[jocker]

You heard it here first folks...

After upgrading to iTunes 4.7 I got this dialog box as I am running a custom firewall:

[Stradlater]

Technically, using iTunes to remotely control the AirTunes unit and the music playing through your stereo IS "AirTunes remote control"...this doesn't mean that a remote control is definitely coming. Although it is a likely step that someone will take (if not Apple, a third party).

[iPoder]

It is not a secret that Apple is working on a remote control for Airport Express (I read it somewhere).

But it is interesting to know that iTunes 4.7 has the capability built-in, which means that Airport Express update is not far away. I am looking forward to seeing it.

[jocker]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Technically, using iTunes to remotely control the AirTunes unit and the music playing through your stereo IS "AirTunes remote control"...this doesn't mean that a remote control is definitely coming. Although it is a likely step that someone will take (if not Apple, a third party).

Wrong I'm afraid.

I brought this up because sending Airtunes to Airport Express does NOT require that port to be open. Trust me a remote control is on the way very shortly.

[jocker]

I see the future....

Your mac is the centre of the digital hub.

But you have a whole bunch of 2" flat panel displays with click wheels, scattered around the house (wall mountable, too) to 'control' iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD etc, and a whole bunch of airport expresses (supporting TV out and optical audio out) hooked up to Plasma TVs, Stereos etc

[subego]

Originally posted by jocker:
Wrong I'm afraid.

I brought this up because sending Airtunes to Airport Express does NOT require that port to be open. Trust me a remote control is on the way very shortly.

Does this imply the remote is going to plug in through the ethernet port?

[Landos Mustache]

You may be right but I don't think that is what that screengrab means as it is worded wrong.

[iPoder]

Originally posted by subego:
Does this imply the remote is going to plug in through the ethernet port?

No, this means that you can control (backward or forward, pause and volume control) the playing of the song over Airport Express through a remote. The remote receiver will be built in AE.

Currently, you can only control what songs to play (or stream) over AE through iTunes on your Mac/PC. This is inconvenient if the PC/Mac and your stereo are in the different rooms, which defeats the purpose of streaming music over AE.

[iomatic]

It's probably possible to build a low-power Wi-Fi device to connect/disconnect quickly to the network or Airport Express directly; preferably with a screen? Hmmm...?


Strictly a $49 remote control/mousing device. That's my total guess. At least, that's what I'd do.

[subego]

Originally posted by iPoder:
No, this means that you can control (backward or forward, pause and volume control) the playing of the song over Airport Express through a remote. The remote receiver will be built in AE.

So that's what a remote is

I was thinking more along the lines of having the receiver plug in so it could have a better line of sight with where you're sitting. I would think one would generally have their AXP tucked away with the powerstrip, at least that's where mine are. I have two.

This would be nullified by an RF remote of course. Since we're all speculating anyways, maybe BlueTooth?

Either way, having it plug in, which would be integral to having it be compatible with the current model, would be sound from a customer service perspective. Did I mention I have two?

[subego]

Originally posted by iomatic:
It's probably possible to build a low-power Wi-Fi device to connect/disconnect quickly to the network or Airport Express directly; preferably with a screen? Hmmm...?


Strictly a $49 remote control/mousing device. That's my total guess. At least, that's what I'd do.

I'd hit it�.

[iPoder]

Originally posted by subego:
This would be nullified by an RF remote of course. Since we're all speculating anyways, maybe BlueTooth?

Yes, RF is probably out of the question since it needs the clear line of sight. But some other remote technologies do not require clear line of sight to work. Like my adjustable bed, the signal bounces against the wall and reaches the receiver, as long as the receiver is not completely covered.

Bluetooth might work, but the bluetooth requires pairing the devices, so it might not be battery efficient and easy to use.

I guess that this is the reason that Apple couldn't come up with the solution at the first place.

