How the iPod Touch Works 208
starexplorer2001 writes "The iPod Touch isn't in stores yet, but HowStuffWorks has a nice summary of how the 'touch' part of the iPod Touch works. Very similar to how the iPhone works, without those pesky rebates! From the article: 'The iPod touch also has a few other features that iPod enthusiasts had hoped to see on standard iPod models. Some users hoped for a wirelessly enabled iPod so they could synch their music or share files with friends over a Bluetooth or WiFi connection. The iPod touch is the first iPod to have wireless capability, although it doesn't use it to synch with a computer or friends' iPods. Instead, you can use it to browse the Web, watch YouTube videos or download music from a WiFi-specific iTunes Music Store. With its widescreen display and WiFi capability, the iPod touch might sound like a big step up from older iPod models. But the iPod touch isn't for everyone.'"
Not a PDA replacement... (Score:5, Interesting)
The part of this article that I found most interesting is that you need to use your skin for the touch screen to work - that kinda rules out any sort of future handwriting recognition.
I guess I just really want Apple to give me a real PDA - an iNewton - instead of an iPod that looks kinda like a PDA.
Re:really (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a PDA replacement... (Score:2, Interesting)
The part of this article that I found most interesting is that you need to use your skin for the touch screen to work - that kinda rules out any sort of future handwriting recognition.
Not necessarily. I wouldn't expect to see handwriting recognition, but you have to use your skin because touchpads detect the electrical difference caused by your finger. Non-conductors won't work for a touchpad. That doesn't mean, however, that there can't be a special pen that can be used to write on it (like PDAs have)
Re:But does it have Bluetooth or not? (Score:5, Interesting)
What's so important about BT headphones? I'm sorry but that is one thing that I don't see a big deal about. That's just extra power that my iPod will be wasting and another thing to charge/replace batteries in (the headphones). There are a few circumstances I can see (jogging, maybe). But I don't think it is a big necessary thing for most people.
That said, if the BT hardware is in there (like it is in the iPhone), I see no excuse for not including support for it (because all the hardware is there and I can see people using). I just don't see it as important enough to put the hardware in.
Now wireless syncing, I would be big on.
Give Up on The Wireless Hacking (Score:4, Interesting)
1. We're talking about a low-power device with very limited programming capacity. That's different from the storage capacity.
2. How, in technical terms will files be shared?
Let's say a hacker can use the wireless+dhcp client. Then what? A bonjour client perhaps? Maybe, but bonjour just advertises services. So, put an ftp server behind that maybe? Great! The hacker will need, Bonjour libraries and all the underlying dependencies, an ftp server and an ftp client and enough cpu/memory to run it all. It reminds me of a line from the remade Oceans 11, "Let's say you rob Terry Benedict's casino. You're still in the middle of the f*cking desert!"
eBook? (Score:2, Interesting)
or at least store html-pages on it?
iPod Touch == Crippled iPhone (Score:5, Interesting)
They disabled appointment entry for the calendar widget. [engadget.com] That's really too bad, since I was hoping that this device could be the convergence of my Palm T|X and my iPod. Does anyone know if they crippled any other features of the iPhone? I would have bought one if it truly was an iPhone minus the phone. (I refuse to give AT&T $1500 on top of the not-even-subsidized cost of the iPhone [business2.com].)
I guess the other thing I'm waiting for is an API for programmers. I like to store my passwords and PINs using encryption on my device. (1) Storing them on someone's server using their Safari-based web app won't work, and (2) Hacks people are using to write native apps aren't sanctioned and may stop working in the future. Sigh... C'mon Apple, open it up!
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not a PDA replacement... (Score:4, Interesting)
I read somewhere that Apple was approached by a team wanting them to create a tablet for medical use - and they said that touch-screen technology wasn't up to where it needed to be for such a device to be as good as they'd want to make it. They didn't say that they would never consider such a device, or that people wouldn't want it - just that it wasn't currently feasible.
By PDA, I just mean I want something that I can enter scheduling and to do info into on the go, rather than at my computer. It doesn't seem like it would be hard to make the iPod touch do this, and probably a third party will do it soon.
