9 feb. 2006

Apple is possibly maybe preparing a widescreen iPod with a virtual touch-screen click-wheel. What do you think would be most annoying: the perpetual smudges, or the inevitable scratches on a surface even more fragile than the nano’s?

Not to mention that a virtual click-wheel provides no tactile feedback whatsoever, so unless you pay for and burden yourself with a remote control, there’s absolutely no way you can navigate your music library while the iPod is in your pocket*. But then, maybe that’s exactly why Apple’s FM adapter doubles as a remote.

I still think my idea for a widescreen iPod was better: a regular screen (though smaller and of lower quality than the current model’s) and click-wheel on the front, and a full screen on the back. You don’t really need that Apple logo there that much, do you? But there’s no way His Steveness could ever consider that: it’d make the iPod a hair thicker, and these days it looks like he’d almost remove the battery altogether just to make the device a couple microns smaller.

Anyway, such a drastic redesign would certainly account for the 1GB nano being too unimportant to make it to a Steve Jobs keynote, so I guess it’s pretty credible.

 

But what would be the difference, on the hardware side, between this iPod video and a born-again Newton? Could Apple justify using touch-screen technology without providing additional functionality, or would that actually a way to reintroduce an Apple PDA without much fuss or emphasis on the productivity aspects?

 

* A nice suggestion, though, in a Think Secret comment: gestures, rather than the virtual click-wheel, could let you control the iPod without taking it out of your pocket. Drag your finger left or right to change tracks, up or down for volume, double-tap or something to pause… that could work. But I don’t think we’ve ever seen Apple express any real interest in gestures. Or have they? Oops, I’m so not interested in gestures personally, I forgot that OS X’s own Inkwell (the handwriting recognition technology mostly inherited from the Newton) does support them — only I never used that.

 

Archives

2001   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2002   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2003   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2004   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2005   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2006   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2007   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2008   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2009   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2010   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2011   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2012   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2013   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12  

2014   01   02   03   04   05   06   07   08   09   10   11   12