Also, I doubt that Apple will support previous model of AE with remote function. Since the receiver must be built-in, otherwise AE is not an elegant AIO solution as it is designed to be.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Yes, RF is probably out of the question since it needs the clear line of sight.

no.



you're probably thinking of IR.

IR = infrared. used by TV remotes. needs to 'see' the receiver.

RF = radio frequency. used by remote control cars (and radios). no line of sight needed (or else everyone would be on their roof listening to the radio)

[iPoder]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
IR = infrared. used by TV remotes. needs to 'see' the receiver.

RF = radio frequency. used by remote control cars (and radios). no line of sight needed

You are right!

[subego]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Also, I doubt that Apple will support previous model of AE with remote function. Since the receiver must be built-in, otherwise AE is not an elegant AIO solution as it is designed to be.

Good point.

[Cadaver]

I'd be pretty well bummed if Apple came out with a new model AirPort Express already. Seems like it "just" came out, and I just bought one last week.

[OAW]

Perhaps the existing Airport Express already has the capability to receive a "remote" signal over the wireless connection and is just lying dormant until Apple releases a device to actually send the signal?

OAW

[iPoder]

If the remote control is based on 802.11b/g protocol, Apple might just need to update the firmware for the existing AE. But Apple needs to create a backdoor for the remote control to bypass the authentication, not to mention the power-consumption on the remote.

I cannot imagine to change the battery of the remote every week, or even every month.

[Mithras]

The remote would communicate with your Mac, not with the Airport Express. The AE just receives the sound signal, after all.
It's the Mac/PC running iTunes that would receive the commands to "fast forward", "stop", etc.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The remote would communicate with your Mac, not with the Airport Express. The AE just receives the sound signal, after all.
It's the Mac/PC running iTunes that would receive the commands to "fast forward", "stop", etc.

That's another way to accomplish the same goal ... no doubt. But that seems to go against the original graphic. If it is true that the "Airtunes remote control" needs to have port 3689 open ... and if it is true that the Airport Express currently works without having that port open ... then why would the port need to be open if the remote doesn't communicate with the Airport Express? I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes to pass.

OAW

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Mithras:
The remote would communicate with your Mac, not with the Airport Express. The AE just receives the sound signal, after all.
It's the Mac/PC running iTunes that would receive the commands to "fast forward", "stop", etc.

IF that is the case, then this technically already exists when you have a bluetooth phone and something like Salling Clicker. I'm betting the Apple remote will communicate with the AXP, it will just pass the command along the network to the computer running iTunes.

[jocker]

Originally posted by -Q-:
IF that is the case, then this technically already exists when you have a bluetooth phone and something like Salling Clicker. I'm betting the Apple remote will communicate with the AXP, it will just pass the command along the network to the computer running iTunes.

Yes this technically exists but transmits over bluetooth which is slow. The remote will communicate over TCP/IP and hence be 802.11g - mark my words.

Also, why on earth would the apple remote communicate with airport express??? Airport Express simply outputs the sound received from the mac to speakers. The mac does all the heavy lifting.

You say it "will just pass the command along the network to the computer running iTunes". The remote will be ON the network, and hence airport express won't need to do anything.

[kzmk]

Originally posted by OAW:
That's another way to accomplish the same goal ... no doubt. But that seems to go against the original graphic. If it is true that the "Airtunes remote control" needs to have port 3689 open ... and if it is true that the Airport Express currently works without having that port open ... then why would the port need to be open if the remote doesn't communicate with the Airport Express? I guess we'll have to wait and see what comes to pass.

OAW

The port needs to be open on the system which is running iTunes 4.7 -- that's the computer, not the AE.

[iPoder]

Don't some sorts of communication protocol already exist between AXP and iTunes? When an audio cable plugs in to AXP, iTunes detects it. Right?

If so, remote control function simply extends the existing protocol. Either AXP relays the remote signals to PC/Mac, or it detects the signals and sends commands to PC/Mac.

I firmly believe that remote control is for AXP, not for Mac (meaning it has to use with AXP). The true value of AirTunes is to allow your stereo and PC/Mac to be located in the different rooms (like Roku). There is no purpose of remote control if it has to be used with your Mac in the same room.

I guess there two possible solutions,
1) Remote control is simply another 802.11 b/g device, so AXP acts simply as a wireless router.
2) Remote control is a simple remote control (IR, RF, etc) which sends signal to AXP. AXP relays (and/or converts) the signals as commands to iTunes.

I bet is on the second one.

[kzmk]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Don't some sorts of communication protocol already exist between AXP and iTunes? When an audio cable plugs in to AXP, iTunes detects it. Right?

If so, remote control function simply extends the existing protocol. Either AXP relays the remote signals to PC/Mac, or it detects the signals and sends commands to PC/Mac.

I firmly believe that remote control is for AXP, not for Mac. The true value of AirTunes is to allow your stereo and PC/Mac locates in the different rooms (like Roku). There is no purpose of remote control if it has to be used with your Mac in the same room.

Huh? The same room?

Look: You get a small device which hooks into your WLAN. Think of an iPod stripped of its harddrive but with an AirPort card. You don't need to be in the room the Mac is in, you don't need to be in the room the AEX is in.

Why should they try and make the AEX "controllable", when there is nothing to control on it? Why should they tell the AEX "next track" and then have the AEX tell the computer "next track" again, when all they'd need is to tell the computer "next track" once? Why should they leave the option out to have a small screen on the remote which shows the playlists on the Mac?

[iPoder]

Originally posted by kzmk:
Why should they try and make the AEX "controllable", when there is nothing to control on it? Why should they tell the AEX "next track" and then have the AEX tell the computer "next track" again, when all they'd need is to tell the computer "next track" once? Why should they leave the option out to have a small screen on the remote which shows the playlists on the Mac?

I understand your points. It is like a wireless ROKU SoundBridge. That is expensive device which does little.

Original complaint from users and analysts on the AXP is simply no easy way to control the song playing in the room which stereo is located. I believe that Apple will choose the cheaper solution, and bundle remote control with the upgraded AXP.

The purpose of the remote is not to control AXP, but to use AXP to relay the signals to iTunes.

[iPoder]

Originally posted by kzmk:
Look: You get a small device which hooks into your WLAN. Think of an iPod stripped of its harddrive but with an AirPort card. You don't need to be in the room the Mac is in, you don't need to be in the room the AEX is in.

Think about the device you are talking about,

1) It needs to know the authentication mechanism to pass wireless router, not to mention a way to key those WEP keys in, and store it (meaning it must have flash memory built in)
2) It needs to know what the PC/MAC's IP address is. Even worse, what if it is using DHCP? It means that you need to constantly type in the new IP addresss on the remote.
3) The remote itself must have an IP address. Another configuration needs to be set if you have a firewall setup.
4) It drains power too fast in order to show song title on the LCD screen. You need to change the battery or recharge it very often. Not very friendly as a remote.

[kzmk]

Originally posted by iPoder:
I understand your points. It is like a wireless ROKU SoundBridge. That is expensive device which does little.

Original complaint from users and analysts on the AXP is simply no easy way to control the song playing in the room which stereo is located. I believe that Apple will choose the cheaper solution, and bundle remote control with the upgraded AXP.

The purpose of the remote is not to control AXP, but to use AXP to relay the signals to iTunes.

OK, I see, though i doubt it.

It would mean that you could control playback (back/forward, play/stop/pause), but would have no feedback whatsoever as to what really happens next (is this the last song in the playlist, e.g.). No feedback, no display, no easy way to switch artists, albums, you name it.

And if you stop the playback, leave, then come back -- what are you about to do? Check the computer, change the playlist, go back to the remote?

And why should it require another open port?
Especially on the computer.

Dunno, but I think (and sure hope) you're wrong.

