone (giving audio recording as a side benefit, obviously, and maybe actual cell phone functionality (perhaps within the framework above, using VoIP through Apple)) and adequate speech-to-text software (along with the means to edit by selecting text and re-speaking it) the SMS and email could be two-way...
It sounds suspiciously like a PDA with neither handwriting input or physical controls more complicated than the existing iPod.
All that said, I doubt this is where Apple is headed. But it'd be interesting if they were...
Diatribe said:
That depends on your definition of 'more-than-enough.' Browsing wirelessly hoses my iBook's battery. I know that laptops need more power than iPods, but then again, their batteries are much bigger. I still think we need a big leap in battery technology.
sillycybin said:
Ad homs are never particularly effective arguments. It's a valid criticism of BT headphones, and one that Jobs himself has pointed out.
jouster said:
I think it should be sufficient, considering that the display is a lot smaller, etc. I guess you would get around 5-9 hours out of these things if you'd stream to some speakers. Wouldn't be too bad.
Imagine having the ability to purchase media from the iTunes Music Store on the go. This would be especially great for those people who are constantly travelling. And what about those iPod vending machines? Finally you could get something out of those. You buy one in an airport, you purchase $25 worth of songs and you're off. 
jouster said:
i could be wrong but didnt she say BT headphones would be great?
just seems like a bunch of negativity spewed at something that nobody has seen or quite understands yet.
Diatribe said:
Streaming to speakers? I thought we were discussing being connected to a WiFi-like network and streaming remotely-stored songs, say from the ITMS.
I dunno. I just think that mobile devices, in general, are way underpowered (watts, not processing cycles
). Where are all the high/new tech batteries we were promised? Just what is my flying car going to run on?
balamw said:
Well, verizon and alltel. I am not a fan of GSM. Why I am not an expert, I believe that ev-do is much faster at around 2 mbps, though I could be wrong. Plus, has anyone noticed how GSM cell phones cause interferance around any audio device right before the phone rings...why is that?
GSM is the "world standard", your right about that, and from an economical standpoint it would cost less to develope just one version, then two for us CDMA fans. I guess it really dosen't matter either way as long as it works. Moreover, i don't want this to be a CDMA vs. GSM thread.
jouster said:Streaming to speakers? I thought we were discussing being connected to a WiFi-like network and streaming remotely-stored songs, say from the ITMS.
I dunno. I just think that mobile devices, in general, are way underpowered (watts, not processing cycles
I don't see the market for this really(streaming from iTMS) as you'd have to be connected to the inet. Buying to your iPod would be a possibility but there'd have to a possibility to back up your songs to a HD. Streaming from another device seems pointless when you have 60GB iPods, though it might be nice to stroll through other people's libraries as you walk by.
Now streaming to another device would be really nice to have. You'd only need an airport express and an iPod + dock and you're set.
Gherkin said:
then isn't that a potential security risk, couldn't other ppl access your computer if the wifi signal is that strong? What about going out of the country, could you still stream it? How would this happen? you would have to have a universal wireless network to do that wouldn't you. its a nice idea, for in your house, reminds me of sonos, but i don't think it would work beyond that. it would still have a hdd.
that said i am so ready for the next, and the true video ipod, i need more space and a larger widescreen, maybe a little smaller than the psp screen, or about the same size.
Disneyland Connection?
I noticed the other day that at Disneyland they have a DJ in the "club buzz" area who wears an ipod nano around his neck and he controls all the music from there. Nothing else seems to be attached to the nano (except the neck strap) and I definately saw him scroll the nano and pick a new song that instantly played.
Whether or not they have modified the nano itself, are using their own technology or maybe have a preview copy from Apple is unknown to me but it was completely wireless.
I noticed the other day that at Disneyland they have a DJ in the "club buzz" area who wears an ipod nano around his neck and he controls all the music from there. Nothing else seems to be attached to the nano (except the neck strap) and I definately saw him scroll the nano and pick a new song that instantly played.
Whether or not they have modified the nano itself, are using their own technology or maybe have a preview copy from Apple is unknown to me but it was completely wireless.
If it were in fact a wireless audio streaming iPod Nano, I wonder how long such a device could last before the battery died. If it worked with an AirPort Express, the Nano would have to be at least 802.11b enabled. If they could in fact do that, then PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD GIVE ME WIRELESS HEADPHONES!ktb53 said:
That makes a lot more sense as a remote. That coupled with something like an AirPort Express with a hard drive. Maybe that is what the "iPod BoomBox" is all about.kadajawi said:
macintel4me said:
It think the "iPod BoomBox" (silly name) is a Mac mini (with a different case) that connects directly to your television. Market the box as an electronic device such as a DVD player, not a computer. It also gives access to iTunes for music and movies to normal people (i.e. non-computer users).
Coupled with a Radeon X1000 (don't know which model) for H.264 decoding, it could also serve as a DVR. And it also happens to give you access to email. And iLife, with .Mac accounts.
It seems 2006 could really be the real beginning of the "computer in the living room" era (Windows Media Center is only a geek fad at the moment, IMO).
I guess we'll have to wait until april 1st to see what happens.
manu chao said:
This solution won't give me access to 98.595586% of my music library, though.