Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

laodamas · Oct 25, 2001, 11:41 PM

When I first saw the iPod, I was amazed at both the design and at the incredible amount of work the iPod team put into this device. This post is a rehash of known information w/ some logical deductions about what Apple is not about to tell you.

� The iPod OS is separated into two parts, a flash upgradeable BOOT and CONTROL ROM and operational code loaded onto the HD. An application supplied with the device reformats and restores data. (see FAQ) This implies that OS code is executed off the HD and the device uses some sort of embedded CPU instead of a less powerful programmable logic device.

� Apple likely used an off the shelf CPU designed for embedded devices (such as an MPC555). To support the FW interface, the iPod needed to be able to handle an absurd amount of data, up to 50MB/s (400Mb/s)

AND THIS IS AN MP3 PLAYER

. Assuming this device does not have a DMA controller, this alone would require at least a 30Mhz 16 bit CPU or a 15Mhz 64bit CPU.

� To be compatible native with MacOS X, iPod must be using the HFS+ format in order to boot using FW target disk mode. Music data likely resides as individual files in a hidden directory with a song database and system files. Because of the speed of the syncing process, it seems unlikely that the music files are watermarked in any way.

� iPod has 32Mb of RAM, which seems just a tiny bit overkill for this device (4Mb would have been plenty).

� iPod has a 3:4 ratio 160x128 LCD display. Perfect for emacs! <Insert vi/geek flame here>

This sounds like a really fun platform to port Linux to. I would not be surprised at all if the device is already running a stripped down version of Darwin. <Must resist urge to spend TiBook fund.> Using the jogwheel as a text entry device would be feasible, and really cool if it is a velocity sensitive device (such as a shaft encoder) instead of a clicker.

The description alone describes a Palm or WinCE device better than it does an MP3 player. With the specs listed above, this device blows away the $399 Palm M500. The specs allow plenty of room for expansion in the future. Assuming those golden 4.572 cm HDs drop $150 in the next six months (a very likely scenario), we are very likely to see massive upgrades to this device. The addition of a color screen would be trivial. Assuming the use of an embedded RISC microcontroller, QuickTime support is very possible. This could also be a reason why this device supports streaming audio to FW equipped non-computer devices: If iPod truely can do this, It can stream video over FireWire.

There is a reason why Apple called this a revolutionary device! I will enjoy seeing people's insights into these, and other matters.

-Christopher Howard

May the sacred call of the dogcow guide you down the path towards nerdvana. MOOF!

[ 10-26-2001: Message edited by: laodamas ]

tanhauser · Oct 26, 2001, 02:08 AM

Interesting, very interesting...

I'm very excited about the possibilities the iPod has to offer. What's to stop Apple from allowing the iPod to serve as a storage/browser device for your digital photos as well?

iTunes <--> iPod
iPhoto <--> iPod <--> Digital Camera

Of course, most digital cameras have USB, but then I think most digital VIDEO cameras have firewire (correct?). So then we would have something like...

iMovie <--> iPod <--> DV Camera

An ideal scenario if you don't want to carry around your TiBook, or your iBook, or whatever, and you want to download and store video to free space on the camera and continue shooting, while you're on the road.

Whatever changes or upgrades Apple decides to implement into the iPod, I'll be sure to get one come Nov. 11.

Frank

Wattsy · Oct 26, 2001, 07:01 AM

The problem with the DV idea is that it is difficult to see how it is more convenient to download 5gb of DV to the iPod (about 20 minutes of footage) than it is to keep it on a DV tape. The latter is much smaller and holds much more (typically 60 minutes) of footage.

There is much more mileage in the digital stills idea. It would be nice to be able to hook up a 5gb firewire drive directly to a digital camera (e.g. Nikon D1) without having to go via a Mac. For this to happen, the iPod will have to have provide some kind of intermediary control over the drive (in other words do the job that the Mac would have done interfacing between camera and drive).

Oct 26, 2001, 07:25 AM

in the ipod faq, it states that the ipod is compatible with "noncomputer" devices, and goes through instructions on booting the ipod straight into firewire disk mode. take that for what you will.

Oct 27, 2001, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by <par>:
in the ipod faq, it states that the ipod is compatible with "noncomputer" devices, and goes through instructions on booting the ipod straight into firewire disk mode. take that for what you will.

Apple has modified FAQ pdf.
The name of pdf was changed "iPod_FAQ-b.pdf" from "iPod_FAQ-a.pdf"
"Can I use FireWire mode with noncomputer products?" quetstion has been removed.

curmi · Oct 27, 2001, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by laodamas:
The description alone describes a Palm or WinCE device better than it does an MP3 player. With the specs listed above, this device blows away the $399 Palm M500.

Ummm...except that there is no hand writing recognition.

Which is the real problem here. You can talk about how this could be a PDA in the future, but that just won't be without a touch screen. Well, certainly not a Palm or PocketPC killer PDA anyway.

aaanorton · Oct 27, 2001, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by curmi:


Ummm...except that there is no hand writing recognition.

Which is the real problem here. You can talk about how this could be a PDA in the future, but that just won't be without a touch screen. Well, certainly not a Palm or PocketPC killer PDA anyway.

The iPod is not a PDA. That's the whole point.