MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Tasty bio-bling!

I wonder how much apple has to do with this item....

the next iPod had better be wireless with all of these items on the market

I doubt Steve is unhappy about this... This kind of slip up does not occur by accident.

--mAc

This doesn't mean anything. It could be bundled with some sort of add-on acting as a receiver.

Very cool! I've been trying to find the right way to control the Nano on my runs, and I end up fumbling with it too much. I'd much rather have something like this to control it with!

I think the gadget industry is different than the iPod world. The people who read about this stuff need a heads up. These are the people who wanna be first to get it, but they need to know when it's coming.

So, my guess is, not a slip-up.

The iPod is not a gadget. Apple doesn't make gadgets. Anyone?

A comment entirely unrelated, who here likes short shorts?

Short shorts ... ideal for teabagging.

^^^^ Another Productive comment.^^^^^^

There's no mention of Apple. I think this could be a third party product.

They also list the MacBook Pro as a Must Have but have a picture of a black Mac Book displayed as the photo, is it really that hard to get that right?

Short shorts - yes, and a bit tight too...

Looks like someone took this idea and ran with it...

This is a great product, with appeal that should go well beyond just athletes. I also think, given the high prices for most anything 'iPod' these days, even the listed $80 is ok - at least it isn't '$99.99'. I was actually surprised that the little transmitter you put in your shoe came out at $40 - it sounded too rational.

As for the need for a remote, one of the biggest complaints I've hear from people is how they don't like having to fiddle with an iPod when you just want to keep it in your pocket (like, oh, maybe to prevent theft?). In fact, a friend bought Apple's in-line FMradio/headphone thingy so he'd have a way of controlling the iPod remotely, in addition to being able to get radio. As an aside, I also hear from a lot of people who'd like to see radio built into the iPod. AM too, if you can believe it (for sports talk primarily)! I'm a bit of an NPR freak, so I'd have to say I'd love the feature too. (Anybody listening??)

Anyway, as it turns out, for my friend the radio part doesn't pull in stations too well at all. However, the remote feature is a winner. His only complaint about it is the extra length of wire for the headphones; it's a real pain. Too unwieldy. From the customer reviews on Apple's site, it seems most people (even the ones for whom the radio works as advertized) have the same 'long wire' beef.

So this Bluetooth wristband remote could be a hit just waiting to happen, especially if it turns out to be durable. 80 bucks IS too much if the thing stops working in a year or two.

Now ... if Apple would just make the iPod itself with an AMFM radio transmitter built in, we'd be REALLY getting somewhere!

"Now ... if Apple would just make the iPod itself with an AMFM radio transmitter built in ..." should read:

"Now ... if Apple would just make the iPod itself with an AMFM radio/Bluetooth transmitter built in ..."

Yea, short shorts like those sweaty ones Steve Ballmer wears under his fancy trousers.

haha! I knew that would throw you all off. No more talk about short shorts, Snacks, you bad boy you.

This Nike amp thingy works with the transmitter-receiver setup in the Nike+ stuff, I would think. So perhaps no reason to make any assumptions that the next iPod rev will have bluetooth/wireless.

MDN: "having" a good time

The best part of this is the platform aspect. If this sort of connection to the iPod works out, there are probably plenty of other applications to make use of this architecture. Apple will work with Nike to work out any wrinkles and gain a new way to build out the iPod ecosystem.

Last season I bought 3 nanos and one shuffle, this year it'll be 17 shuffles, 2 red nanos and 4 30g iPods. I have exposed hard core ms users to Tiger, expect at least 22 to buy into the Mac, reason, 1 virii, 2 iLife, 3 like the simple interface of iPod/iTunes. We ain't gonna be the 'fan boys' for long, 90 bucks will soon be seen as the 'you were lucky to buy it then' stock when it (split excluded) settles at 300, that's just before Apple releases the total home and mobile soloution for music, video, home web sites and coffee makers. Steve has the next five years in focus, everything that will happen over the next 60 months will be dependent on Apple, and boy am I looking forward to the end user experience.

Who likes short shorts? WE like short shorts.

The confusing part is that the current Nike+iPod Sport Kit doesn't use Bluetooth.

""Now ... if Apple would just make the iPod itself with an AMFM radio transmitter built in .."

What year is this? Radio?