Now, a true tablet Mac, that's really my dream-come-true, and I think it will happen eventually. No, not everyone wants or needs one, but I think there's enough of a niche market for it that if Apple could do it really well, they'd do it. But as the anecdote above shows, they won't do it until they know they can do it better than anyone else.
Re:But what if it's in my pocket? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:utter bs (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though I know you won't ever agree, i'm sure in that 100GB of music there are plenty of songs that you can't remember when you last listened to them.
Wrong. I don't watch much TV, I have music on in the background most of the time and generally find an hour or two each day to just sit and listen to some music.
If you have about 100GB of music that equals over 1000 hours of playback. If you listen to only an hour a day, that means to listen to your whole collection would take OVER A YEAR. That means, that there must be some songs you barely ever listen to. Straight from your own mouth!
Who said anything about downloading? Yep, I download from BitTorrent or Usenet occasionally to preview an album - but if it's good, I buy the CD and make my own MP3s, if it's crap then I delete it. MP3s are just a convenience for me, I much prefer the disc to play in a reasonably good hifi - but I've never paid to download music and never will. Suffice it to say, I don't earn enough to buy the entire catalogue of an artist. I buy what I like, and that's it.
Yeah, sure you bought all that music.. if you dont earn enough to buy an entire back catalogue, you dont earn enough to have 100GB which, is probably over 1000 albums..
Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:CmdrTaco's dream come true! (Score:2, Interesting)
I care.
/. is a good indicator that you aren't the target market. I used to be not the target market, but things have changed in the last few years as I finally adopted technology into my life as a way to make it more enjoyable, instead of something to hack and gripe about all the time. Considering the fact that my iPod is my iPhone, the chances of having my videos with me in a random moment of boredom are high enough to motivate me to use this method for watching my usual shows. I had to pick up the wife from the train one day, and while I was on time, she missed the train and that left me waiting for 35 minutes with nothing to do. Booyah, one episode of The Daily Show and one of Aqua Teen Hunger Force and the time had flown right by.
Number of videos I've purchased from iTunes: 119 (with at least another 15 on pre-order or in completion of active seasons)
Number of videos I've purchased from iTunes because I wanted a video: 119 (with at least another 15 on pre-order or in completion of active seasons)
Number of videos I keep sync'ed to my iPod: 5
Number of videos I would keep sync'ed to my iPod if my iPod could play videos: 5
And for the questions you ignored...
When I would actually watch videos on my iPod: Every day on the train; every time I find myself at the mall with the wife and she needs to try things on in the dressing room; Waiting in line for things like popular movies or concerts; miscellaneous situations not worth listing
Just because your life doesn't seem to convey a use of this doesn't mean others don't, and the fact that you're posting on
Another consideration is how much cheaper it is for me to buy my shows on iTMS or DVD than to pay a subscription fee to a cable carrier every single month. I rip my own DVD's with Handbrake, and with a few clever playlists I have everything I want to watch synced to my Apple TV magically, including extra stuff when I'm in the mood for "reruns" and a few video podcasts that give me highly casual viewing choices. A subset of this is what I sync to my iPhone. So when I am caught up waiting and watch a show on my iPod, I come home and sync the iPod, the Apple TV is automatically updated in reponse to that sync, so both the iPhone and iPod are updated with the next episode(s) of the show I want to watch. Magical. It's this convenience and ubiquity without the downsides of attempting to stream over our increasingly unreliable Internet that further draws me to this distribution methodology.
And despite having firewire ports on every computer, my experiences with firewire over time are that the implementations of nearly every firewire device are terrible. I had an external drive with both USB 2.0 and Firewire (DVD±RW drive) and it would fail burns on firewire but never on USB 2.0, regardless of which computer was in use. Then an external HDD that would constantly end up with corruption with Firewire usage but never with USB 2.0, and the list goes on. Firewire is an interesting idea and it's nice to have the option, but I hardly think it matters for something like an iPod. It doesn't help than almost no firewire devices have an additional port to support daisy chaining like they ALL SHOULD.
On top of this, I don't understand the complaint. If you're using an iPod, and you are using iTunes then you're probably not copying the entire contents of the device over very frequently. If you aren't using iTunes, then you're doing it wrong. It's great that people have hacked up softwar