Why a WiFi iPod?

Funny, I wrote this more than two years ago, and I’m still waiting. Maybe Apple will announce this at tomorrow’s event? There has been plenty of speculation, and some rumors that seem founded.

A WiFiPod… At first glance, this sounds like fluff. What’s the point of having an iPod that “communicates” via WiFi? It’s not to stream your music to others in Starkbucks; it’s certainly not to pick up music streamed by others. No, it’s so you can use your iPod as a remote control. (Though read on to see how Apple will probably offer a “Web 2.0″ usage for it…)When Apple released the AirPort Express, with AirTunes, some of the earliest comments about the system were “Well, now we need a remote control.” Indeed, when I work and use AirTunes to stream music to the stereo in my office (admittedly, I could do the same with a long audio cable), I control it from iTunes on my Mac. But when I want to stream music to my living room stereo, on the ground floor of my house, I’d have to carry my iBook downstairs to use it as a (huge) remote control. Not very user-friendly.

No, what we need is the WiFiPod. I envision this as an AirPort adapter, with a built-in battery, that connects to the back of an iPod dock. It plugs into the dock connector, and allows another dock connector (to charge the WiFiPod and iPod) to plug into it. When you use your iPod with the WiFiPod and dock, you have effectively a remote control that streams your music to your AirPort Express. Whether the AirPort Express is in the same room or a different one, you have control at your fingertips, and don’t need a computer.

This makes a lot more sense than the current means of controlling AirTunes: it’s just too much of a hassle to run to another room to change the music you’re listening to, and since in many cases you have the same music on your computer and your iPod, it’s logical, given the size of the iPod, to extend its power.

The reasons this should be an add-on rather than a built-in AirPort module are obvious: battery life, size, and weight. While it probably won’t be very heavy, the WiFiPod would still add weight to an iPod, which doesn’t room for even a few additional molecules inside. If it were in the iPod there would have to be a way of turning it off; you don’t want it using your battery when you’re not streaming music. Finally, it would make the iPod heavier; there’s no need for that, especially for a device that you would never use when on the go.

Apple has already suggested that a remote control for AirTunes is on the way, and I can’t think of a better way to control at than via the iPod. If you have a wireless remote, and you want to skip ahead to a specific song, you still can’t see where that song is if you’re not in front of the computer. The WiFiPod solves that problem by putting all your music at your fingertips, and even gives people who don’t want to listen to music on the go a reason to buy an iPod.

So now the update, and the “Web 2.0″ use for the WiFiPod. Remember Steve Jobs touting the great new features in iLife ’08, including certain “Web 2.0″ features like the ability to export movies in YouTube format? Well, my guess is that’s what well see on tomorrow’s new iPod. A full-screen, touch interface iPod, borrowing the interface from the iPhone, on which you can waste your time watching YouTube videos, just as you can on the iPhone. Oh, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that everything on YouTube is a waste of time, just 99.44% of it.

Yes, as Apple lowers the common denominator, YouTube on the iPod seems like a natural. Get ready for lots of fun; the iPod is going to be the video delivery device of the future.

---