[kzmk]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Think about the device you are talking about,

1) It needs to know the authentication mechanism to pass wireless router, not to mention a way to key those WEP keys in, and store it (meaning it must have flash memory built in)
2) It needs to know what the PC/MAC's IP address is. Even worse, what if it is using DHCP? It means that you need to constantly type in the new IP addresss on the remote.
3) The remote itself must have an IP address. Another configuration needs to be set if you have a firewall setup.
4) It drains power too fast in order to show song title on the LCD screen. You need to change the battery or recharge it very often. Not very friendly as a remote.

Hm...
Points taken.
So Apple is going to release a remote that sucks?

[iPoder]

It is like the simple remote on your stereo system. When you don't like the song, you press the remote to skip it.

It won't be a powerful device that you want. Otherwise, it will be expensive, which limits its market appeal.

[jocker]

Originally posted by iPoder:
It is like the simple remote on your stereo system. When you don't like the song, you press the remote to skip it.

It won't be a powerful device that you want. Otherwise, it will be expensive, which limits its market appeal.

We'll see.

It * won't * be dirt cheap - this is apple we're talking about.

It * won't * be an upgraded airport express - its only been out a few months, apple is going to expect people to buy another just to get a ****ing remote control!

It * will * be 802.11g. What are you talking about typing in an IP address etc!!!! Do you know anything about networking?

We could argue all day, but your points are crap and the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say in England.

[iPoder]

Originally posted by kzmk:

So Apple is going to release a remote that sucks?

If this makes you feel better, I believe that remote control will come with AXP as a single item (no additional charge), and maybe a slight price deduction.

Another use of the remote is to control whether iTunes should stream to the music to the AXP or not. Currently, there is no way to control which AXP to stream music to if you have more than one AXP with stereo plugged in. With the remote, you are able to tell iTunes to stream to the AXP if and only if you tell it too.

One additional feature (my wish list) I want from the next AXP (or next OS) is to direct the system sound or the sound from other applications to the AXP. In this case, I will be able to use AXP as the gateway to the wireless speakers (very convenient for notebook users to use external speakers). But I believe this is more an OS feature than iTunes or AXP feature. Maybe in Tiger?

[eddiecatflap]

i thought this color ipod was gonna be a remote control

thats teh only way i can see it being a hit

[iPoder]

Originally posted by jocker:
It * will * be 802.11g. What are you talking about typing in an IP address etc!!!! Do you know anything about networking?

Please don't insult. I am currently working for a networking company, and developing a communcation software for MAC. I know TCP/IP protocol very well. Additionally, I previously managed a project which has something to do with wireless protocol.

[bluedog]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Think about the device you are talking about,
2) It needs to know what the PC/MAC's IP address is. Even worse, what if it is using DHCP? It means that you need to constantly type in the new IP addresss on the remote.
3) The remote itself must have an IP address. Another configuration needs to be set if you have a firewall setup.

Think about RENDEVOUS. The connection and addressing will be automatically done. The local machine would likely broadcast itself as available for a remote. Think about how the airport express simply 'shows up' as an available speaker when iTunes has the preference set to look for AirTunes on the network.

The battery life may be more of an issue (try rechargables).

[Randman]

Apple doesn't want you to wirelessly control AirTunes. That would remove the need of a having a Macintosh computer.

[iPoder]

Originally posted by bluedog:
Think about RENDEVOUS. The connection and addressing will be automatically done. The local machine would likely broadcast itself as available for a remote. Think about how the airport express simply 'shows up' as an available speaker when iTunes has the preference set to look for AirTunes on the network.

The battery life may be more of an issue (try rechargables).

Put the RENDEVOUS feature in the remote? Think about the direction of the network traffic which is initiated.

The reason that the speaker 'shows up' because AXP is also a gateway.

Even IP address is solved. How about the authentication issue?

[kzmk]

Originally posted by Randman:
Apple doesn't want you to wirelessly control AirTunes. That would remove the need of a having a Macintosh computer.

That so? Like... the songs float around, or what?
"Yeah, yeah, don't you ever listen to a radio?"

[iPoder]

Ok, let me try to make sense about the IP-based remote control (direct control on iTunes) that everyone is talking about, and I will shut up.

First to say, the device is possible because all the technologies are available. But in order to make it work,

1) This device must have a wireless chip built in, and is also an IP-based device (knowing TCP/IP protocol)
2) This device must either get the IP from DHCP server (if exist), or be manually assigned to one.
3) This device must be able to talk to PC/MAC through wireless protocol with all possible authentication protocols supported
4) This device must be able to rendezvous the PC/MAC or the PC/MAC must be able to rendezvous this device (broadcasting is bad, security speaking)
5) This device must wake up from the power-saving mode to do the rendezvous dance (pairing)
6) This device must do the pairing again after its leased IP from DHCP is expired and renewed with a different IP
7) You must configure your AXP and firewall to allow the traffic to go through, and enables DHCP server if no IP is assigned to the device
8) This device must save all the configurations in the persistent memory (flash memory)
9) This device's battery must last long enough to be useful.
10) This device must not be outrageously expensive

Ok, I get it. IT CAN BE DONE!

Edited:

Such device already exists. It is called Roku SoundBridge.
http://www.rokulabs.com/products/sou...ecs.php#manual

While you are at their website, make sure that you read the user guide on how to set up a wireless link.

[OAW]

This is what I would like to see in the "AirTunes Remote":

- Wireless. RF or 802.11g. Do not do IR because my AXP is not in line of sight.

- Easy to navigate Albums, Artists, Genres, and Playlists and transport controls (Play, Pause, FF, REW). If it is a "simple" remote with only transport controls I will be most disappointed

- Ability to select which computer the remote is controlling.

- Color screen to show album art (definitely a "wishlist" item. Desirable but not critical)

OAW

[Nodnarb]

Originally posted by Randman:
Apple doesn't want you to wirelessly control AirTunes. That would remove the need of a having a Macintosh computer.

You don't need a Mac to us AirTunes. I have an iBook and my parents have toshiba laptops, and it works the exact same way. In iTunes it shows the thing in the bottom right corner, and that's all you need to do. There's no need for a Mac to use Airtunes.

[audvidsvs]

This is already all possible with any PDA that has wi-fi built-in.
Using the PDA to interface with SlimServer you can operate iTunes and get feedback from iTunes on the PDA.

This PDA is just another device on the wireless network and running a browser loading the SlimServer software from the machine with iTunes on it.
You just browse the ip of the Slimserver and Voila two way communication with iTunes!

Look at Slimdevices and the Squeezebox.It is similar to the Roku but the software is open source and more powerful.
When using either the Roku or the Squeezebox you are tied to the built-in display and IR Remote for operation.
By extending the network to include a wi-fi PDA you loose any requirement to be in sight-range of the streaming device.

I am using these together to operate whole-house a/v systems where I need to get the iTunes to the equipment closet but it needs to be operated from each room in the house with speakers.

Without being able to use playlist features and see what the system(iTunes) status is this whole thing make little sense.

[The Wolf]

ausivdsvs, I was thinking something along the same lines as SlimServer. But, I don't think it is going to be AXP that utilizes the remote. In fact, I think that dollar for dollar AXP is currently a better value than the existing (and more expensive) ABS. So, I suspect that it is the next generation of ABS will incorporate some type of slimserver-remote control function, while AXP will not.

[OAW]

Originally posted by iPoder:
Ok, let me try to make sense about the IP-based remote control (direct control on iTunes) that everyone is talking about, and I will shut up.

First to say, the device is possible because all the technologies are available. But in order to make it work,

1) This device must have a wireless chip built in, and is also an IP-based device (knowing TCP/IP protocol)
2) This device must either get the IP from DHCP server (if exist), or be manually assigned to one.
3) This device must be able to talk to PC/MAC through wireless protocol with all possible authentication protocols supported
4) This device must be able to rendezvous the PC/MAC or the PC/MAC must be able to rendezvous this device (broadcasting is bad, security speaking)
5) This device must wake up from the power-saving mode to do the rendezvous dance (pairing)
6) This device must do the pairing again after its leased IP from DHCP is expired and renewed with a different IP
7) You must configure your AXP and firewall to allow the traffic to go through, and enables DHCP server if no IP is assigned to the device
8) This device must save all the configurations in the persistent memory (flash memory)
9) This device's battery must last long enough to be useful.
10) This device must not be outrageously expensive

Ok, I get it. IT CAN BE DONE!

I got to thinking about something here as a result of this thread and now I'm trying to put 2 and 2 together. I've bolded a particular section of your comments above that dealt with flash memory. Then I remembered all these stories running around about this industry analyst who is insisting that Apple is going to introduce a flash-based iPod.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/20.14.shtml

But what if this guy is only half-right? What he is right about Apple contracting with SigmaTel for a controller-chip but is wrong about what the device will be? What if that "flash-based player" is not an iPod but is in fact the AirTunes Remote?

If it turns out to be so you heard it hear first!

OAW

[jamesa]

Originally posted by jocker:
Yes this technically exists but transmits over bluetooth which is slow. The remote will communicate over TCP/IP and hence be 802.11g - mark my words.

Bluetooth doesn't need to be fast - we're talking about a remote control here. The most important factor is low battery consumption - something which 802.11g does not have. They may find a way around this (like only connecting when a command is issued) but bluetooth would allow a constant connection at a lower power output.

Only problem with that is, Airport Express doesn't have bluetooth, so you'd add that; maybe a USB dongle?

Also, why on earth would the apple remote communicate with airport express??? Airport Express simply outputs the sound received from the mac to speakers. The mac does all the heavy lifting.

Well, which of the two devices - the Mac, or the Airport Express - is guaranteed to be in the same room as the music?

I'll give you a hint - it ain't the mac. If the mac was in the same room, why not just run a cable round to the stereo and save yourself a few hundred $$$.

The Airport Express will communicate the commands of the remote control back to the Mac, but the remote wouldn't connect to the Mac directly. Wouldn't make sense.

You say it "will just pass the command along the network to the computer running iTunes". The remote will be ON the network, and hence airport express won't need to do anything.

The Airport express will be the one closest to the remote control... so even if the mac's in the same room, I'm betting Apple will just assume the best way to reach out is by connecting just to that. LOW POWER is going to be the key to this device.

Originally posted by Randman:
Apple doesn't want you to wirelessly control AirTunes. That would remove the need of a having a Macintosh computer.

Unless they ship an Airport Express or a remote with a 250GB hard drive and iTunes built in, I kinda doubt that's true.

-- james

[turtle777]

Originally posted by OAW:
I got to thinking about something here as a result of this thread and now I'm trying to put 2 and 2 together. I've bolded a particular section of your comments above that dealt with flash memory. Then I remembered all these stories running around about this industry analyst who is insisting that Apple is going to introduce a flash-based iPod.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2004/10/20.14.shtml

But what if this guy is only half-right? What he is right about Apple contracting with SigmaTel for a controller-chip but is wrong about what the device will be? What if that "flash-based player" is not an iPod but is in fact the AirTunes Remote?

If it turns out to be so you heard it hear first!

OAW

Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
How much Flash memory would you need to store some settings ?
1 MB ? 2MB ?

Any tech-analyst who does not discern the differences here is worth nothing. I don't think that anyone who makes his living with these kind of research would mistake the clues to a remote that uses a flash memory to store settings with a flash-based iPod.

-t

[OAW]

Originally posted by turtle777:
Your reasoning doesn't make sense.
How much Flash memory would you need to store some settings ?
1 MB ? 2MB ?

Any tech-analyst who does not discern the differences here is worth nothing. I don't think that anyone who makes his living with these kind of research would mistake the clues to a remote that uses a flash memory to store settings with a flash-based iPod.

