[BuonRotto]

I could easily see a rocker on the side of FF, RW and even pause.

tori: the iPod will be an iPod, not a browser, phone or mail app, so no additional steps (save screen locking). The iPhone has trade-offs for being a multi-function device. With the iPod, even a touch-screen one, it's just one function: playback. So a big chunk of the problem is gone right there.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by kscherer Originally Posted by zippy I've decided to go out on a limb and predict that the MacBook Pro will be updated at this event. I am sure of it! Pretty sure, anyway. I'm pretty sure that what ever you're smokin' must be some good stuff!

I'm just trusting my sources, that's all.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by torifile iPods can't lose their physical buttons. Today I figured out one of my main gripes with the iPhone as iPod - I've to turn on the screen to start the music playing. I can't just hit "play" and be done with it. It's a multi-step process. iPods can't have this limitation.

Originally Posted by BuonRotto I could easily see a rocker on the side of FF, RW and even pause. tori: the iPod will be an iPod, not a browser, phone or mail app, so no additional steps (save screen locking). The iPhone has trade-offs for being a multi-function device. With the iPod, even a touch-screen one, it's just one function: playback. So a big chunk of the problem is gone right there.

But torifile is right on: a touch screen, and only a touch screen, even if the system software is stripped down from the iPhone, would utterly destroy the iPod. Lets put it this way: if this is in fact what happens, my next DAP would be (providing my iPhone hasn't replaced audio playback in every aspect of my life) a Sansa or a Zen. Here's why I *need* buttons on my primary DAP: in the car. I've tried using my iPhone in the car, it's impossible without looking at the screen for extended periods of time, which is extremely dangerous.

If my next car has A2DP built in and if an upcoming iPhone/iPhone software update brings A2DP to the iPhone, problem more-than-solved. I love my car and intend to keep it for another 4-6 years, but I would be willing to replace the head unit in the stereo for one with A2DP + HSP Bluetooth capability.

An acceptable solution would be 4 buttons across the bottom, where the home button on the iPhone is. Think 3G iPod. But lets also not forget that the iPod clickwheel has become nothing short of iconic. Eliminating the clickwheel is not a decision to be taken lightly, from both a usability and branding standpoint. Apple has to have a seriously awesome replacement for the clickwheel if they do intend to replace it, and no, lone multi-touch is not it.

If you're going to eliminate buttons from the unit itself, you will need a remote. But if Apple doesn't provide accessible, actual buttons that you can feel, Apple will have a Cube-caliber flop on their hands. I'm dead serious. A buttonless iPod would kill the iPod.

[BuonRotto]

How much of a struggle is a rocker or somesuch on the side? What's so different from that and your buttons?

[zippy]

I disagree (with the two posts above BuonRotto). I think you could easily program some common finger gestures to accomplish everything you need.

Any rotation clockwise = volume up.
Any rotation counterclockwise = volume down.
any swipe left to right = skip track.
any swipe right to left = skip back.
Any single tap = toggle play/pause.
Any double tap, or two-finger tap = Menu.


I think I've just covered all the physical buttons on the older iPods, and pretty much covered anything you'd realistically be able to do without looking at the unit anyway, and we've still got some pretty simple finger gestures left over; e.g. swipe top to bottom, swipe bottom to top.

Sounds like a piece of cake to me.

[BuonRotto]

trouble with the gestures is that the screen couldn't lock, but then again, it doesn't work anyway without actual fingers touching it (for all intents and purposes). So maybe gestures could work so long as the screen dims to prevent battery drain or something.

[zippy]

But that's no different than the existing ipods: touch sensitive, with a hardware lock switch.

[torifile]

No, zippy. You're not understanding.

Let me lay out my typical usage scenario:
1) I get in my car and start my iPhone/iPod
2) Get to my son's day care and pull the tape adapter out to pause the iPod playback.
3) Get back in the car and have to press the home button
4) Slide to unlock the screen.
5) Hit the play button

That's 3 steps, 2 of which, I have to be looking at the screen for. Even if I never exited the iPod application and all I want to do is continue playing where I left off, I have to do 2 more attention-requiring steps just to get the thing playing again. An iPod should just have step 3 - hit a button to play.

