"How AirTunes Works"

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/archives/000212.php' target='_blank'>http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/archives/000212.php</a><br /><br /></div>"Essentially, AirTunes is a method of creating remote speakers for a copy of iTunes, and sending data to those remote speakers via a wireless network. That network can be formed by connecting an AirPort Express to another AirPort Express, to an AirPort Extreme Base Station, or even to a non-apple 802.11b or 802.11g access point.<br /><br />When you select an AirPort Express device in the new pop-up menu at the bottom of the iTunes 4.6 interface, that device essentially replaces your Mac's speakers as the audio-output source for whatever you do in iTunes. At that point you can do anything you'd normally do in iTunes -- play music from your Library, from someone else's library, or from your iPod; play an Internet radio stream; even play an audiobook. The sound won't come out of your Mac -- it'll come out of the speakers attached to the AirPort Express."<br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/airportexpress.jpg" /><br /><br />An interesting little article on how AirTunes works. What interested me was, "AirPort Express supports Apple's Lossless Compression technology -- and everything that your iTunes streams across the network to Airport Express is compressed using that technology". Looks like that is where AAC Lossless came into play. 8)

[klinux]

That doesn't really make sense to me. Say if one had encoded MP3 at 128kbps - which is about 1 megabyte per minute. Apple lossless, like FLAC, RA lossless, WMA lossless, etc is about 5 megabytes a minute. While 802.11g can easily support that, why is there an overhead of converting to a higher bitrate codec? Must be something else or a misintepretation of what Apple is doing.

[dean_shan]

Pretty cool. Nice and small. I want it.

[Cameron K]

I'm definently buying one as soon as it comes on the market. This is just what I need to listen to my iTunes library from my tuner and speakers that are poolside.

[fgarcia10]

"iTune 4.6"

I guess it will be realease at the same time. I like this very much. It would be nice if I can set it up directly to my cable modem.

[Felix Torres]

That doesn't really make sense to me. Say if one had encoded MP3 at 128kbps - which is about 1 megabyte per minute. Apple lossless, like FLAC, RA lossless, WMA lossless, etc is about 5 megabytes a minute. While 802.11g can easily support that, why is there an overhead of converting to a higher bitrate codec? Must be something else or a misintepretation of what Apple is doing.

Could be because this is basically a wireless speaker scheme, not a wireless media player.

So, instead of decoding all the flavors of MP3 and AAC possible at the Airport, they decode them on the Mac and stream out the lossless stream which gets converted to standard audio in the airport, where you don't need much in the way of software to manage the stream.

Its a clever hack on what is probably just a standard WiFi router chipset with an audio out port.

Ultimately, the key is that this is a "push" technology, managed from the Mac, not a "pull" technology like the other 20 or so media extenders on the market, which are managed at the entertainment center.

Just guessing, cause I really have no use for wireless speakers for my desktop PC.

[James Fee]

Seems to me that there is a big opening for a remote type device? WiFi iPod or PDA? :o

[Felix Torres]

Seems to me that there is a big opening for a remote type device? WiFi iPod or PDA? :o

WiFi iPOD.
With hard-wired links to your iTunes account so you can store music online and d/l songs from hotspots.

Obviously, more useful with the mini than the regular POD, but the tech for this is within Apple's range.

Not sure about the remote control since, so far, Apple is keeping the Mac as master and all add-ons as slaves.

[James Fee]

Not sure about the remote control since, so far, Apple is keeping the Mac as master and all add-ons as slaves.
True, but remember they did split the iPod and Macintosh groups. This is a signal, at least to me, that Apple is looking outside the Mac for iTunes. The question is will AirTunes drive the AirPort Express or will the Macintosh group.

[Felix Torres]

Not sure about the remote control since, so far, Apple is keeping the Mac as master and all add-ons as slaves.
True, but remember they did split the iPod and Macintosh groups. This is a signal, at least to me, that Apple is looking outside the Mac for iTunes. The question is will AirTunes drive the AirPort Express or will the Macintosh group.

1- AirExpress itself is a Mac accessory not a Pod accessory.

2- I don't think the split has had enough time to manifest itself in product design yet.

When it does, I expect it'll manifest itself in a less Mac-centric pod, hence the expectation of a WiFi Pod.

The Mac group *might* want to provide a remote control for desktop iTunes playback, but unless the remote has a screen, like the Creative wireless player, the real decision making will still be at the Mac. And that would severely limit its appeal, I think, since you'll still be tied to the Mac screen for song queuing or playlist selection.

[James Fee]

1- AirExpress itself is a Mac accessory not a Pod accessory.
You sure about that? Apple has released Windows Airport controls. Why would they do that if it really was a Mac only product. They offer wireless printing over Windows XP too. Heck even the title graphic has "Mac+PC" in it.

