The End of the iPod Clickwheel

Rockgod quotes a Mercury News article saying "If a recent patent filing is any indication, Apple Computer may abandon the iconic wheel that has become virtually synonymous with its popular iPod music players. The company had previously explored replacing the click wheel with a virtual one as part of a touch-sensitive display. But now Apple appears to be looking at a third option: a touch-sensitive frame surrounding the display. Rather than click a physical button or press a virtual one on the screen, users would touch an area on the frame to operate their iPod."

Due to Unpatentability?

[eldavojohn (898314)]

I don't know if this is related to the news that their patent has fallen through [arstechnica.com] for the user interface based on the clickwheel but if I may speculate, it may have some influence on their decision.

So you might wonder who cares if you can patent an interface or not? If it works, who cares? Well, I would like to point out that if they can't successfully patent the clickwheel & interface, this leads the way for many many knock offs that could potentially function identical to an iPod. If someone can offer an iPod for a fraction of the price, they could potentially steal a part of the market share.

So it might seem that a part of their strategy is to introduce an equally intuitive interface with the user (that they can patent) so as to maintain their unique offering to the consumer. Maybe they don't think their name brand reorganization & iTMS compatibility is sufficient to keep a hold on the market. But it's not certain the market will love the new interface as much as the old ... so it is definitely a risky move either way. Perhaps they could market both flavors of iPod interface?

The simplest explanation is that they're just testing the waters for interfaces that they can patent.

Re:Due to Unpatentability?

[bsharitt (580506)]

That patent was on the hierarchical UI, not the clickwheel at all.

Interesting

[slusich (684826)]

Sounds like they're not really doing away with the wheel, but rather just relocating it around the screeen. I love my 4G ipod and the click wheel interface has alot to do with that. Hopefully this new interface won't change things too much. The wheel has become iconic at this point and Apple may be making a critical mistake if they remove it.

Re:

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

That makes sense. An actual on-screen wheel wouldn't work. There's an iPod clone for the PocketPC platform which was promptly cease & desisted by Apple's lawyers. If you do get your hands on a copy you quickly realise that the lack of tactile feeling on the wheel makes it awkward to use.

Re:Interesting

[glesga_kiss (596639)]

What tactile feeling is there on any of the touch sensitive clickwheels (ie, everything for the past few generations)?

It's not entirely flush with the case, is it? I'm not too familiar with the most recent models, but as far as I'm aware the wheel itself has a slight relief against the case, guiding the thumb around it. On a completely flat screen, you can "colour outside the lines" and go off the screen unless you are actually looking at it at the time.

Re:

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

the goal is probably to reduce front side real estate taken up by that big round click wheel. If they want to have the "real" video iPod landscape mode with the full front face as viewable area, then they have to ditch the clickwheel. Also, they can't make a new Video iPod much bigger because it would break the huge base of dock connector accessories they've built up. It needs to be a screen with no visible buttons on it, but touch screen is too much hassle... see the corner they're getting into. Zune trie

Whatever they choose. . .

[uberjoe (726765)]

Iconic or not, I just want it work well and be easy to use.

if it ain't broke...

[chaos421 (531619)]

i hate to say it... but apple may be cutting their own throats here if this change goes through. you know the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." however as the current masters of electronic aesthetic design, i'm sure they have many many intelligent people working on this.

Re:if it ain't broke...

[Garabito (720521)]

you know the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Apple is known for not following that rule. For instance, when the iPod nano was introduced, it replaced the iPod mini, which was doing very well on the market. Hardly any other company would have done that because of the conservative "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mindset of the corporate world.

"If a recent patent filing is any indication..."

[Wingsy (761354)]

"If a recent patent filing is any indication..." Well, it isn't an indication of any such thing. Apple patents stuff alla time and some things make it and some don't. Just because you see Apple filing a patent doesn't mean they will do anything with it. More likely in this case it is to prevent others from marketing the idea.

Why do people consider this an OR situation?

[maeka (518272)]

Let us assume for a minute that Apple actually plans on producing one of these new interface designs that show up in patent applications from time to time.
Why does everyone seem to assume that one of these newfangled non-physical-clickwheel interfaces will be used on a replacement for the iPod as we currently know it? I mean, most of the complaints are right on the money:
*A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen.
*A non-physical-clickwheel would be harder to use blindly, as in a pocket.
*A non-physical-clickwheel would be an abandonment of the most iconic part of the brand.
*A "true video" iPod would involve compromises making it a less ideal music player.
All these arguments (and more) being legitimate, why do people continue to get worked up in a lather every rumor?
Why do people fail to realize that one of these new interface designs, if one ever shows up, will likely be on a new iPod model, not a replacement, but an additional model (video oriented) from which to chose from?

Re: Mod parent up

[Thrudheim (910314)]

Nailed it on the head. This design is *not* intended to replace the clickwheel on regular iPods. Anyone who thinks that is not using their noggin. It is clear that the target of this design is the long-rumored, video-oriented product. Move the controls off the front of the device in order to allow the screen size to increase substantially. That's it.

Re:

[G-funk (22712)]

How is a thin strip on the edge of the screen better than a regular touch screen?

Because fingerprints on your viewing screen suck balls?

Re:

[SilentChris (452960)]

Since when has Apple ever placed two different UI designs on the same product line? Think about it.

You buy an iMac, doesn't matter what version (17, 20 or 24-inch). They all act exactly the same. None have different buttons or a different design.

You buy a Mac Book -- ditto. One is black, but outside that they all act the same.

All of Apple's computers (outside servers) use the same OS. None of that "Windows XP Home", "Windows XP Pro" crap.

The reason why it's not an "or" proposition is because Apple neve

Re:

[Thrudheim (910314)]

"Since when has Apple ever placed two different UI designs on the same product line? Think about it."

Yeah, think about it: iPod Shuffle.

Re:

[Thrudheim (910314)]

Then why is it so surprising to you that the "true" video iPod might have a different UI than the regular iPods? It's a different product line -- just like the Shuffle is a different "product line" in your terms. That's the whole point of the parent poster, which you seemed to miss.

Bah

[lancejjj (924211)]

If a recent patent filing is any indication,

These days, patent filings are rarely indicative of the delivery of any product.

In fact, the claim is often made that patents are usually filed exclusively to create barriers for competitors.

I hope not

[by Anonymous Coward]

The touchwheel is finicky enough as it is, always going one past the selection I want, or moving when I lift my finger to select. I can't imagine using a touchscreen is going to be any better.

A picture is worth a thousand words?

[Lord Satri (609291)]

The picture [macrumors.com].

Yuk

[nurb432 (527695)]

That is one of the reasons i like the ipods over the alternatives.

Why is it in todays world companes cant leave well enough alone? if it works, they dont NEED to break it, just to push out new product.

Interactivation

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

Apple changed the world with their codification of UI design in the 1980s. One fundamental principle of that design is that all UI widgets must interact with the user "immediately" (< 300ms), providing feedback. Users don't just interact with the code executing the app logic - we interact with the widget, which must change state to indicate we've interacted with it. The clickwheel seemed to interact on the screen, making sounds, even though the wheel itself was inert. I hope they can pull it off with a new unconventional UI device.

iRiver?

[dreemernj (859414)]

It sounds like they are trying to emulate the way iRiver Clix/U10 MP3/Video players work. The edges of the screen are the buttons on that one. Its a fantastic control scheme and so far the best MP3 interface I've found.

That figures.

[Control Group (105494)]

I finally broke down and bought an iPod thirty-eight - no, nine (thank you, DST) - hours ago, and now they're going to change it all up? The rat bastards.

Looks like all my years of supercilious PC-user loathing for all things Apple were justified, after all!! Well, I'll show them - just you wait to see what I do with those Apple stickers you so helpfully put in the box...JUST YOU WAIT.

(Yes, I have been up all night migrating DBs, bouncing servers, and racking crap in our cage. How could you tell?)

It's interesting but...

[Megane (129182)]

How are you going to hold the damn thing when every spot along the edge does something?

Just because they patented something doesn't mean they're going to use it. It may turn out to have inherent problems which make it unusable.

So

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why reinvent the wheel!