Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Hozie · Apr 27, 2003, 05:27 AM

This is what I had in mind (and I'm sure someone else must have voiced it before me). I think Apple's next killer peripheral should be a small, stand-alone noiseless and wireless server for the consumer/prosumer market. It'd act something like an external storage module, but with an important twist: the capability of interfacing (preferably wirelessly) with a host of audio/video equipment.

Imagine this: you come home with the box (let's call the product someing ridiculously Apple-ish like 'iConnect'), plug in the appliance in a wall socket, walk over to your iMac and see the iConnect as a network HDD. All via ZeroConf, Rendezvous-based and no fussing about.

The next step is, the box includes a small AirPort-Extreme compliant interface that you can connect to your radio (could be a wireless iPod) and another with RGB connectors for your TV (all wireless). You go into iTunes, press 'play audio via...' select your stereo and BOOM! music comes through your hi-fi system. (Alternatively, there could be a way to control iTunes through the plug-in interface or with a remote or something).

You go into a new iApp, 'iStream' or whatever, which does the same thing as Quicktime streaming Broadcaster but in a more user-friendly, ZeroConf-based way. You press 'Play movie through device...', select your TV, wait for the movie to buffer for a while (in which case the interface needs a small HDD) and then sit in front of your TV while the movie streams from your mac. (I'm not advocating this for high-bandwith media such as a VIDEO_TS folder, but It'd be great for DivX and stuff.) (Alternatively, you'd control iStream through an interface that you navigate on the TV with a remote and that also gives you access to iPhoto slideshows, Keynote slides, etc..)

Price that at around 350$ for an 100gig iConnect +40-50$ for an audio interface and 70-80$ for a video interface (just off the top of my head here, didn't really investigate whether these prices are reasonable), and you've got a winner. It'd kind of be like Windows Media Edition, but with a more realistic appoach and better implemented.

Sure, the iApps would have to be redesigned for this, but imagine the advatages! You'd have some friends over for dinner, quickly go to your comp, buy a 'party mix' CD off Apple's music service and let it play through the stereo. 15 seconds, no sweat...

Any thoughts on this?

Peter · Apr 27, 2003, 06:15 AM

Hmmm would be cool, but dont think it will catch on

I've seen a bluetooth 5Gb wireless hard drive ....

Hozie · Apr 27, 2003, 08:43 AM

Bleh, bluetooth for data transfer? That's just wrong! The whole idea is that the technology is now available to enable high-speed transfers...

On top of that, the point is to have large storage capacity available. I mean, since backing up my collection of DVD's to watch on my mac, I'm craving for space. Sure, I could add an external HDD or two to my PB, but then my computer would have to be on all the time if I want to share anything. With this system, you'd have like a central storage space for the while family...

Peter · Apr 27, 2003, 10:27 AM

here

HOPBIT is a personal mobile server that combines the wireless connectivity of Bluetooth with the storage capabilities of a large capacity hard disk drive. Small enough to slip into a pocket and light enough to carry everywhere, HOPBIT is a powerful personal tool that can transmit, receive and store large volume data sources--including images and music--communicate with digital networks, and provide a new dimension in portable memory for personal information equipment, such as PDA and PC.

Dont think it'll catch on

Hozie · Apr 27, 2003, 10:44 AM

Strange... they advertise it as being capable of streaming music and even video, but how the hell do they achieve that kind if throughput with Bluetooth? I think they can't, and that this is doomed to fail. iConnect, however...

MaxPower2k3 · Apr 27, 2003, 11:24 AM

the problem is that even Airport Extreme (802.11g) is way too slow to make 100GB of storage practical. When transfering files from my PC to the Powerbook i usually get about 1 mb/sec (megaBYTE) which is around 8mbps, nowhere near the 54mbps they advertise. for small files this wouldnt be a problem, but for backing up a few gigs of video it would take hours (and theres no way it could stream that video to another device at the TV). at the point where there's two steps between the tv/stereo and the computer, why not just make the device directly attached to one or the other and skip the extra place for things to slow down? if there was a set-top box with a hard drive in it that can recieve video/audio and play it on the tv, that would work better. come to think of it, they make that already

Hozie · Apr 27, 2003, 11:32 AM

the problem is that even Airport Extreme (802.11g) is way too slow to make 100GB of storage practical. When transfering files from my PC to the Powerbook i usually get about 1 mb/sec (megaBYTE) which is around 8mbps, nowhere near the 54mbps they advertise.

Excellent point. If what you say is indeed true (which I have no reason to doubt), then we'll have to wait for the next generation of wireless cards for that to happen. For DivX, however, this kind of throughput would be sufficient, wouldn't it? I mean, an average DivX file is about 650megs and run for more than an hour, so 1 megabyte per second should be enough. (i.e. approx three and a half gigs per hour).

Peter · Apr 27, 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Hozie:
Strange... they advertise it as being capable of streaming music and even video, but how the hell do they achieve that kind if throughput with Bluetooth? I think they can't, and that this is doomed to fail. iConnect, however...

Good idea, bad name. Not every apple product will start with an i

MaxPower2k3 · Apr 27, 2003, 12:11 PM

true, it would be sufficient for streaming video. if you wanted to archive video or a large mp3 collection to it, though, it woudln't be as practical. a 20GB mp3 collection would take about 6 hours to transfer. perhaps the device could have a removable FW400(800?) drive that could connect directly to a computer for archiving larger ammounts of data, that might be more practical. or perhaps an additional wired (maybe gigabit) ethernet port for the occasional large transfer.

that brings up another (semi-related) question. if gigabit ethernet is possible and relatively cheap, how come there is no standard peripheral interface that can reach these speeds? Firewire 800 is the next 'big thing', but gigabit ethernet has been out for a long time and is more than twice as fast as USB2. just seems odd.