You may ask why I pull the tape adapter to pause. Well, it'd take just as many steps to pause the thing. Not good for ease of use.

[Bryson]

I don't get what you're saying, Torifile. Zippy isn't talking about the iPhone with the slide to unlock, home button and all that. He's talking about a hypothetical touchscreen iPod, gesture based. It's actually simpler than an existing iPod, because you don't even have to find the play/pause part of the touchwheel. Just tap once anywhere.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by torifile No, zippy. You're not understanding. Let me lay out my typical usage scenario: 1) I get in my car and start my iPhone/iPod 2) Get to my son's day care and pull the tape adapter out to pause the iPod playback. 3) Get back in the car and have to press the home button 4) Slide to unlock the screen. 5) Hit the play button That's 3 steps, 2 of which, I have to be looking at the screen for. Even if I never exited the iPod application and all I want to do is continue playing where I left off, I have to do 2 more attention-requiring steps just to get the thing playing again. An iPod should just have step 3 - hit a button to play. You may ask why I pull the tape adapter to pause. Well, it'd take just as many steps to pause the thing. Not good for ease of use.

If you would like to run this experiment for yourself, pick up an iPhone that is playing something. Your task: skip to the next song. Keep track of: number of button pushes/taps; number of times you had to look at the screen, and how long you looked at the screen in total.

Do the same thing on your iPod, and keep track of the same variables.

Now, ponder this: an $80 iPod shuffle handles basic audio playback better than a $500 iPhone. Navigating your music? Sure, the iPhone has a huge edge. But for basic playback controls, the single most important aspect of any DAP, the shuffle wins by a landslide.

This is why I like my little iPhone bluetooth remote idea so much. You get the straightforward, intuitive controls of a shuffle, and the capacity and ease of navigation of an iPhone.

The difference could mean life or death when you are driving. And swipes don't do it: Audio playback devices need physical buttons. Period, end of story.

[Bryson]

For the last time: Zippy is not talking about the iPhone. He's saying there are ways and means to do it with a full-screen interface. NOT the iPhone interface, a hypothetical different one.

And swipes don't do it: Audio playback devices need physical buttons. Period, end of story.

Because you say so? I think Zippy has comprehensively outlined why you're wrong on that point.

[Engine Joe]

Originally Posted by Kraetos If you would like to run this experiment for yourself, pick up an iPhone that is playing something. Your task: skip to the next song. Keep track of: number of button pushes/taps; number of times you had to look at the screen, and how long you looked at the screen in total.

One. Press the button on the earbuds that came with the iPhone.

Actually, I use the button on the Shure headphone adapter, but same difference. one button, one press.

Oh, and the iPhone stayed in my pocket, so no instances of looking at the screen for a total of 0:00.00 time looking at it.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Engine Joe One. Press the button on the earbuds that came with the iPhone. Actually, I use the button on the Shure headphone adapter, but same difference. one button, one press. Oh, and the iPhone stayed in my pocket, so no instances of looking at the screen for a total of 0:00.00 time looking at it.

Okay, now go back a song. Or, use it in a car. Or, change the volume.

[Engine Joe]

Change the volume is easy: press rocker through pocket up or down. The other are two much more complex. I'm not advocating the iPhone interface on an iPod, though. I'm merely pointing out that your example sucks.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by zippy But that's no different than the existing ipods: touch sensitive, with a hardware lock switch.

But the existing iPod isn't purely touch sensitive. It has clickable buttons, and a noticable groove and change of texture where the face ends and the controls begin. You can go back, forward, pause, volume up, and volume down on an iPod without looking at it, and with any headphones or car adaptor you please. This is superior to any touch-only interface.

Originally Posted by Bryson For the last time: Zippy is not talking about the iPhone. He's saying there are ways and means to do it with a full-screen interface. NOT the iPhone interface, a hypothetical different one. Because you say so? I think Zippy has comprehensively outlined why you're wrong on that point.

But he's talking about a hypothetical iPod interface that relies exclusively on multi-touch controls, and I have comprehensively outlined exactly why that would be a giant step backwards.

