macenforcer
Nov 15, 04:22 PM
They're going to have to go multi-thread capable, demands on consumer software is only going to increase as we take what is cutting edge today and integrate it into everyday life.
Yes, and apple can start with QUICKTIME... for heaven's sake.
Yes, and apple can start with QUICKTIME... for heaven's sake.
0815
May 2, 04:59 PM
MAS? The Muslim American Society? The Municipal Art Society of NY? Malaysia Airlines? Monetary Authority of Singapore?
Confused :confused::confused::confused:
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)
Confused :confused::confused::confused:
Try MacAppStore (you know, the generic name with Mac in front of it)
gugy
Nov 29, 04:27 PM
There is a huge interest by content providers (cable, networks, movie distributors, etc.) in utilizing the iTV(Front Row) interface to bring content to viewers.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
Apple has a huge opportunity to bring even more content providers to their game. That's where I see iTV with a huge potential. Imagine companies like NBC, FOX, Warner, etc. have their own "channel" on iTV using front row to show their content. I think is very doable.
iTV will evolve into something much bigger IMHO than what Steve previewed. The potential is endless.
carve
Feb 5, 01:05 PM
Soon to be my first car...2001 Volvo S60 :)
http://www.featuredcars.com/images/full-2001-Volvo-S60_15366_1.jpg
http://www.featuredcars.com/images/full-2001-Volvo-S60_15366_1.jpg
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
Chundles
Aug 7, 05:00 AM
You have a point, but it's already 7:40 pm on Monday here so your work day would already be done. Plus I'm in Australia so how much can I really complain?
On a side note:
Maybe some Aussies can help me understand the price difference of computers here. Back home I bought the 17" MacBook Pro for something like $3,300 AUD and I come over here and it's in the $4,500 AUD range. I did get the student discount back home, but that's a huge margin.
Edit:
Hmmm, location still didn't change.
US Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3655
AU Store, 17" MBP (no GST): AUD$3999
CAN Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3591
You have to add sales tax to the US and Canadian prices as they are not only aren't displayed in the price but the taxes differ from state to state/province to province. Aussie GST is quoted in the price and is that same across the country so a 17" MBP costs exactly the same in every state.
The difference is about $400 which is pretty big but we're not a big market, thus selling to us costs more as the size of the market can't make up for the increased cost of getting the products to us.
We also make more money, I remember a while ago doing a comparison between a waiter on Aussie award wages and US minimum wage in the purchase of an iBook. The US waiter would have to work ~2x as many hours as the aussie waiter to afford an iBook at our respective online Apple Stores.
On a side note:
Maybe some Aussies can help me understand the price difference of computers here. Back home I bought the 17" MacBook Pro for something like $3,300 AUD and I come over here and it's in the $4,500 AUD range. I did get the student discount back home, but that's a huge margin.
Edit:
Hmmm, location still didn't change.
US Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3655
AU Store, 17" MBP (no GST): AUD$3999
CAN Store, 17" MBP (no taxes): AUD$3591
You have to add sales tax to the US and Canadian prices as they are not only aren't displayed in the price but the taxes differ from state to state/province to province. Aussie GST is quoted in the price and is that same across the country so a 17" MBP costs exactly the same in every state.
The difference is about $400 which is pretty big but we're not a big market, thus selling to us costs more as the size of the market can't make up for the increased cost of getting the products to us.
We also make more money, I remember a while ago doing a comparison between a waiter on Aussie award wages and US minimum wage in the purchase of an iBook. The US waiter would have to work ~2x as many hours as the aussie waiter to afford an iBook at our respective online Apple Stores.
spicyapple
Nov 28, 10:15 AM
Microsoft lost billions on the Xbox and likely to lose hundreds of millions on their Zune attempt. iPod sales have been profitable for Apple since their introduction. How one measures success in this industry can't always be marketshare.
Mattlike
Jan 21, 09:33 PM
http://homepage.mac.com/mattlike/Chally.jpg
2009 Challenger R/T
2009 Challenger R/T
Kadman
Mar 25, 09:04 PM
This is interesting and it'll be fun to geek around with it. However, games of this type (and most traditional console game styles for that matter) just aren't conducive to tablet control types, regardless if it's touch or motion controlled. The precision is just lacking for any serious gaming. However, casual game play shouldn't prove to be too frustrating control-wise. In this specific situation I'd be willing to go out on a limb and state that more people will buy it for the eye candy or showing off what the platform can do vs those who actually put serious play time into it. Just my thoughts.
Still looks great and I've found my new iPad 2 demo (once it's updated) ;)
Still looks great and I've found my new iPad 2 demo (once it's updated) ;)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 05:11 PM
That could be true, but I can't verify it - simply because I don't really see any of those around here....
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
A friend of mine owns a 2009 Jetta TDI, and another friend owns a 2003(ish) Golf TDI. The new Jetta is significantly better than the Golf with the older generation diesel, but even the Golf's engine is much more refined than a diesel truck engine.
I live out in the country (horse and cattle farms), and about half the pickups out here are 3/4 ton and 1 ton diesels, mostly Chevys and Fords. Following one down the highway it's hard to hear them, but if you're behind one you can damn sure smell it - and yes, I'm talking about the new ones, too.
I live in Alaska, and they love their big diesel trucks here. I can agree that pretty much all of them stink awfully when you drive behind them. Also, performance modifications are pretty popular, so that with re-tuned ECUs and free-flowing exhausts, the damned things are positively deafening and noxious. The older trucks are definitely much worse than the newest models though.
Can't speak to the new DPF-equipped trucks, I haven't had enough experience with them. Hopefully, the increasingly stringent economy and pollution regulations will continue to make pickup diesels less and less similar to the dumptruck, semi and bulldozer engines we currently associate them with.
Still, the bottom line is, passenger car diesel engines from Germany and Italy in particular are excellent and nothing like the big clunkers in American trucks. If a diesel Cruze makes it here, it will be very smooth and quiet by comparison.
MattDell
Sep 6, 08:29 PM
Renting would never fly. It's far too easy to just burn the movie to DVD if it's already in digital format. The movie executives would flip. It would take some impressive coding to prevent users from doing this, and even then... somebody will figure out a way around it.
So, no. I don't think any movie corporation will allow digital movie rentals.
-Matt
So, no. I don't think any movie corporation will allow digital movie rentals.
-Matt
lPHONE
Mar 19, 09:05 PM
Apple comes under fire because App Store is highly regulated and censored. This is the backlash and there's more to come. "If you reject this app, why didn't you reject this app?"- and this is nothing new to us...
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.
But TWO is just using Apple as a pawn to mask the real issue here which is offensive content vs free speech. I have nothing against gays, but I will always side with free speech no matter how retarded or offensive it is.
It's one thing to give minorities rights and another to give them the key to the city. That's why you should sign this petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/truth-wins-out-stop-with-the-reverse-suppression-from-gays-4) instead of the one to ban apps. We have enough fascism and censorship in this country. It takes a really strong mentality to step away from your personal beliefs for the greater good of our country and uphold the constitution.
topicolo
Mar 28, 10:01 PM
They could do alot more.......That's all I'm going to say cause Im going to work...
Please sign the petition
P.S The point i'm trying to make is that Apple will always be a small company who thinks they affect the PC industry. The same thing happens every time, Apple makes something cool - The PC world makes the profit
My advice to you is to let this petition die. It's obvious that the most of the people don't agree with your ideas on the petition. How do you expect to convince apple if you have to convince people to sign your petition? You're interest in the well-being of apple is commendable, but this petition isn't going to work.
Please sign the petition
P.S The point i'm trying to make is that Apple will always be a small company who thinks they affect the PC industry. The same thing happens every time, Apple makes something cool - The PC world makes the profit
My advice to you is to let this petition die. It's obvious that the most of the people don't agree with your ideas on the petition. How do you expect to convince apple if you have to convince people to sign your petition? You're interest in the well-being of apple is commendable, but this petition isn't going to work.
firestarter
Apr 12, 09:50 PM
No, but having features like face detection does suggest that it's a 'consumer' orientated product.
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
Because pros don't need features to make their life easier, and help automatically organise footage?
GregA
Dec 31, 10:53 PM
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
That's interesting. Apple doesn't have a subscription model - so this kind of service isn't on iTunes.
But it is something iTunes/iTV would be able to easily do (technically). I could subscribe to HBO On Demand for $10/mth (or whatever) without paying for a full cable service.
I guess the problem with a subscription model is, for now, the cost of bandwidth to Apple. A bittorrent-like sharing system might solve that.
That's interesting. Apple doesn't have a subscription model - so this kind of service isn't on iTunes.
But it is something iTunes/iTV would be able to easily do (technically). I could subscribe to HBO On Demand for $10/mth (or whatever) without paying for a full cable service.
I guess the problem with a subscription model is, for now, the cost of bandwidth to Apple. A bittorrent-like sharing system might solve that.
QuantumLo0p
Mar 6, 02:23 PM
Why do Americans harbor hate for diesel? I'm not very familiar with the differences between the fuels, other than gasoline is more refined.
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
There are a lot of old perceptions about diesel. I love diesel; they are inherently more efficient than gasoline engines.
I could say something like- "there are a lot of people in the US stuck on old tech, out dated, dirty, inefficient, gas powered cars that don't last as long as diesels nor have as good as ROI as diesels" but I wouldn't want to upset anyone who owns a technically inferior vehicle so I will keep my thoughts to myself.
:D
63dot
Jan 6, 10:13 AM
If properly maintained, mileage holds no bounds! BMW's will go to 250k easy.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
Any car will go 250K miles if properly maintained, yet some cars would need more proper maintenance.
There is nothing better looking on the inside and out as the new BMWs, and if I could have a company car for 5 years, it would be a BMW. But today's BMW (engine longevity wise) is not the same company in any way as the one who put together the very rugged 2002 model. There may not have been the same attention to looks and style, but what counted was that the engine was made to last forever. You wouldn't believe how many of those rusted out and ripped up 2002s there are out there, but they keep on going. Kids get them from their parents and soon grandkids will have them from their grandparents.
That being said, today's automobile safety standards are far more strict. If I got hit, or crashed, I would want to be in a new BMW with airbags vs. an old BMW 2002. And I am sure the new BMW could simply kill the 2002 on a slalom course. And as far as chick magnets (or what some guys use as an accessory), the new BMWs have all the looks going for it.
The maintenance on indestructible cars like the BMW 2002 series, and cars like my 70s/80s Volvo DL-GL series amounts to making sure the upholstery is not too ripped up and the rust is kept to a minimum (bondo, sanding, etc) but what you have is a car, as ugly as the weather and age can pit the hell out of it, which will go for 40 or 50 years without any major engine work. And to be fair, my mechanic says the new Volvo engines of the last decade are pretty fragile. A three year old Volvo engine appears to have more wear than my '84's engine according to him. Of course, the sheer durability and weight of my old Volvo engine does amount to a heavier car that doesn't handle any better than a school bus, and gets terrible mileage. ;)
And when you look at where American cars used to be in terms of reliability compared to anything post 1970s, it's sad. Take a look at Cuba who got left behind after Fidel Castro. Many of the cars people have that are still running are 1950s American cars, back when America used to build everlasting cars.
BornAgainMac
Jul 19, 06:32 PM
I bet at the Developer's conference that Adobe and Microsoft announce Universal Binaries for September.
bubba451
Nov 27, 01:53 PM
It kills me that the least expensive Apple display is $700. I just can't justify the tax over a Dell display, and I'm amazed how others can. A Dell 2007WFP (their 20" widescreen display which uses the same panel that's found in Apple's 20") is $400. It also sports inputs for VGA, composite and S-Video. And for a Dell, the display is reasonably attractive.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
The Apple displays give you a shiny aluminum bezel, firewire routing, and software display controls. Is that enough to merit a 75% markup?
So, I'm thrilled if this is true and Apple is putting out a less-expensive display option. But I'd love it if they brought the rest of their lineup into check with the competition.
jdbr
Apr 3, 09:58 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just wish they had stock
Just wish they had stock
bigpics
Mar 23, 11:37 PM
One more vote to keep the old gal around.
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
And another to keep giving it facelifts that:
a) Improve what it already does (without destroying its core philosophy),
b) Add new functions extending those functions (e.g., people have mentioned updating the DAC, allowing bluetooth and HD video out, etc. and faster syncing if TB will accomplish that (FW sustained transfer rates are faster than USB, but agree the FW port's not coming back on its own).
Plus etc., etc. and so forth as (generally) eloquently already laid down elsewhere.
c) Keep it a part of the modern Apple ecosystem via serving iDevices and ATV's as others have suggested and in many other clever, not unfeasible ways.
d) Keep it looking fresh and up-to-date. It does appear that the screen could be made larger without compromising the click-wheel functionality.
Another reason to have a lot of music/media BTW is not that you're a "hoarder" as someone suggested, but to include music that's not your fave but may be perfect when you have guest riders in your car - people of different ages and backgrounds and tastes so you can DJ for all (and at parties too). Call me a people pleaser but, hey.....
And if I have an 16 or even 32GB iPhone, I have little use for a Touch, but just as much a need for a Classic. My iPod Photo 60 is still looking/running like new and has been my car music server for years. But it's too low in capacity for me, so breaking 200GB + some of the above refinements would likely tip me.
There's also an aspect that hasn't been in this thread - and the "tech specs" on Apple.com no longer mention either target disk mode - nor using it to load up general files, but I remember an earlier gen being usable as an external hard drive that was also an iPod in the bargain!
One that a photographer, e.g., could have in a pocket to download pics from a DSLR to free up an SD card for more shooting in the field. Or today, back up an entire maxxed out MBAir for that matter. Voila: A mini Time Machine + all of the above.
If it does still allow that, add it to the marketing. It's an iPod. It's a mini-media server. It's an external HD. Music, Movies, Videos, Podcasts, Photos, Games, Storage, Backup. In less than 5 ounces.
What's not to like for 2 and a half Ben Franks??
Finally I get a kick out of the people dissing people who prefer uncompressed music. The ONLY advantage of compression is to store more files/GB and it ALWAYS degrades the quality of the recording. Always. And you're championing this as preferable because......?????
Apple already has algorithms for optimizing file size on the Mac side when maxxing out files to be placed on an iDevice. With our multi-terabyte setups, why wouldn't we want the best originals available?
And most who want uncompressed music (and those who want better than CD's already dumbed-down wave forms) actually CAN discern the diff (tho' some only think they can, as tests have shown, to be frank).
But seriously, guys, you remind me of people who've been conditioned to think a McDouble is a gastronomic improvement on the T-bone steak. Sheesh.
:rolleyes:
Sequin
Mar 22, 05:36 PM
Why would they even want to discontinue it? It's not like the iPhone can hold that many songs. You get more space with the price too. Although I still use my 30GB iPod from back when 30 was around the max.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 01:52 AM
anything is possible minus 1 thing: the option to dock and iPod simply is so out of place that I do not know why it keeps getting brought up. iTV is focused on streaming content from your computer, not your iPod.
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
I think an iPod dock is a great idea. It would be nice to be able to use your iTV for something without a computer running. Hey, take your iPod to a friend's house and you can all watch a movie at their house from your collection, just like taking your entire video library with you.
There are two problems with this:
1) HD content takes up a huge amount of space. So if Apple did offer HD movies, the copy iTunes will transfer to your iPod would be reduced quality.
2) iTunes purchases would not be playable on the component outputs on the iTV. The movie studios would require you use an HDMI connection or something else that supported HDCP to ensure you didn't copy the movie out of the iTunes ecosphere.
As several of us have discussed before, my hope is that iTV will be able to stream all forms of content on my computer, but with particular emphasis on digital media. So if I want to bring a word doc up and type or a movie I am working on in final cut pro, I can do so. Similarly, and with more fully developed components all my digital media can be run on my tv. The goal is to make this experience integrate all the entertainment features we love, but throughout our homes. Quality preservation is essential and I think they will work to ensure that takes place.
The issue here is you're asking your iTV to open other files, in other words, you're asking it to be a regular computer. That isn't going to work because it makes the OS/interface more complicated. A home entertainment component needs to be simple and fast. This is where Apple's embedded OSX rumors would be coming in. Everyone read that and thought about the Apple Phone because that was the hot topic of the week and the was the notion of a PDA Apple phone. But an embedded real-time operating system is just what the iTV needs.
People need to stop comparing the iTV to a Mac Mini, they should thinking of it the same way you think of an XBox compared to a Windows PC. Yeah, they're both made by Microsoft, but the XBox doesn't run Windows, it runs a smaller GUI on top of what is mostly a DirectX back end.
What's funny is the reason people keep thinking of the Mini is because what consumers really want is an Apple DVR, a Mac Mini with a little stronger hardware, no external power supply, and a built in tuner. Add PVR functionality to Front Row and maybe a little bit more expansive remote and you'd have that. But since the Mini isn't expandable, it isn't even possible for a consumer to cobble together the solution themselves from a PCI tuner card and DVR software available, the closest they can do has lots of "extra parts" lying around from the ElGato external tuner, a monitor adapter to give them the connection they need, and the Mini's power supply, and it still would not be as easy to navigate since a keyboard would probably be needed at some point.
So a MacMini wont download and play a HD movie or display a word doc, and you need the iTV to accomplish this basic task?
No, it will do those things, but a MacMini costs $600. Not everyone wants to keep their main computer hooked up to the TV. The iTV allows them to watch their iTunes Store-purchased movies on a larger screen than their regular monitor without moving their computer.
Also, most people don’t need final cut pro or photo shop. So, that’s why I was thinking this could be a basic computer. If not you will need the mac mini to go with it, and why not simply include the iTV with the Mac Mini so you don’t have two devises in a limited shelf space.
The iTV is meant to be an add-on to an existing Macintosh household. Not a self-contained entertainment product like a CableCo box or a PS2.
The idea is the iTV would support more common TV connection methods out of the box, be designed to fit in better aesthetically with home entertainment components, offer better video performance, overall stability, and lower power usage than a MacMini for less.
Is the problem the iTV will address processing the images or scaling them?
I hope so. Maybe it will be upconverting for watching current iTunes movies on an HDTV?
DanChosich
Oct 23, 06:12 PM
Could he (your contact in the AS) have been anymore vague? Could it not simply be that he frequents the same websites we all do and noticed the increased MMBP chatter, or that his colleagues or perhaps the customers have brought the subject up. It doesn't take an "inventory control specialist" working in an Apple store to make that sort of prediction, these forums alone are proof of that.
I'm not saying you're making it all up, it's just I would have thought someone in a position like that would be able to provide some substance to backup such claims.
I, like the majority, hope he's right though.
I completely agree. I think it's lame how vague it is. I would love to say "full laptop refresh tomoroow." But I don't know what is happening, all I know is what I told you. I thought it was worth sharing that he said something is definitely happening tomorrow. He never went out of his way to do that before, I wish it was more specific. :-/ Sorry.
I'm not saying you're making it all up, it's just I would have thought someone in a position like that would be able to provide some substance to backup such claims.
I, like the majority, hope he's right though.
I completely agree. I think it's lame how vague it is. I would love to say "full laptop refresh tomoroow." But I don't know what is happening, all I know is what I told you. I thought it was worth sharing that he said something is definitely happening tomorrow. He never went out of his way to do that before, I wish it was more specific. :-/ Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment