Wireless iPod by mid 2006?

Sometimes the stars align such that we just can't help ourselves from speculating. As Mobile Content News points out, PortalPlayer, the company that makes the chipset used in the iPod with an estimated 90% of their 3rd quarter 2005 revenue coming from the iPod alone, is making big moves into wireless. Just last month they named Vodafone and Ericsson veteran Tomas Isaksson to their Board of Directors and then last week they announced their licensing of Sun's Java ME platform which moves Mobile Java content beyond devices such as cellphones and into next generation portable media players "expected to be released in the first half of 2006." Now we have an analyst over at Citigroup reminding us that PortalPlayer "wants to acquire a small private company with a wireless technology portfolio" and are "dedicating 2006 to building out wireless capabilities." So what does this all mean? Well, "wireless" and "iPod" could yield a Bluetooth 2.0 iPod finally axing the cable from the headphones, or a WiFi iPod which functions as a remote control and streaming data source to that new Mac mini with Front Row, or even the highly desired iPhone which seems almost a certainty in Apple's expanding device portfolio. But hey, we've still got all the Macworld Intel rumors to sort out to get too carried away by anything up to 6 months away…that's an eternity 'round here.

[Anawrahta @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

wiresless ipod soon please. the wires are strangling me

[Geqxon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I don't want to be some kind of Apple-basher, but common', think a little bit further. If Apple can only push out 2 hours of video out of there current iPod 30GB, how to hell are they gonna manage the power-inefficiency of 802.11b/g or bluetooth? Calculating on how my phone's battery is doing video and how its doing bluetooth, I'm gonna guess its gonna last for approximately 15 minutes.

[Jay @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I think they've already though about that one #1. I'm not too worried about Apple; they seem like the only technology company that does anything right. I would certainly buy one of these babies if they came out with it.

[JTB @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I don't want to have another battery-powered device!!! Wireless headphones are useless. Even rock stars who jiggle up and down on stage have ear-monitors wired to a receptor on their belt. It doesn't seem to bother them.

The concept of remote-controlling a mac mini via iPod is interesting, though. So is your "almost certainty" about the iPhone. It would simplify future dilemmas.

[richardun @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Apple is a branding, software company. It does hardware but not theoretical hardware.

Apple's greatest strength is design. You can't design around high power consumption. There's no magic wand. iPod Processors aren't high mghz stuff. It doesn't heat up, use too much power, and it still only offers 2 hrs. What Steve Jobs is excellent at, is GOOD decisions.

You may not see streaming video, but streaming audio fits in quite nicely. Especially as an addition to all lines, including the Shuffle.

[Shaun @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Bluetooth is just too power hungry to use as a remote. Especially when an IR remote is so small and cheap. I'm sure the next mac Mini will have an IR remote anyway, just like the current iMac.

Bluetooth headphones? come on - they're huge and need extra power. The cables serve a purpose - powering your headphones and stopping you from loosing your earbuds when they fall out. Plus you'll jut barely get sub-CD quality out of Bluetooth rates

The only thing bluetooth is useful for is for interfacing with your phone so that when it rings, your iPod is paused.

ps. the mobile Hotspot EVDO advert popup is bloody annoying, please rip them a new arsehole.

[Mark @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

To squeeze out all the juice for that the iPod might have pause from its fad diet and gain a little weight back. Some might call that being "fat." Ah, form and function clash once again and the universe is right :-p

[austinkennethlee @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I think that the remote could be used similar to a Sonos system (unless of course, they've patented it, which would be quite funny actually). Regardless, if it could remotely control the Mac Mini, I'd buy it.

[Pip @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Wireless isn't a technology we'll see in any portable device.

Bluetooth headphones? Can you imagine having to put batteries or recharging them every two hours? I'd rather strangle myself with headphones.

Wireless in an iPod is the dumbest idea i've heard of.

[Hawkman @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

#3 - "Bluetooth is just too power hungry to use as a remote."

Bluetooth 1, yeah. BT2 is a distinct possibility though, I suppose.

"Bluetooth headphones? come on - they're huge and need extra power. The cables serve a purpose."

Couldn't agree more. The option would be nice though. And wireless syncing with a computer, especially over 802.11, would seriously rock.

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Bluetooth is NOT power hungry; it was designed from the start to be a low power specification. It is on par with infrared (except that infrared generally is not used in long term situations, for obvious reasons). Bluetooth 2.0 is no more conservative than Bluetooth 1.x, in fact EDR is slightly _more_ power hungry.

Net result: headsets and headphones, both 1.x and 2.0, can be used for at least 6 to 8 hours before needing a recharge. This isn't the first time I've had to educate people, and unfortunately I'm sure it won't be the last.

[Doug DeJulio @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Know what I want? I want an iPod that is itself a bluetooth headset for phones.

The usage model: leave your bluetooth-enabled phone in your pocket, but use your iPod as if it were a Motorola ROKR, regardless of which phone you have. Dial people directly from your contact list, pause music on incoming call and use caller ID to bring up their contact list entry, and so forth.

I also really want J2ME on the thing, with the ability to use my phone's high speed data connection to get to the internet. There are a lot of little utility apps I could load on there.

[Daniel @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

This is a good step forward for the iPod, overdue and needes, by me at least. Wireless makes a lot more things possible.

[Hawkman @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Thanks for the condescending comment Richard, but you're actually incorrect I'm afraid.

BT2 uses less power than BT1.2 when transmitting similar quantities of data; that's one of the key advantages of BT2. http://www.bluetooth.com/news/sigreleases.asp?A=2&PID=1437&ARC=1&ofs=10

"Power hungry" is of course an entirely subjective assessment. The battery life in products such as mobile phones is noticeably diminished when BT is in use; sometimes by as much as 30-40% in my experience. I'd call that power-hungry, personally.

