Mix: iPodderX, Standard port, Top picks, Wal-Mart | iLounge News

News

Mix: iPodderX, Standard port, Top picks, Wal-Mart

The developers of iPodderX, the popular podcast application for Mac and Windows, are holding a contest to come up with a new name for the software. Over $1,500 in prizes will be awarded to the top three people who submit a possible name.

CNET News.com reports: “Hoping to loosen Apple’s grip on the digital music player market, Microsoft is rallying consumer electronics companies to form a common link. The software maker is part of a working group launched last week by the Consumer Electronics Association to develop a standard port for connecting gadgets like music players to audio systems in homes and cars.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an article on iPod accessories with iLounge Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Horwitz’s top picks.

Commenting on the lack of iPods at Wal-Mart stores last year, a company executive said they were in a “philosophical argument” with Apple CEO Steve Jobs over whether the iPod should play songs from other music stores. “He won, we lost. Now we have nanos in the stores,” said Wal-Mart Senior VP and Treasurer Jay Fitzsimmons.

« PodGear offers black PocketParty for iPod nano

Flixpo offers free video content for iPod »

Related Stories

Comments

1

A standard port? Such a thing already exists: it’s called an auxiliary input plug.

Posted by Moe on November 30, 2005 at 10:01 AM (PDT)

2

How many standard ports do we need?  First there was Serial, then USB, USB2.

As for Audio…Yeah…as the above poster said, what is wrong with a 1/8th or 1/4th jack?  Serious, this is just more MS BS.

Posted by Cameron Talley on November 30, 2005 at 11:34 AM (PDT)

3

I think by standard port, they mean something identical to a dock connector, which would charge, sync with a pc and connect audio etc through it. I think, if its done well, its a great move for the industry. They need something like this to give accesory makers incentive to create products for anything other than an ipod. Everyone else needs this to compete with apple because they cant compete with their own innovations.

Posted by Mike Bayuk on November 30, 2005 at 11:48 AM (PDT)

4

Okay, I have no idea what this “philosphical arguement” ######## is.  Care to explain?

Posted by Anna on November 30, 2005 at 12:36 PM (PDT)

5

“How many standard ports do we need?  First there was Serial, then USB, USB2.”

Cameron, you can’t be serious.  This is akin to saying “First we moved at 19 kilobits per second.  Then we moved at 11 megabits per second.  Now we’re moving at 500, where will the madness of increased speed and flexibility end?”

Furthermore, having a CONNECTOR doesn’t start to solve this problem, which is one of protocol.  Fine, we have our device plugged into a stereo.  Now, what sequence of bits do we pass to tell it we want to hear a different song?  How do we ask it what songs are available, and how do we handle requests to change song info?  What does all this information look like…and how do we handle mistakes?  iPods offer a unified way to answer all these questions, not just through the connector, but through sync modes with reliable APIs and strong documentation.

A unified device API and connector would indeed go a long way to dislodging Apple’s reign at the top.  And if it worked, I bet it wouldn’t take long for Apple to adopt that standard themselves.

As for that “philosophical argument:” read between the lines, Anna.  This time last year, iTunes’ success was not assured.  Wal*Mart was marketing their own $.69 music store real hard.  They threw their weight at Steve Jobs and tried to strong arm him into supporting their files on the iPod, armed with the common wisdom that saying no to Wal*Mart is certain death.  As it always does with Steve, reality was distorted.  And for the first time I’ve ever heard of, Wal*Mart had to capitulate to a vendor.

Is it any wonder vendors hate AAPL?  They just don’t play by the rules!

Posted by dasmegabyte on November 30, 2005 at 12:54 PM (PDT)

6

About time a company stood up to Wal-Mart.

Posted by Bryce on December 1, 2005 at 12:11 AM (PDT)

7

Yes, in retrospect, that was a bad analogy.  However, my point was I wish companies would use what is available.  Firewire 800/400 or USB 2.0 would be perfectly capable of what it appears they want it to do.  Why not just have this connector on the device?  Heck, Apple themselves did this on the First and Second gen iPod…. And for the cries of “it would take up too much room,” there’s always Mini USB plugs, which are becoming standard in such devices anyway.

Also, I understand the point about the protocol, but the article seemed to be talking only of the physical docking connector.  The protocal, in this case, would almost certainly be what MS has already developed: the “Plays for Sure” junk and all that jazz.

Posted by Cameron Talley on December 1, 2005 at 12:14 AM (PDT)

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter

Email:

iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy