Do you think it would ever be possible to add codec support to iPod FW?

[bangraman]

I've been keeping a close watch on Rockbox development on both iRiver and iPod. I must say that neither interests me too much once I take my geek hat off and put on my 'just listening' hat on. The iPod port, and the way it's going is definitely a turn-off in that it attempts to turn the iPod into an iRiver... But I realise for the people who miss the point of iTunes/iPod, it's an alternative, and probably a superior one from their point of view.


However, the implementation of FLAC and the extensible codec architecture on the iPod Rockbox implementation got me thinking: Is there any way at all of adding codec support to the iPod firmware itself? FLAC support in iTunes/iPod would be good, as would (to a lesser extent for me) Ogg. I don't actually need FLAC for the iPod as I think it's more than I need, it's just that it would make life easier once I complete my CD rips in FLAC.

 

[FaBoLoUsRmX]

I wonder the same question....

 

[nikongod]

microsoft has been asking apple to add wma forever.

to be sure, flac (a reltaively obsucre format) is far down their list of priorities.

 

[davidd]

It should be possible for Apple to do and something that they should do,
from apple's tech specs for the ipod page: Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats

I think it would be great if iTunes/iPod supported FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, or preferably Wavpack.

 

[CookieFactory]

Other than Apple doing it (unlikely), the answer would be No.
Honestly the iPod/iTunes integration isn't really all that impressive; it just seems that way because everything else is just that bad.
As someone from a computer engineering background, the Apple firmware is the epitome of mediocrity in the absolute sense, although I can see how the "layman" might find it impressive.

 

[Mano]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CookieFactory Honestly the iPod/iTunes integration isn't really all that impressive; it just seems that way because everything else is just that bad.

You just did another version of the old half full/half empty glass of water

I agree in that it could be better, but if compared to the others its better, you would likely want to keep it, not discard it.

Im not saying that they shouldnt get it better either nor that it wouldnt be viable for other entity to make a better one, but in the meantime....

 

[bangraman]

That is in fact the surprise. It's very surprising that no-one else seems to have cottoned onto the logic that drove the development of the iTunes/iPod integration and the 'usage workflow'. As you say Cookiefactory it's not rocket science once you see how it works but everyone else seems to be relatively clueless, including the former biggest fish in this pond.

 

[austonia]

you'd need acccess to the iPod's source code to add a codec. zero chance of that outside of Apple.

about your comment, "Rockbox tries to turn an iPod into an iRiver" .. i think you have the wrong idea. Rockbox is its own entity. The whole reason it exists is because the programmers at Archos, iRiver, etc couldn't do a decent job on thier own. Good hardware, lousy firmware.

 

[Duncan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidd It should be possible for Apple to do and something that they should do, from apple's tech specs for the ipod page: Upgradable firmware enables support for future audio formats I think it would be great if iTunes/iPod supported FLAC, Ogg Vorbis, or preferably Wavpack.

Certainly true of the 2G, it did not originaly support ALAC, but with one of the firmware updates - suddenly it did.

So, Yes.

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by austonia you'd need acccess to the iPod's source code to add a codec. zero chance of that outside of Apple.

Quite. The only way anything gets changed in the *Apple* firmware for the iPod is if Apple does it. There is no other option.

Quote:

Originally Posted by austonia about your comment, "Rockbox tries to turn an iPod into an iRiver" .. i think you have the wrong idea. Rockbox is its own entity.

Agree 100%. Running Rockbox on an iPod is no different than running Linux on an x86 computer instead of Windows. Same hardware platform, two different operating systems. Choose the one that best fits your needs.

 

[sumguy_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel Agree 100%. Running Rockbox on an iPod is no different than running Linux on an x86 computer instead of Windows. Same hardware platform, two different operating systems. Choose the one that best fits your needs.

In my interpretation, he saw the iPods (edit: RELATIVE) simplicity diminished in favour of bells and whistles similar to that of iRiver machines (pre OR post Rockbox).

 

[swmtnbiker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sumguy_ In my interpretation, he saw the iPods (edit: RELATIVE) simplicity diminished in favour of bells and whistles similar to that of iRiver machines (pre OR post Rockbox).

Could be, but the "bells and whistles" are part of the OS (Rockbox), not the DAP (iRiver). Perhaps Rockbox was designed to be functionally similiar to iRiver firmware since that's the first hardware platform it was developed for. Maybe as Rockbox for the iPod matures and evolves it will take on more of the Apple UI's characteristics, which is after all one of it's strong points. It's still very early in the development cycle so lots of stuff can (and probably will) happen.

 

[bangraman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel Quite. The only way anything gets changed in the *Apple* firmware for the iPod is if Apple does it. There is no other option. Agree 100%. Running Rockbox on an iPod is no different than running Linux on an x86 computer instead of Windows. Same hardware platform, two different operating systems. Choose the one that best fits your needs.

Obviously it gives you an additional option. By 'turning into an iRiver' what I mean is that Rockbox's very "traditional" and not really thought out approach to overall usability basically turns the iPod's Rockbox implementation into something that you can achieve with any other player. In fact, it's more limiting on the iPod because of the way it's control hardware is arranged.


It would be good if they use the iPod port as a springboard to improve Rockbox's usability. Clearly they have enough people with the will and the means to develop quickly. However I doubt it will happen happen in a hurry because of the sort of people driving development and feature set right now. What I hope (and I'm not holding my breath) is that influx of Apple users with fresh ideas on how user interfaces and PC integration should work can overhaul Rockbox to be a genuine improvement on the iPod FW as an everyday DAP. The pieces in the puzzle exist. I laud the work done on Rockbox for the iPod, but it doesn't interest me beyond curiousity for the reason that I put in the first paragraph.

 

[Oga]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod microsoft has been asking apple to add wma forever. to be sure, flac (a reltaively obsucre format) is far down their list of priorities.

FLAC is actually the broadest supported lossless format on portables. You'd be better of to ask why Apple felt it necesary to invent their own proprietary lossless format.

Which is why people end up doing thins like Rockbox.

 

[K2Grey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dpippel Could be, but the "bells and whistles" are part of the OS (Rockbox), not the DAP (iRiver). Perhaps Rockbox was designed to be functionally similiar to iRiver firmware since that's the first hardware platform it was developed for.

I believe it was first developed for Archos players, actually.