Occam, um... can we be friends?

mike: ""Now ... if Apple would just make the iPod itself with an AMFM radio transmitter built in .." What year is this? Radio?"

Apparently you'd be surprised at the number of people still listening to over-the-air broadcasts FOR FREE. What is it with people who insist on paying monthly fees for every f*cking thing they do, anyway? Do you just piss money?

Look, the iPod playing video is nice and all - I use it - yet it's still - thankfully - primarily an audio entertainment device. That's mainly what I use it for, and so do most people. And, coincidentally, most people still (believe it or not) listen to regular old non-satellite radio for their non-recorded audio entertainment. And even for simple information gathering too, if you consider sportstalk, newsradio, and so forth. Yes, there are podcasts; but they are absolutely no good for breaking news (I heard about 9/11 where first? ON THE RADIO!) And if I haven't sinqued my iPod prior to leaving for work in the morning, then forget it - I get nothing at all.

Regular old radio is still the most responsive, and cost efficient, way for anyone to listen to broadcasts. So yes, Apple should put a simple AM/FM tuner on the iPod.

I don't piss money, I piss gold. Well, yellow - I'm dehydrated.

Apple will sell you an add-on FM Tuner for $49. It doubles as a remote and comes with an extra set of earbuds. I think they should drop the earbuds and lower the price.

Either way I don't listen to FM and with 10,000 songs in my pocket (actually 8510), I don't need or want FM tuning in my iPod unless: a) it doesn't change the size or weight, b) it doesn't add to the cost, c) it gets perfect reception thereby not creating user complaints as every other FM tuner does and d) I never have to see it.

From what I hear, with 67 million iPod sold, most owners don't complain.

I don't listen to the radio either, except in my car, but it just occurred to me what a great emergency radio the iPod would make if it did have a built-in radio.

Snacks

Don't forget about me!

This wristwatch thingy cold be pretty cool. I still really would like a wireless headset that doesn't skimp on audio quality, is light enough for running and doesn't cost 200 bucks.

What would be cool with radio is where you hear a song you like and press a button. When you sync your iPod the next time it connects to iTS and asks you if you want to DL the song. Once that happens Apple will double their DL rate.

I hate listening to radio a lot of times cos they end playing the same songs over and over again. Some songs I do find are good but the DJ says the name of the band and song too fast or never at all. Being able to easily ID and DL songs would be a great idea and make me more likely to listen to radio.

Regarding the AM/FM radio issue: This is getting a bit old IMHO. So sorry to put to sleep folks who have read all this before:

1) Apple are unlikely to make the iPod larger unless something incredibly compelling inspires them to do so. They want it thin and elegant.
2) Bluetooth might just be compelling enough.
3) FM radio is NOT compelling enough. Expect accessory add-ons forever.
4) The reason the FM tuners come with the long wire earphones is that the wires in these special earphones ARE THE ANTENNA. No earphone wires = no reception.
5) One reason the FM reception sucks with these devices is that human beings tend to move around a lot, which keeps changing the reception of the antenna built into the earphone wires.
6) AM radio will NEVER be built into an iPod, and there will NEVER be an AM radio accessory (unless it is some clunky thing with a big old style antenna sticking out of it). The reason why is that AM radio requires much bigger antennas than FM radio. Ideally they should be several feet long, much longer than the already long FM earphones antenna. And, an AM antenna is even more susceptible to station distortion if it is not kept in the best position. This is a short explanation. I bet you can Google for a more detailed explanation.

If I were Steve Ballmer, I'd be throwing a chair at someone right now!!!!

MDN Magic Word: "who" as in "Whhhhooooooo are you? Who who? Who who?"

Has anybody else noticed that the Nike Amp+ electron-trail leads back to a wiki. You know, those user editable things. The info was entered in over a month ago. It may be true, but just pointing it out. Not to mention, didn't Apple and Nike say the Nike+ wasn't Bluetooth, it's proprietary.

Derek,

I agree with everything you said except the earphones part (#4). The reason the iPod radio remote comes with earbuds is because they need to be shorter not longer. The remote adds cable length, so if you use regular earbuds your cord may hang to the ground. So Apple provides a shorter one. As Apple puts it, "You also get a set of earphones with a shorter cable that’s a perfect fit for the remote." But yes, they are the antenna.

Sorry, Nike+ is bluetooth - just a proprietary protocol.

OMGZ O_O !!

Tis' un buen looking prudoot!

ME WANTZY ZEE PRUDOOT NOW!!!!

MW: "FIREY" hot!!!!

@ Derek: "1) Apple are unlikely to make the iPod larger unless something incredibly compelling inspires them ... They want it thin and elegant."

Radio tuners are extremely tiny now. Considering everything in an iPod gets smaller every rev, & the fact that adult hands generally don't, using some available space on the inside of newly designed fullsize iPods for extra features would be smart. Heck, why not design an iPod that's got the original's dimensions and put a FM tuner and transmitter (so you can play your content through any radio) in their too? One less thing I need to carry around.

"2) Bluetooth might just be compelling enough."

Might? I suppose this comes down to what different people expect, but to me this is even more desireable than radio. If they can keep battery life from being too horribly impacted (and cellphones seem to be doing ok with verion 2.0 of Bt), a whole range of headphones, remotes, and other 3rd party accessories opens up w/this feature. Wireless synching of my music & pics w/ my Mac, address & iCal info too, documents, showing the Zune what 'The Social' REALLY means, and a bunch I can't even think of ... it all argues strongly for Apple integrating Bluetooth into iPods ASAP.

"3) FM radio is NOT compelling enough. Expect accessory add-ons forever."

If you view radio the same way as, say, removable media drives, I see your point. For example, Jobs took the same position with floppy drives way back when the iMac was introduced, and it only took a DECADE for the rest of the world to realize how 'right' he was to drop it (hahaha)! That analogy would be bad enough if radio WAS going the way of the floppy, but it ain't. It's free, it's increasingly digital, and as I said before it's immediate & always 'on'. For music, radio's days of pre-emminence are past, but for daily news and information - not to mention simple convenience when I have no access to my computer or the net - radio has no competitor. It's gonna be around far longer than you or me or Steverino. Apple should incorporate the feature.

"4) The reason the FM tuners come with the long wire earphones is that the wires in these special earphones ARE THE ANTENNA. No earphone wires = no reception.

5) One reason the FM reception sucks with these devices is that human beings tend to move around a lot, which keeps changing the reception ..."

See PalmerDeville for why #4 is incorrect. I've used shorter phones that plug into the tuner. Reception isn't effected. And as for #5; I've seen other MP3 players with built in tuners that get waaay better reception than my friend's iPod add-on, in exactly the same area. It's got nothing to do with humans moving around. It's the hardware, and the device Apple sells is C-H-E-A-P. You can tell just by looking at it - great remote, horrible tuner, not worth 50 bucks.

"6) AM radio will NEVER be built into an iPod, and there will NEVER be an AM radio accessory ... The reason why is that AM radio requires much bigger antennas than FM radio. Ideally they should be several feet long, much longer than the already long FM earphones antenna. And, an AM antenna is even more susceptible to station distortion if it is not kept in the best position..."

Hmmm - I don't know. Since an FM tuner doesn't need the long leads of wire you thought necessary to pull in signals (helpful, I'm sure, but not necessary), I have to wonder just how much of a deal breaker this really is for AM. For one thing, AM reception is affected more by environment (atmospherics, sunspots, etc ...) than receiver position. Two, I pull in a pretty good AM signal on my home stereo, using an even thinner wire for the 'antenna' than an iPod's headphone lead - and it's about the same length (though w/out that antenna I get almost no stations at all). Last, when I stand close to the receiver or handle the antenna, my own body increases reception quality (both AM & FM) so I have to believe the same effect would be in play, even enhanced, if I were wearing the antenna on my head or around my neck.

For moderately powered stations or ones from a long distance, you're probably right about needing big antennas. But for the majors - sports talk primarily - signal stength is not an issue. I can pull in NYC AM radio with a little transitior jobby from the 70s, sans antenna (broke off in the 80s), when I'm in town. Besides, I'm not looking for perfect. Yet if I'm at a ballgame and could use my iPod to pick up the play-by-play, well ... goddamn, I'd love that.

Anyway, like I said, even though Bt would be a more 'impactful' addition for me personally, I nonetheless know many people who still like radio ... a lot. And I like it enough that I'd appreciate the functionality of having it built into an iPod.

Technologically it's cheap, and space wise, if it's in the Zune, than you know it's been possible for Apple to do for years. I think they should make it happen.