Slashdot Mirror
The Guts Of An iPod
The Infamous Grimace writes: "The folks at
this Japanese web site
have provided pics of the inside of an iPod. A quick breakdown of it in English is
here. The FireWire contoller appears to be
TIs TSB43AA82, the chip is PortalPlayers PP5002B
w/ an ARM7TDMI-based core. Apparently it has encoding abilities as well. The hard-drive is Toshiba's MK5002MAL."
Because I wasn't about to waste my money by tearing my iPod apart.
Can it run Linux? Can you imagine *smack*smack*smack*
Sorry.
I don't know how it is in Japan, but in Korea there are people who will pay up to 10x what an electronic item is worth just to study the design and create knockoffs. Many US Army soldiers are bribed to buy electronics from the PX and sell them to the koreans who do this. I am wondering if this is something similar...
Yea, because people are FORCED to upgrade everytime a patch is allowed.
And I'm sure apple will be very sad if you crush the mp3 player that YOU PAYED FOR.
--T
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
The iPod copying limitations are not really restrictions, but rather just hiding the actual MP3 files. The MP3's can be accessed thru the command line in OS X or thru a number of graphical third party utilities, a process outlined in this Mac Observer article.
Some more interesting (?) discussion about the iPod's internals and copy protection is over at a similar article on MacSlash.
I'm getting an iPod myself, but not till January when hopefully they'll drop in price a bit when Apple announces their next line of products.
I'm *glad* Apple doesn't restrict itself to only in-house designs. They *can* and *do* use products designed elsewhere if it can offer them a competitive advantage...
Lucent 802.11b cards, AMD based base stations, and not Portal designed mp3 player and UI by Pixo.
Now if they can only work together with AMD and NVIDIA to introduce a new low cost entry level Mac ($500 range) and use DAISY type runtime optimzation and recompilation in the OS to make it hardware agnostic...
GPL Deconstructed
I followed the link to Toshiba site. They will sell me the 5 GB little hard drive for $399 retail. Apple will sell me a complete iPod for $399.
:-)
If anyone wants the Toshiba drive, they should buy an iPod and rip it apart. This gives them the drive, PLUS you get a battery, various ICs, an LCD display, and some decent earbuds
Guess Apple's price for the iPod isn't really a rip off.
-- Olentangy
Too bad Apple sold its shares in ARM... They purchased them when the Newton used ARM chips and then sold most of the investment about a year ago. I thought it was a mistake at the time - but Apple could probably purchase the entire company now for what it made selling the shares last year.
== Paul Rickard, Editor of The Microsoft Boycott Campaign ====
It's Lithium-Polymier (SP) battery, the cool thing about this kind of battery when you compare with other types out in the market is that you can shape it into ANY size so you you can make it really really thin. I don't think it offers better performance than lithium ion though. Following devices that I know of are using this type of battery iPAQ, m505, CLIE, HP's New PocketPC and probably other handheld devices.
kawai
I have to laugh every time i hear someone in Slashdot forums or the media talk about how Apple's killing themselves by making the iPod Mac-only. True, they ARE limiting their market to less than 5% of computer owners, but there's one thing no one seems to get:
... for the average user, that's just not true any more. The Windows 98/ME/2000/XP experience ain't so bad. So Apple needs a new compelling reason to make users buy their products.
... Mac OS X's UNIX roots offer some unique features, and tight integration with iTools is great. Apple's future strategy is to make a Mac a "digital hub" ... to sell lots of little electronic gadgets for home users with a Mac at their center. Apple's key technologies (early 802.11 adoption, FireWire) are uniquely suited to tying together digital devices.
... it just amounts to more people shouting out "here's something you can only do on a Mac."
Apple didn't create the iPod to sell iPods. They created it to sell Macs.
Interface used to be a compelling reason to pick a Mac over a Wintel box--the Mac OS was just THAT much better. Say what you want about Windows
In short, they need to offer things that you can ONLY do on a Mac. They've already done a few of these things
In short, every columnist and reviewer who criticizes Apple for making iPod Mac-only is just doing their work for them. That kind of criticism is EXACTLY what Apple needs right now
Plus, the iPod is all shiny. I like shiny.
When the iPod first came out, it was decried as yet another soon-to-be-discontinued Apple experiment. It was called over-priced and under-valued. Many were the posts that blasted it as too niche for even Apples niche market. Now, suddenly, we hear people asking for a Windows version of iTunes, and can it run Linux (or BSD). We hear that the drive it uses retails for the same as the iPod itself. The iPod may in fact be the breakthrough that Jobs claims it is (ok, maybe not, but closer than people thought it was a week ago). Here's why -
Anyone who may have been considering purchasing a Toshiba MK5002MAL will now give MUCH greater consideration to buying an iPod instead. I know it's not as easy to switch out as a 'true' PCMCIA device, but even if you don't have a Mac, you can still use it as a FW drive. This will drive sales up considerably - there is a market for it outside the Mac world even without iTunes and its MP3 capabilities. And how long before someone hacks it, makes it work with other OSes.
Know what I think? I think Apple SHOULD release a Windows version of iTunes, and CHARGE FOR IT! How long have Mac users had to pay extra to play with Windows? VPC, SoftWindows, Orange Micro PCI adapter cards, MacLink, the list goes on. Well, you know what, Windows users? If you want the ease, the function, and yes, the glitz and shiny baubles, then BUY APPLE! Or else commence hacking...
In addition, one easter egg has already been discovered - the game Breakout! is hidden within. MacAddict reports on it, as does MacityNet. Who knows what other goodies lurk within, or that Apple will release for it. I, for one, do not believe that an MP3 player is all that Apple has planned for it. We've had a few pleasant surprises since it's previewing, who knows what will happen once it's released to the general public. I, for one, want one VERY much.
Santa? I've been a REAL good boy this year, I swear...
(tig)
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand
I was in an SDMI meeting when that is precisely what was proposed. The drop dead codes would be encoded into CDs. The first time that the MP3 player saw the drop dead code it would set a switch so that it would only accept SDMI encoded MP3 files.
That was the first and last meeting with those loonies that I attended. The basic idea that they had was that I would spend several million dollars building security technology for them and they would pay me $0.10 per player until the royalties reached a certain point when they would buy my interest out completely for about $100K.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
First, of course, you need mount the thing. The documented way to enable Firewire disk mode is through the configuration UI in iTunes, but this TIL article has instructions on how to set Firewire mode manually. Finally you'll need to get it to work with the Linux IEEE1394 drivers. Most Firewire hard drives are already supported, so it may work out of the box. Go to the Linux1394 pages for more information.
Better yet, how about software Guts?
If Windows could read HFS+ hard drives with firewire without the 3rd party software, you could just plug it in and upload whatever you wanted.
All the music files are in an invisible folder at the root level of the drive. Very easy to copy. I don't know about adding files that way, there may be a playlist that needs to be updated as well...
PC-clone makers don't need to do any of this. They just buy commodity parts, assemble them, and the most expensive component they have is Windows. For consumer machines, their goal is to have the biggest MHz number and CD/DVD speed rating.
Part could be they tend to use high quality parts (e.g. the monitor on the iMac may be small but it has far less edge distortion then the small monitors I see at CompUSA, and better color then most of them). They could get away from that by making a "craptastic" Mac, but would it help them to convince people that Mac's are better by selling them something bad? (Note: many people already think this about the iMac, or about leaving SCSI for IDE, or...still one has to admit that many parts of the iMacs are not the cheap parts that the "value" PCs use)
Part of it may be they have to spread the design costs over a smaller number of sales. It costs X dollars to make a new motherboard chipset. If you take Apple's claim of 5% market share as fact, then a PC part has the potential of having 20 times as many people to spread the design costs and other NREs over then a Mac part. So the "northbridge" is going to have a lot more cost charged to each buyer then one from SiS. They can combat that a little by only having a few different parts there (say one for the whole iMac line, maybe shared with the iBook, one for the 1st gen TiBook, one for the 2nd gen TiBook and the G4's...), the PC market's five or so chip makers still have more people to spread the NREs over... There are also NREs for each machine. Again Apple can make that hurt a little less by only having four lines of machine and only 2, 3, or 4 in each line vs. the N bizzilian PCs, it still hurts a bit.
Apple also has to pay more for quality control. They make a fairly wide array of products, and they all have to work together because they can't point their fingers at as many other people. If you buy an HP PC and it sucks, when you call they can point their finger at the maker of the app (most bundled Apps on a PC are not made by the PC maker, Apple tends to ship largely their own software, or software branded as theirs), failing that they can point their finger at Microsoft (or wash their hands of you if you have Linux), Apple can only blame themselves for the OS...
Apple also seems to do more research then most places, and that costs. It also pays though.
Lastly, Apple has higher profit margins then PC makers (except in the server market). It makes sense to me for them to trim those to the bone on the low end iMac, but who knows if they do.
They got me to switch. I didn't really like OS 9 (it seemed to limiting and a lot of the features seemed "tacked on"), but OS X is phenomenal. Sure the Mac was more expensive than another x86 box, but I don't regret the purchase one bit. I was skeptical, but I know honestly believe this is one of those time that you get what you pay for.
OS X has been making some really impressive inroads in to the Windows camp. Many tech columnists who have been anti-Mac forever have actually been saying that OS X trumps Windows XP. That's really impressive.
The iPod, of course, is only the first step. It's quite obvious from this story that the iPod has more capabilities than Apple is enabling at this point. I predict that they're eventually going to roll out a lot more "digital devices" in the future. Sure similar things will on the PC side, but the ease and integration of the future "iPods" will be the real draw.
Apple has a good solid business plan, healthy gross margins and a strategy. I really think that OSX, the future iPods, the retail stores and the attention to detail and integration are going to bring some very impressive returns for Apple in the near future. They'll never have 95% market share, but if one in every ten home computers is a Macintosh, that will all the critical mass they'll need.
But I digress. Apple has screwed up a lot in the past, but this is not the same Apple they used to be. If they can convert an old time Mac-hater like me, I have a lot of faith in their future.
- j