Rockbox mail archive
Subject: Re: Why not iPod?
Well the iPod seems to be able to gather enough developers for a Linux
port. I'm sure some of them would be interested in a mature, dedicated
On 9/25/05, Jürgen Hestermann <email@example.com> wrote:
> > But iPod has a massive user base, and will possibly attract a bunch of
> > developers.
> Why should it if the hardware is not attractive? The massive user base
> does only exist because they all run after the hype without looking at the
> details. You will not find many developers in this group.
> > It has been around for a while, and will probably be
> > around for some time to come. A lot of the cheaper players phase out
> > and seize to exist after a short amount of time.
> I think that this should not be the first preference for rockbox ports.
> Nobody knows what Apple will do with future versions. Maybe Rockbox
> will not work on the next generation of IPods either. The main things to
> consider are, whether the hardware is usefull (recording facility, good in/out
> connectivity, NiMH standard batteries [although I think that you will not find
> them anymore in mp3 players, unfortunately], good display and buttons,
> moderate price, etc.) and whether the manufacturer gives information for a
> rockbox port.
> Has anyone ever tried to contact all possible hardware manufacturers whether
> some like to produce a hardware dedicated to rockbox? Maybe if Rockbox
> has been established as the standard OS for mp3 players ('Linux on mp3' ;-)
> and everybody is asking for Rockbox before buying a device then the future
> of Rockbox should be safe.
> Of course, if people are working on an IPod port which otherwise would not
> do any development for Rockbox then it could do no harm. But if time is wasted
> which could be invested into a better hardware then I would not like it.
> Jürgen Hestermann
Received on Sun Sep 25 16:12:15 2005
Page was last modified "Jan 10 2012" The Rockbox Crew