If I've misunderstood and you are talking about some sort of hybrid buttons + touchscreen interface, than I apologize for misunderstanding and I 100% agree.

[Kraetos]

Originally Posted by Engine Joe Change the volume is easy: press rocker through pocket up or down. The other are two much more complex. I'm not advocating the iPhone interface on an iPod, though. I'm merely pointing out that your example sucks.

But the rocker is tiny compared to the massive wheel the iPod provides you with. My point is simply this: the iPod's basic playback interface is far more usable than the iPhone's when it comes to tactile control. On a hybrid device like an iPhone that does multiple things, it's arguably fine to give a little leeway, especially for a 1.0 device. On an iPod, the sole function of which is to play back media, it's not fine to let inferiority slide.

[Bryson]

You can go back, forward, pause, volume up, and volume down on an iPod without looking at it,

And you can do the same with Zippy's suggested interface, too. In fact, you don't need to even be "in the right place". It's the "virtual clickwheel" that people were discussing.

You seem to have decided that iPhone iPod interface = bad (and I agree there) therefore all touchscreen interface must = bad. And you're wrong. You keep saying "but you have to look at the device". With what Zippy is suggesting, no you don't. Not at all. Less so even than on a current iPod. Do you not see that?

Yes, on a touchscreen you can't "feel" where the buttons are. That's because they are everywhere. You don't need tactile feedback if everywhere is the right place.

It's all irrelevant anyway, but the point is, there is a way to do it with a Touchscreen that works. And knowing Apple, they'll have some super-duper extra twist that makes it even better. Maybe some kind of haptics to give the sensation of touching a button that isn't really there? I dunno.

[kscherer]

Apple isn't thinking about an iPod that is in your pocket, because Apple wants your iPod to be seen; out in the open; shown off. Thus, their software engineers aren't thinking about controlling it in your pocket (from its own interface). So those points are mute.

However, I do believe that a touch interface has more potential for blind control than anything else ever imagined. With the right software, and the right thinking, it could be made in such a manner to deliver the simplest blind iPod control ever!

However, will Apple actually be thinking this, considering what I said in my first paragraph? Doubtful!

And, no, a touch interface will not kill the iPod. The concept is so cool that Apple will sell one to almost every existing iPod user. Another 100 million units will fly away in the next 2-3 years. It is the interface that almost everyone has been drooling over (one need only look back through this forum to understand that!) and there will be a huge demand for them. So much so that they will sell on eBay for twice their retail price. Mark my words.

Another lame "click wheel" upgrade will be followed with stagnant "already been there" sales figures, regardless of what OS is driving it.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Bryson Yes, on a touchscreen you can't "feel" where the buttons are. That's because they are everywhere. You don't need tactile feedback if everywhere is the right place.

Sorry, I have less than an hour of playtime with an iPhone, so maybe I'm overlooking an obvious point. But it seems like the single tap already has a very important function in the iPhone... it selects whatever you tapped. So if you tap at random, you're going to end up selecting stuff at random.

Perhaps somebody with more iPhone time can set me straight on this. But count me with those that would rather have the Nano (even if it's as ugly as projected) than an iPod without tactile feedback. That was what set the iPod apart in the first place.

[Bryson]

..But it doesn't have to on a hypothetical iPod, see? Or at least, not in the right "mode" maybe.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by kscherer Apple isn't thinking about an iPod that is in your pocket, because Apple wants your iPod to be seen; out in the open; shown off. Thus, their software engineers aren't thinking about controlling it in your pocket (from its own interface). So those points are mute.

First off, if Apple's engineers are actually thinking that I'm supposed to keep my DAP out in the open instead of putting it in my pocket, then they're morons. I've already had one stolen, I'm not rushed to have that happen again.

Second, you mean "moot." Not "mute."

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by Bryson ..But it doesn't have to on a hypothetical iPod, see?

If you're replying to me, then Apple's engineers are even stupider than I implied. Because if they release a multi-touch device that doesn't select something when you point at it, then they've just neutered the entire concept of multitouch. You're back to pre-Newton interfaces.