2- I don't think the split has had enough time to manifest itself in product design yet.

When it does, I expect it'll manifest itself in a less Mac-centric pod, hence the expectation of a WiFi Pod.

The Mac group *might* want to provide a remote control for desktop iTunes playback, but unless the remote has a screen, like the Creative wireless player, the real decision making will still be at the Mac. And that would severely limit its appeal, I think, since you'll still be tied to the Mac screen for song queuing or playlist selection.
Sure, but iTunes already provides remote control. Why would the Mac group need to provide anything? You can can use the AirTunes and AirPort Express without ever owning a Macintosh.

As for the product design being affected by PCs, I think that already happened before the realignment. AirPort has had a windows config tool for a couple years and the the iPod, while not being able to use iTunes, was available as a PC version since almost the begining. I'm sure the Mac group is being dragged kicking and screaming, but it would appear Apple is at least happy to have PC users using their products. I think the Mantra, "Give them an iPod and they'll want a Mac" is dead and Jobs knows this.

Heck as I post this, my RSS reader alerted me to this little post by Paul Thurrott over at his Internet Nexus site.

Apple gets closer to Windows (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_06_06_archive.htm#108679544461561945)

[Felix Torres]

1- AirExpress itself is a Mac accessory not a Pod accessory.
You sure about that? Apple has released Windows Airport controls. Why would they do that if it really was a Mac only product. They offer wireless printing over Windows XP too. Heck even the title graphic has "Mac+PC" in it.

2- I don't think the split has had enough time to manifest itself in product design yet.

When it does, I expect it'll manifest itself in a less Mac-centric pod, hence the expectation of a WiFi Pod.

The Mac group *might* want to provide a remote control for desktop iTunes playback, but unless the remote has a screen, like the Creative wireless player, the real decision making will still be at the Mac. And that would severely limit its appeal, I think, since you'll still be tied to the Mac screen for song queuing or playlist selection.
Sure, but iTunes already provides remote control. Why would the Mac group need to provide anything? You can can use the AirTunes and AirPort Express without ever owning a Macintosh.

As for the product design being affected by PCs, I think that already happened before the realignment. AirPort has had a windows config tool for a couple years and the the iPod, while not being able to use iTunes, was available as a PC version since almost the begining. I'm sure the Mac group is being dragged kicking and screaming, but it would appear Apple is at least happy to have PC users using their products. I think the Mantra, "Give them an iPod and they'll want a Mac" is dead and Jobs knows this.

Heck as I post this, my RSS reader alerted me to this little post by Paul Thurrott over at his Internet Nexus site.

Apple gets closer to Windows (http://www.internet-nexus.com/2004_06_06_archive.htm#108679544461561945)

A matter of interpretation.
Sorry.
I'm thinking in terms of the internal split and the differing agendas it serves.

I should've been clearer; my understanding is that the Windows software is coming from the MAC group, not the pod designers.
(Who *is* in charge of itunes in the split, anyway? It serves both masters, no?)

The airport stuff is still in the Mac group, no?
So it fits the strategies of the Mac group instead of the pod group, is all.

The Apple stuff forWindows is interesting but not too much; I see it as mostly a show-the-flag, oportunistic move rather than a strategic one.
Kinda like putting Filemaker Pro on Windows ages ago, or selling Apple Laser printers for PCs even further back.
I don't see any special meaning behind it.
Yet.
More meaningful is that the new Apple monitors now support DVI.
They may find a nice revenue stream selling their displays to PC graphics artists.

BTW, even more interesting note (to me) in the page you linked to was the stuff about the mini-stores and their focus on grab-n-go products...
Sounds a lot like a high-end Radio Shack kind of strategy, no?

All in all I think what we're seeing is the beginning of a more opportunistic, less dogmatic Apple Computer (company), but I don't think its a *major* shift in overall strategy.

The heart of Apple is still the Mac.
That sound right?

[James Fee]

The heart of Apple is still the Mac.
That sound right?
True and I actually agree with the other comments you made. The only thing I would say is yes, AirPort is probably under the Macintosh division, but I doubt the AirPort hardware people are really concerned about the Mac. I would hope their goals would be to make the best APs they can and in doing so making sure they work well with PCs.

In the end, they call it Macworld for one reason. I doubt we are anywhere near the name change to Appleworld or even iPod world. To me, I would break out hardware into a new division (including monitors, iPods, AirPorts, iSight). Have a software division that focuses upon the "iLife" and professional products and then put the Mac desktop/laptop/servers into its own division.

But then again, Apple should just dump CPU hardware all together and just focus on "Digital Hardware" and Software.

Hell, who wouldn't like to dual boot, OS X and Win XP. :drinking: