Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: Why not iPod?
RE: Why not iPod?
From: Sarai <bucc7465_at_bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 12:56:01 -0500
It would be nice to get Rockbox ported to players that aren't
discontinued and that are physically smaller than the Archos studio 20.
From: rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se [mailto:rockbox-bounces_at_cool.haxx.se]
On Behalf Of Arnaud
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: Why not iPod?
I really think there are other MP3 players that deserve a Rockbox port
than the propriatary ipod.
Iriver players are quite nice, but some Samsung players are also
interesting , not to mention Rio Players but these are not discotinued
because Rio is not more .
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 01:38:43 +0200, you wrote:
>Neon John wrote:
>> That said, is there any reason why the iPod isn't considered for a
>> RockBox port? It would seem that with a port of Linux running on the
>> thing, there should be enough info out there for a port.
>The reason is that the PortalPlayer chipset on which the iPods (and
>many other players) are based is a very proprietary thing with no docs
>whatsoever available without signing very restrictive NDAs.
>As you say, with the iPodLinux project having done much legwork
>figuring out the hardware, this is becoming somewhat less of an issue.
>Some may argue that Apple/PortalPlayer should not be rewarded for such
>unfriendly behaviour by getting a Rockbox port. However I think it's
>safe to say that the iPods are selling pretty well with or without our
Arnaud de Bonald - http://bonald.org
Received on 2005-09-24