And if it's about switching modes, then you're back to the problem everybody else has been pointing out... you'll have to pick it up to switch modes before using any controls, which (once again) makes it less useful than the original ipod.

[zippy]

Sorry I've been absent on all this back and forth, I had a bunch of errands to do after work and picking up kids.

Let's start by identifying what controls are *really* doable without looking at an existing iPod.
-Play
-Pause
-Volume Up
-Volume Down
-Skip Forward
-Skip Backward

That's really about it. For anything else - selecting a specific song, navigating through the menu, changing settings, watching videos, browsing photos, changing the rating, etc.. - you really need to look at the device.

So torifile, in your example, and using my proposed controls, all you'd have to do to pause the device is tap it - anywhere on the screen. When you get back, tap it again - anywhere on the screen. What could possibly be faster or easier? It's almost like hitting the current play, pause button on the iPod, except that you don't even have to look or feel where it is.

If it's sitting in a center console, on the seat next to you, or in some kind of mount, all you have to do is slide your finger across it to skip tracks - but you can slide it anywhere as long as your motion is generally left-right or right-left. Again, you don't have to look at it, or feel around for the wheel. It's actually faster and easier than the click wheel.

As for the 'lock' I was referring to, it's the same as the existing lock switch on all the current iPods. It's there if you want to make absolutely sure that nothing will get pressed while the unit is in your pocket.

The only possible problem I see with it is that it might be a 'little cramped' inside jean pockets, but I'd bet they could even make it sensitive to touch through the fabric. Jacket, or baggy pant pockets would be fairly easy. You would need to know which way the device was oriented for skipping tracks, buy that isn't too hard if you've got some headphones plugged into it - you can very quickly feel where the cord is coming out. And even more simply - just remember how you put it into the pocket to begin with. I'll guarantee you that even if you don't realize it, you probably put something like this in your pocket the exact same way every time - you just need to realize which way that is. Once it's in there, it's not likely to move around.

And of course any kind of headphone that has clickable controls - like the iPhone headphones - can help make it easier still.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Anthem First off, if Apple's engineers are actually thinking that I'm supposed to keep my DAP out in the open instead of putting it in my pocket, then they're morons. I've already had one stolen, I'm not rushed to have that happen again.

You keep referencing DAP (Digital Audio Player, I assume). I'm curious if you don't like "iPod" or don't own one? Not attacking, just curious. So no anger stuff!

Originally Posted by Anthem Second, you mean "moot." Not "mute."

Yeah, that thing! Although "mute" would work if everyone was speechless…

Originally Posted by Anthem If you're replying to me, then Apple's engineers are even stupider than I implied. Because if they release a multi-touch device that doesn't select something when you point at it, then they've just neutered the entire concept of multitouch. You're back to pre-Newton interfaces. And if it's about switching modes, then you're back to the problem everybody else has been pointing out... you'll have to pick it up to switch modes before using any controls, which (once again) makes it less useful than the original ipod.

It's always fun watching the debate prior to the big event, as none of us really has a clue what Apple might be up to. Give them a chance. We might all be presently surprised.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by Anthem Sorry, I have less than an hour of playtime with an iPhone, so maybe I'm overlooking an obvious point. But it seems like the single tap already has a very important function in the iPhone... it selects whatever you tapped. So if you tap at random, you're going to end up selecting stuff at random. Perhaps somebody with more iPhone time can set me straight on this. But count me with those that would rather have the Nano (even if it's as ugly as projected) than an iPod without tactile feedback. That was what set the iPod apart in the first place.

Sure, but this is a 'smart' interface. Meaning that it will understand the context of what you are doing at the time to determine what you are trying to do. When you are scrolling through items like albums or songs, and you tap on them, it will start playing that selection. When something is already playing and you tap on it, it will pause. When it is already paused and you tap on it, it will resume playing, etc..

Think of the Front Row remote. While you are navigating the menus, pressing up or down helps to navigate. But once you are watching or listening to something, pressing up and down now control the volume.

