[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
<strong>What I'm saying now is that it wouldn't hurt for a bit more focus, if in fact Apple is working on reinventing the wheel by designing their own iCam. </strong>
<strong>These are all areas I think Apple would be better off on focusing their efforts, rather than reinventing the wheel with an iCamera.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Steve is accutely aware of this fact, and I doubt anyone is being pulled off of OS X to work on the "iCam" (if it even exists). Apple hasn't been laying anyone off lately (atleast not in signifficant quantities) so there should be more than enough heads to go around. And I really don't think Apple is trying to "reinvent the wheel," the company isn't suffereing from the "not invented here" syndome it pioneered in the early 90s, they know their limits.
When it came to the iPod, which was a signifficantly easier feat of engineering than the camera being described here, they collaborated with Pixo, a company that knows about working with multimedia on embedded processors. I'd expect that Apple would collaborate with a company adept at digital photography in their iCam endeavour.
The items you point out are all important things for Apple to focus on, but these concerns are totally separate from the aims of the iCam, which are equally important. Like the iPod, such a camera would bring attention and praise to the Apple brand, not to mention cold hard cash. The iPod drove revenue, it got a few hundred thousand people who weren't in the market for a new Mac to buy *something* from Apple. At $400 each, this brought in countless millions of dollars in revenue and profit, giving Apple the cash to continue development of more important things. An iCam, if pulled off with the panache and innovation of the iPod, will do the same.
I don't think anyone here is in any position to dictate or even speculate on how many people should be working on any given aspect of the OS. I am certain, however, that the concerns you have are shared by Apple's product managers, and that these are things that apple is working on. What I've seen of Jaguar suggests that significant revisions are being made to the OS' core audio structure, whether or not Dolby is part of this, I don't know, but I'm sure it's on Apple's radar screen.
Ultimately, I think we have to look at who would benefit from Dolby 5.1 integration into the OS. Obviously, this would be those who create media that takes advantage of Dolby 5.1, and those who consume it. On the consumer end, that's nearly anyone who plays DVDs on their mac, theoretically. In actuality, it's the very small cross section of those people who use their Mac as their primary means of watching DVDs, and those who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems. The majority of people who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems have a nice, high-end DVD player hooked up to it already. So on the user end, the benefits of 5.1 are very very very marginal, and wouldn't drive sales, atleast not at this point.
On the creation end, we have those people who produce console video games, those who master DVDs, and those who master CDs. DVD's are covered, DVD studio pro includes A.Pack for encoding Dolby audio. Console games? uh, well... no one really develops those on Macs as it is, and Audio CD's are kind of sketchy on OS X right now, though ProTools for X will be out when Jaguar hits the streets. So Apple has some other issues to fix before worrying about Dolby 5.1, so this isn't going to drive sales much either. This feature just isn't on par with the big ones of the past few years, like CD burning, Airport, DVDs, etc, and therefore doesn't earn itself any urgency. It's an industry standard, it's not going anywhere, we'll get there when we get there.
ICam, combined with iChat and the streaming abilities of Quicktime 6 could fill a very important void right now, which is Video conferencing. CUSEEME was the first, and last, great video conferencing app for the Mac, and like most great Mac things, it was way ahead of its time, and the industry is just now catching up with it. The rise of broadband is making video conferencing more practical for the lowly likes of you and i, and not just those of us on big corporate networks, though features like rendevouz will certainly make it super cool for those who are. Um... anywho,
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: scadboy ]</p>
my other signature is witty
my other signature is witty