[Tray @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Don't see this happening anytime soon. See the Sept 20th article below. Jobs admits people don't want radio or bluetooth connectivity for their ipods. Sure bluetooth might be nice for some things; however, it has limitations.

http://hardware.silicon.com/storage/0,39024649,39152441,00.htm

[Tom @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Re: #13

Remember when Jobs said people didn't want video on their iPod. The feature set of the iPod will inevitably expand, its just a matter of time.

[Osiris @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Bah who cares about bluetooth, i want wifi!
Of course the ipod battery life would have to be improved vastly, but i would love to be able to connect it to my home network wirelessly to transfer music, or to be able to share music on the fly with other ipod wifi users.

Can't see it as much of a reality though, not with Apple's over protective prevention (that stop few) of copyrighted music.

Perhaps Creative will do it and take Apple's position.
After all, it wouldnt be Apple to blame for the transferring of copyrighted material, surely it would be the user?

[Geqxon @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

6 to 8 hours for a bluetooth headset is less than the battery-time of the iPod, meaning that you have to take 2 battery's in order to listin to your music until your iPod drops dead.

And Jay, stop it. We all know the current 15" Powerbook has scanlines, the Nano scratches like crazy and the original Mac Mini just didn't had enough RAM. Every company releases faulty products, even Apple.

[apeguero @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Power Hog, or, shall I say iPowerhog.

[Max @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I'm really not that bothered by headphone and USB cables. Longer video battery life before wireless, please.

Still, it would be funny in light of "less space than a nomad. no wireless. lame"

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Hawkman, I call BS. Marketing claims aside, I have yet to see a Bluetooth 2.0 chipset or product that uses significantly less power than the 1.2 equivalent. As for your significant battery losses with Bluetooth on: your phones are obviously misconfigured.

When active, mobile phones output 200 to 250 mW of continuous power (http://www.arpansa.gov.au/mph1.htm#mp). When idle, they output about 1 or 2 percent of that, which is 2 to 5 mW. Class 2 Bluetooth is capped at 2.5 mW. So in order for you to see that much of a decrease in battery life, your Bluetooth radio must be constantly active, even when you aren't using it. That is not the intended behavior of any wireless technology. The problem is not with Bluetooth, but with your apparently pathological use of it.

[John rock @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Bring on the Bluetooth!! Now I'll have to buy yet ANOTHER iPod. Thanks Apple.

[sdsdv10 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Richard,

I am certainly not as knowledgeable about Bluetooth specs as you are, but I do think for portable music players 2.5mW can be a lot of power draw. I couldn't find the output figures for the ipod, but the Philips HDD1630/17 6GB microdrive player(a player I was considering purchasing) the headphone output is 2x5mW. The specs also state is can play music for ~17 hours. If we assume, this is at half normal output (or 2x2.5mW), then continuous playing of music with Bluetooth headphones should decrease battery life by ~1/3 (or ~33%) from 17 hours to ~11-12 hours. From the forums I have been reading, many people would consider this unacceptable and as stated "a battery hog".

[d3 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I seriously doubt the iPhone, and have for a while, although I used to think, like a lot of people, that is was inevitable. That was before I read articles about how the industry works.

My bet is on wifi. That way, whenever you are in wifi range, you can buy songs from the iTunes store right on the iPod.

[James @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

well I'll be wanting to plug in my Shure e4c's anyway thanks!

[Richard @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

sdsdv10,

I have not been addressing the battery life issues with respect to the audio players, although I will do so below. My point has been that Bluetooth is not a power hog like (for example) Wi-Fi, and in reality tends to be comparable to IR.

Regarding battery life, I don't know how you calculated a loss by using Bluetooth, because 2.5 mW is actually less power than the 5 mW used by half-volume wired headphones... if that were the case, switching to Bluetooth would _extend_ play time! But that is not the case; the actual power draw of Bluetooth is more than just the radiated 2.5 mW. Last time I checked, Bluetooth cost about 100 mW to use (about 20 times more power than wired headphones). I don't what fraction of an average audio player's power is devoted to headphones, but I do know that it is much higher for flash players than for hard-drive players because of the extra power required to spin a hard drive (even a small one).

I don't know how much battery life would be impacted by using Bluetooth, but I do know that it is at least feasible for hard-drive based players. However, it will always reduce battery life when compared to wired headphones.

[jack @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

this is good news :) so we can throw cable :) ... make connectivity so simple

[Dylan Unutmaz @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

I bet all of you, that at macworld theyre going to reintroduce the video just with a built in fm transmitter and bluetooth. And front row to be released for all macs and the bluetooth in the ipod would work to be an apple remote for frontrow for all macs with bluetooth

[Nate MC @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Oh great does this mean that the menu will lag even more now when playing music?

The 5th gens responsiveness sucks when compared to the 4th gen, anyone ever have that issue with the 4th gen color screen iPods?

[sdsdv10 @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

Richard,

Thanks for the thoughtful response. I just not sure how any wireless could work in portable music player (I focus on DAP's because the iPOD was mentioned in the article title). Users expectations are just not in line with the necessary design compromises. They was sleek, light, thin player but with battery life >10-12 hours (at least that is what I gather from reading several DAP boards). I just don't see how this is possible with current battery technology (100mW for >10 hours is a lot of work for even the best LiON pack).

[Galley @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

But I've already got a 4GB AAC player with Wi-Fi, Bluetooth and a 320 x 480 screen! ;-)

[dan warriner @ Dec 19th 2005 2:06AM]

PLEEEASE IPHONE PLEEEEASE