You could argue that it would be harder to understand than the existing iPod clickwheel, and as such it would be counter to one of the iPods strongest selling points - ease of use. And that may be true, but I'm not too sure. The could provide some on-screen helpers for people who are just starting out, and once you get the hang of it, they can be turned off, or if they aren't very obtrusive, simply ignore them.

[BuonRotto]

not much more point in trying to explain what we don't know yet. We'll see what apple has and how they implant whatever it is on Tuesday.

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by kscherer You keep referencing DAP (Digital Audio Player, I assume). I'm curious if you don't like "iPod" or don't own one? Not attacking, just curious.

"Keep"? That's the first time I've done it... you're confusing me with Kraetos, which I suppose isn't a bad thing. As long as you don't think I'm chucker, I know I'm not too antisocial.

I'm currently without an iPod, since mine was stolen out of my car console last month. These days I use my wife's when I'm at home, but she doesn't let me take it in the car (go figure). I'll be getting something with a new iMac after Sept 5. I'd hoped for a good iPod, but if it's a touchscreen I'll probably go with a Nano.

[chris e boy]

Originally Posted by BuonRotto not much more point in trying to explain what we don't know yet. We'll see what apple has and how they implant whatever it is on Tuesday.

You mean Wednesday

I'd like to add that even though I would love to see a full screen - touch screen ipod, I also agree with you guys about how to use it without looking. This is important to me because I use mine an awful lot in the car. What nobody has suggested yet though (and i actually think it's a terrible idea) is having a full screen on the front of the iPod and the click wheel on the back or side. Obviously the click wheel we know and love would be unsuitable for this but those engineers slaving underneath Johnathan Ive are clever guys and must be able to come up with something that works.

Im sure we will get our full screen iPod, touchscreen or not. I'm also sure that whatever interface is included it will be both useable and sexy, like most of Apple's other UI designs.

[Gizzer]

Personally I like the idea of this adaptive interface.

In my mind, here's how it would work:

When out in the open, the iPod functions as the iPhone iPod - ie, you have to look at the screen and press the onscreen buttons in the correct place to operate it just as the iPhone currently does now. I'll call this "iPhone Mode" to make it simple to imagine.

When you put the iPod in your pocket, a proximity sensor (same as iPhone's) knows that the iPod is in a pocket (because it's just gone dark!) so it switches modes to "Pocket Mode": The screen goes off BUT the touch sensitive element still remains active. In this mode tapping the screen or using any of the gestures mentioned above ANYWHERE on the screen will operate the iPod as expected.

When you take the iPod out of your pocket, it REMAINS in Pocket Mode until you perform a gesture that switches the screen on again and places the iPod back into normal iPhone Mode. If you are in a car, there could even be an on screen button that puts it into "Car Mode" so that from that point on it's easy to operate whilst you are driving. In Car Mode, the screen is actually on but it just displays the current track full screen. In this mode it is controlled purely by the gestures outlined above, ie you can touch any part of the screen to operate it.

To my mind, this would keep all of the people happy, all of the time.

Well, me anyway

[chris e boy]

Originally Posted by Gizzer Personally I like the idea of this adaptive interface. In my mind, here's how it would work: When out in the open, the iPod functions as the iPhone iPod - ie, you have to look at the screen and press the onscreen buttons in the correct place to operate it just as the iPhone currently does now. I'll call this "iPhone Mode" to make it simple to imagine. When you put the iPod in your pocket, a proximity sensor (same as iPhone's) knows that the iPod is in a pocket (because it's just gone dark!) so it switches modes to "Pocket Mode": The screen goes off BUT the touch sensitive element still remains active. In this mode tapping the screen or using any of the gestures mentioned above ANYWHERE on the screen will operate the iPod as expected. When you take the iPod out of your pocket, it REMAINS in Pocket Mode until you perform a gesture that switches the screen on again and places the iPod back into normal iPhone Mode. If you are in a car, there could even be an on screen button that puts it into "Car Mode" so that from that point on it's easy to operate whilst you are driving. In Car Mode, the screen is actually on but it just displays the current track full screen. In this mode it is controlled purely by the gestures outlined above, ie you can touch any part of the screen to operate it. To my mind, this would keep all of the people happy, all of the time. Well, me anyway

I approve. Great idea.