-t

Perhaps. But I don't recall anywhere in the article where it specified the amount of flash memory that would be used. It speaks about SigmaTel supplying the chip for a "flash based player". The analyst is predicting that this will be for an iPod. All I'm saying is that may not be the case. My reasoning is based upon the following:

1. The Airport Express needs a remote. Everyone knows it. Even Apple has acknowledged this. When asked about whether or not Apple was going to address this rather glaring shortcoming of the Airport Express Greg Joswiak agreed that it "would be a cool addition to Airport Express".

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/edit...ves/000212.php

2. From this AppleInsider article covering the Wall Street Journal's D: All Things Digital Conference ...

"When Jobs was demonstrating the new Airport Express, Walt Mossberg said that the biggest problem he saw was that users had to get up and walk to their computers to change play lists. [Steve] Jobs joked that walking was good, but when pressed, he smiled a wry smile. AppleInsider correspondents took this to mean that Apple is developing in this area, and the Airport Express is just a step along the way."

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=484

3. At the most recent press event where the iPod Photo and the U2 iPod was introduced, Steve Jobs again ridiculed flash-based music players as things that "people get as gifts and aren't even used."

Given these 3 reasons it is my view that the analyst is assuming that the SigmaTel is supplying a controller-chip for a flash-based iPod. Besides, the analysts (and me for that matter) could be wrong. He claimed that a flash-based iPod would be released for Christmas. Doesn't look like that's going to happen now that the recent iPod announcement has come and gone with no flash-based iPod in sight huh?

OAW

[jocker]

James from .au - I have to say that you are thinking very 'Dell' at the moment, and not very 'Apple'. I doubt very much that the remote control is going to be a forward/rewind/play/pause, I suspect it will be a lot 'cooler' than that.

I still can't believe that you think that it will be the Airport Express, as opposed to the mac, that will be remote controlled. And what's all this has to be in the same room rubbish? And as for a bluetooth dongle hanging out of the airport express - oh yes how in keeping with Apple's design traditions!

Listen to me - its an 'AIRTUNES REMOTE CONTROL' i.e. iTunes

Airport Express is simply providing a connection to your speaker, NOTHING MORE. Your mac will be the one which is being remote controlled, guaranteed. And battery life? It'll be rechargeable, just as your ipod is.

1) I'm ****ing glad that you don't work for Apple
2) no wonder you guys lost the Rugby World Cup to us
3) I wonder what 'exciting' and 'innovative' products we'd have if Johnathan Ives was an ozzie...
4) Your only decent export are the Minogue sisters.

[audvidsvs]

I am having a hard time understanding the reasoning here of many of us.
The Airport Express has no Tunes in it at all.It is not doing anything but relaying the computers MP3 collection via Wi-Fi. The notion that somehow the remote control would involve the AE just does not make sense for all of the reasons sited in the posts above.

Like I said,I am doing this right now with additional Wi-Fi PDA's that control the computer that serves the music stream. Nothing more,nothing less.

There are a variety of ways to control this but without being able to interact with the computer beyond just telling it to play or stop it is not all that useful.

I think Apple also knows this ,so I could see some type of Apple PDA with all of this built-in as well as PDA type stuff possibly.

It seems silly to devise a remote control only when all the components for a PDA would be required anyway. It also seems that the biggest market right now for Apple is clearly the one smallest most portable device they make.

They would be crazy not to combine what already works for them with another niche item and create a whole new paradigm,as they seem to be talented at.

Of course they rarely listen to my suggestions.

[subego]

Why is everyone being such an ass? Is this so hard to figure out?

Yes the remote will control iTunes, not the AXP. Even if the remote controls the AXP, the AXP will pass it along to iTunes. Either way, it's the same goddamn thing.

Yes the remote will connect via AXP. Why? Because it's already a freaking goddamn receiver. Even if it doesn't use wifi, it will still communicate with the AXP because that (wireless communication) is what the bloody thing is designed to do.

Sheesh.