Project "Glove" and "Lucida" in July - Page 3

[quote]Originally posted by Paul:
<strong>

unless of course the liscensing scheme only applied to OS X on PPC and people had to pay through the nose for 86X OS X.... :eek:

but regardless this is NEVER going to happen...</strong><hr></blockquote>

and just slightly more of topic... any development for x86 doesn't even mean it will run on a home built PC. They could still use a proprietary logic board, etc. If it did exist it would only be for inside research.

If it did exist....

Software may account for a significant part of revenue, but that's ALL SOFTWARE, not just OSX. Once OSX becomes the only MacOS, sales of OSX as a percentage of total SOFTWARE sales will not be such a huge part of revenue. They could easily afford to give unlimited site licenses for the OS. You still would have to pay for your other mac software.

[quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
<strong>Actually, according to the last financial conference call, margins are currently around 27% for hardware.

And since consumers are still the *major* factor in Apple's customer base, with 1-2 computers each, the 'losses' due to this would be minimal until the number of installed machines at large (&gt;100) institutions vastly outnumbered the consumer base.

In the meantime, the hardware sales would *MORE* than make up for it.

I fail to see the problem.

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

To be clear, I'll make a statement:

"Apple selling OS X in an unlimited license scheme does not, in my uneducated opinion, seem like a bad strategy."

I wasn't saying it was a problem. I wasn't saying Apple is going to lose all their profits and become a debt laden organization if they happen to choose a "glove" strategy. In fact, I don't see any particular problem with it although that may be because I have little knowledge of how Apple's large contract sales work or their resulting revenues.

My main point was simply that software does account for a large portion of their profits (e.g., no software reveneue in any recent quarter == net loss instead of net gain). I realized that software includes many, many applications other than simply OS X licenses. I realize that APPs, other services and other things account for some portion of the "and other" section. I admit I am surprised Apple manages 27% margins on hardware given how their products average sales price are within 10% over the retail cost of the lowest model. [This is another opportunity for anyone to start the flame war about Apple vs. PC price/performance ratio.] Although I never at all claimed that 54% was an accurate figure ("probably near half", "regardless of the percentage"), I do apologize for mentioning it considering people tend to latch onto statements like that as if they were presented as facts. However, and perhaps you'll know this, is hardware margin accounting for the cost of the included software (OS X) as software revenue with a standard license cost or is the operating system considered "free" and all income from hardware sales considered merely as hardware? That makes a major difference in both software and hardware margin figures. My uneducated guess is that no software revenues are counted for computers sold with the operating system installed. I'll let you estimate the difference that would make on the 813,000 hardware units sold.

*Ahem*, the main point I was trying to make is that Apple is in all likelihood not looking to become a hardware company that gives away its software for free. I doubt it will become something akin to a partially-closed source Linux. Apple may adopt a strategy like "glove" to compete in the corporate and enterprise level and it may well help. I could even see a slight possibility, given Apple's ability and recent history of consistently raising the minimum hardware requirements for their software, the possibility of Apple adopting a strategy where the OS is completely free except for $20 for shipping and handling. [I'm not offering this idea as something I suggest, think is warranted, think will likely happen or, in particular, that I care to discuss it. I just want to make it clear that I can see the slightest possibility of it happening.]

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: percolate ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Software may account for a significant part of revenue, but that's ALL SOFTWARE, not just OSX. Once OSX becomes the only MacOS, sales of OSX as a percentage of total SOFTWARE sales will not be such a huge part of revenue. They could easily afford to give unlimited site licenses for the OS. You still would have to pay for your other mac software.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good point. Up until now, we've ignored FCP, DSP, that FCP Cinema Pack (or something), Remote Desktop, WebObjects, and other high-priced non-OS software (I left out AppleWorks and iMovie... who would pay for that is beyond me). I'm willing to bet a large portion of their software revenue comes from FCP and DSP alone. Also, let's not forget what Shake might turn into.

In addition, Apple had (still has???) the MacOS Up -to-Date program. $20 gets you a CD upgrade to every major release per year. I think the majority of users who cared about having the latest full version of the MacOS (in Pre-OSX days) were Up-to-Date members. The rest of us either didn't care, or would use the system CD that came with our new Macs to update our old ones (that'd be me -_-).

Finally, think of the upside for Apple. If all future releases became cheap or free upgrades from 10.x, then Apple could boast that a vast majority of its user base was using the very latest version of MacOS X (something not even microsoft can claim). It could then convince developers to adopt new features as they came out, rather than six months to a year down the road.

[quote]Originally posted by SkullMac:
<strong>Finally, think of the upside for Apple. If all future releases became cheap or free upgrades from 10.x, then Apple could boast that a vast majority of its user base was using the very latest version of MacOS X (something not even microsoft can claim). It could then convince developers to adopt new features as they came out, rather than six months to a year down the road.</strong><hr></blockquote>

OK, point #1... just because updates are free does not mean that people will download and install them... (or even if they dont have to take the time to download them and can get them @ an apple store)... MOST people are not nuts like us... all they care about is whether or not something works... if it works, then there is no need for them to upgrade...even if it was free... I have a lot of friends that are still on 8.5 rather then 8.6 or even 9, 9.1, 9.2.2 (i would give them the upgrade) because their current system worked and they didnt want to screw things up... this is the main reason why a lot of people do not have the latest windows incarnation--because it seems to work well ( of course we know better....)

Point #2, the glove strategy is not saying that updates would be free... it is just saying that when you buy 1 liscense, it will work for any computer on your site.. IE a site liscence... You would still ahve to buy an individual liscense for your computer(s) and each of your friends would do the same... (but of course you wouldnt HAVE to conform to this... )

I was hoping project 'Glove' would be a revolutionary Bluetooth-enabled glove that could be used for cursor-movement or manipulation of the GUI.

Imagine that...you could stick your index finger out and the computer would recognize that you're trying to point at something, so the cursor would move as you move your hand around with your index finger sticking out.

Then you could close windows with the whisk of the hand or something.

You could point to a window, then make a grabbing motion with your hand and while your hand is in a fist you could drag the window around...then you could open your hand up again and the window would then stop moving.

Tons of stuff could be done...but oh well...the 'glove' project isn't what I thought it was.

oh...and I'm not making plastics right now

In a galaxy far, far away...

One thing that's probably worth *remembering*, it wasn't that long ago when Apple systems were essentially free - you paid for the media/handling. I think this happened up to 7.0.1. Then from 7.5 the licencing issue arose and you started to pay.

If you go to the apple FTP site you can still find complete early MacOSs for download:

<a href="ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/</a>

Apple could probably save as much money as they earn through system purchases by going to a free, net distribution model. There's going to be some serious bandwidth costs though!

The only fly in the ointment to this is that if there are licenced components to the OS then these will still need to be paid for (for example where Apple has licenced games etc - but maybe these items will only be available on CDs or with new machines).

A unlimited-user policy would allow high schools and colleges a much more incentive-laden opportunity to uprgrade to Apple's latest OS versions. For instance, my school still uses OS 9 on all of its Macs and therefor no one even knows about Mac OS X. The aforementioned policy can showcase the latest and greatest OS at minimal cost. Public Perception is extremely important.

First, I don't believe in the authenticity of the original poster. If he was truly concerned about getting caught, then he wouldn't have posted here. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter how many times he posts here. Once is enough for Apple to track his *** down. If he was computer literate he would have known that he could post anonymously, but apparently he doesn't know much about computers.

As for the secret underwater camera, it's a ridiculous idea. Can I see Apple making a camera with HD? Yes. But Apple would enter the camera market by offering a camera for general use first, and only after success with their first camera would they offer cameras for more specialized markets. While it would make sense for Apple to offer a camera that is water resistant, i.e., "weatherproof", this poster is talking about a camera that divers would be able to use. Not gonna happen.

As for "Glove", it's an intriguing idea that I could see Apple implementing with Jaguar's release. My guess is that Apple is going to charge for Jaguar, but as a way to defuse criticism, they will make each copy of 10.2 a license for "unlimited installs". This will help Apple in the educational and enterprise markets.

I think Apple will be careful to couple this strategy to Jaguar, so that if it doesn't work well, Apple isn't required to change it, they merely don't use it for the next OS X update.

Another issue that makes glove more believable is that Apple is having trouble convincing educational institutions to upgrade to OS X. Since students learn about Apple's operating system by using Macs at schools, it is vitally important for Apple to get OS X on as many edu computers as possible. Furthermore, for those institutions that do have OS X, the sooner Jaguar is installed the sooner students get a more favorable impression of OS X. Puma simply isn't fast enough on anything but the latest hardware, and most schools are using hardware thats a few years old.


So where did the original poster get these code names? Maybe he really does know something about what's going on at Apple, but more likely, I think he's just guessing and making up names. He's one for two, not bad, but the names aren't so good.

Lucindia: an ok name, but Apple is going to make cameras for the general population before they focus their efforts on the scuba diving market.

Glove: He states that this is the "Glove strategy". Please, this isn't a strategy, it's a policy. A strategy consists of several aims and/or hardware and software products, all aimed at acheiving some goal. Making all OS X licenses unlimited install is not a strategy itself, but part of a greater strategy, such as one aimed at capturing greater edu market share.

Finally, Apple is doomed. It's been a while since I said so and this post just didn't feel right without alluding to Apple's demise.

Hey, one thing we've been missing about this Lucida thing is its timing vis-a-vis the upcoming videoconferencing that Jobs mentioned. Now, if it had MPEG-4 compression via QT6, would it be able to stream video to a nearby Mac via AirPort? I'm just asking, I don't know. Certainly by FireWire, but AirPort would be so cool and mobile.

And with Rendezvous, Lucida might even show up as a computing peer on the network -- just tap in to see what it's pointing at. Streaming video without all the hassle.

Is this feasible?

[quote]Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg:
First, I don't believe in the authenticity of the original poster.
<hr></blockquote>

Neither do I, but it's still an intriguing idea.

[quote]
Glove: He states that this is the "Glove strategy". Please, this isn't a strategy, it's a policy. A strategy consists of several aims and/or hardware and software products, all aimed at acheiving some goal. Making all OS X licenses unlimited install is not a strategy itself, but part of a greater strategy, such as one aimed at capturing greater edu market share.
<hr></blockquote>

Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

How 'bout this:

"Like our new iPod? Well, you need Apple hardware to use it."

"Like our iPhoto software? Well, you need Apple hardware (and OSX) to use it."

"Like our iAllDancingAllSingingAppSoftware? Well, you need Apple hardware (and OSX) to use it."

Pretty soon it'll be:

"Like our QuartzExtraRadExtreme OSX technology? Well, you need the late$t, greate$t Apple hardware to use it."

"Like our shiny new Jungle Cat-in-a-Hat-named OS with handwriting recognition, wireless technology and free sexbots? Well, you get the picture."

Profits are nice, but can be momentarily ignored for future gains. Ask Amazon. What's Steve's goal for the moment? Market share. How is he going about this? By making drool-worthy products (that innovation thing), either hardware or software.

He can't entice us with Gx++ processors every Expo, so he needs another angle to say, "hey, buy our latest stuff." By making the OS compelling enough, maybe he's trying to "pull" demand, kind of like what Intel does with its "Int-hell Inside" marketing.

I could see "The Glove" (does anyone else get visions of a black & white Peter Sellers when you hear "the glove"?) fitting with this Vision.

The OS is cool and free. But you need the (new) hardware to run it.

[quote]
Finally, Apple is doomed. It's been a while since I said so and this post just didn't feel right without alluding to Apple's demise.<hr></blockquote>

Ahh... that's better.

One important distinction I believe should be made is that the original poster never stated the OS would be completely free per site after paying for one version. What he did say was that one copy would install on all computers at a specific site. This doesn't mean that Jaguar will be free to 10.1 users. It does, however, mean that Jaguar will offer unlimited site licensing for each copy bought. So one pays 129.99 for the new 10.x release and can install that OS on every machine owned by that site with that single CD. That's what he was saying, the way I read it.

As far as the camera goes, what we are pretty certain of is that there will be a new iDevice. A lot of us have been waiting for Apple to make a move in the digital camera market ever since the digital hub was announced. It simply completes the puzzle - it's logical. If Apple can do it in a compelling manner that beats the other offerings, then it will be done. Very intriguing ideas; thanks anonymous tipster!

[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:
<strong>OK. so this guy is worried about being "tracked" and seems to claim that he has inside info. but he gives his first name "allen" and what appears to be a full name "allenmcjones.' granted, be could be lying about it, but if i had inside info and was worried about being "tracked" i think my screen name would be somehting like, oh, i don't know Stroszek? and i think i would probably sign my name as something like, oh i don't know, not my real name?

don't mean to piss on a party, but it's just a thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, as somone who knows; if he is telling the truth: there are two options: he will either get fired after Apple flies an investigator out to whatever office he's at (unless he's in cupertino) and get fired, or he covered his tracks well, as in, even the wording of his information has been altered beyond their ability to trace what derivation they gave to what divisions and branches.

Or, he could be bs'ing.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: null ]</p>

allen, if posting inside the firewall, you're screwed. Might as well quit before they come to your cubicle. If you aren't, then you better hope that you phrased the hell out of those details. one reason why so many Mac rumors have conflicting details is because Apple gives conflicting details or wording to various departments so they can track your *** down. and third, you better pray to hell they can't get your ip address.

Have fun!

[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:
<strong>OK. so this guy is worried about being "tracked" and seems to claim that he has inside info. but he gives his first name "allen" and what appears to be a full name "allenmcjones.' granted, be could be lying about it, but if i had inside info and was worried about being "tracked" i think my screen name would be somehting like, oh, i don't know Stroszek? and i think i would probably sign my name as something like, oh i don't know, not my real name?

don't mean to piss on a party, but it's just a thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, as somone who knows if he is telling the truth: there are two options: he will either get fired after Apple flies an investigator out to whatever office he's at (unless he's in cupertino) and get fired, or he covered his tracks well, as in, even the wording of his information has been altered beyond their ability to trace what derivation they gave to what divisions and branches.

Or, he could be bs'ing.

[quote]Originally posted by Masker:
<strong>My bet:

Glove = internal codename for Xserve unlimited client policy</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why do everyone act as the unlimited client license with Xserve is new?

With the old Power Mac G4 Servers you also got an unlimited client license.

[quote]Originally posted by SkullMac:
<strong>In addition, Apple had (still has???) the MacOS Up -to-Date program. $20 gets you a CD upgrade to every major release per year.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Not exactly - you got a $20 rebate when upgrading.

The Photomarketing Association at its last convention issued a statement saying Digital still camera sales had flattened out the past year. They are not skyrocketing.

[quote]Originally posted by kim kap sol:
<strong>I was hoping project 'Glove' would be a revolutionary Bluetooth-enabled glove that could be used for cursor-movement or manipulation of the GUI.

Imagine that...you could stick your index finger out and the computer would recognize that you're trying to point at something, so the cursor would move as you move your hand around with your index finger sticking out.

Then you could close windows with the whisk of the hand or something.

You could point to a window, then make a grabbing motion with your hand and while your hand is in a fist you could drag the window around...then you could open your hand up again and the window would then stop moving.

Tons of stuff could be done...but oh well...the 'glove' project isn't what I thought it was.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Such things do already exist just aren't widely used.

As it happens though Sony agrees with you on the worth of that idea.

The issue with it is control. That sounds wierd but trust me it is a lot easier to imagine the control than to actually design it. You tend to end up with something a little more gross than you would like and an interface that responds too much like a touchscreen (anybody who has used one will probably understand what I mean).

On a somewhat unrelated note:

[quote] Finally, Apple is doomed. It's been a while since I said so and this post just didn't feel right without alluding to Apple's demise. <hr></blockquote>

That cracks me up Maybe I'm easily amused but I've seen some funny posts reading the boards tonight

[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>In a galaxy far, far away...

One thing that's probably worth *remembering*, it wasn't that long ago when Apple systems were essentially free - you paid for the media/handling. I think this happened up to 7.0.1. Then from 7.5 the licencing issue arose and you started to pay.

If you go to the apple FTP site you can still find complete early MacOSs for download:

<a href="ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.apple.com/Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System/Older_System/</a>

Apple could probably save as much money as they earn through system purchases by going to a free, net distribution model. There's going to be some serious bandwidth costs though!

The only fly in the ointment to this is that if there are licenced components to the OS then these will still need to be paid for (for example where Apple has licenced games etc - but maybe these items will only be available on CDs or with new machines).</strong><hr></blockquote>

clive, you may have read me the riot act a few threads ago, and i, in turn, did the same, but this is an excellent point. how quickly we forget( heck, even i forgot about that). a freind of mine made the point that one (of many) reasons that wndows made such huge headway (aside from the monopoly actions thing) was that their operating system was hideously easy to pirate. the mac os use to be free with anyone with a modem and a LOT of patience (ah, i still have my 14.4 modem that got me system 7.5.5... all 13 disks, i think)

anyway, i am getting the feeling that if this isn't a true rumor, it's close enough to get me through until macworld july.

and, for the last time, according to the title of this thread, the name is LUCIDA... not luciNda or luciNdiNa or whatever else people are mangling the name as. heck, copy/paste if you have to (okay, my little anal-retentive rant is complete... carry on).

p.s. though i have to agree with JYD that posting around here may not be the best idea. when i found out about the imac "hemisphere" thing, i was busting at the seams to tell, but then quickly realized that i could get my contact fired VERY quickly. so i closed the whole thing up and went to the chat area instead. perhaps that is an option? are internet cafés easy to track from? i've always wondered about that for an anonymous place to post from...

"It will ship with some intstructions."

He obviously knows something.

[quote]Originally posted by Paul:
<strong>

unless of course the liscensing scheme only applied to OS X on PPC and people had to pay through the nose for x86 OS X.... :eek:

but regardless this is NEVER going to happen...

[ 05-24-2002: Message edited by: Paul ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, no, no!

Sales and Marketing 101: Give away the razor and sell the blades!

Mac OS X x86 is FREE. But it doesn't come with any iApps...those cost extra. :-)

Can you imagine how much Cocoa and Carbon software would be available in 2 years if Apple sold OS X x86 site licenses for $129?

[quote]Originally posted by allenmcjones:

<strong>
- It looks nothing like a camera or camcorder on the market today.
- Its design is "amazing".
- The case design is built around the internal lense(s).
- Lucida has a color LCD display in the rear.
- Designed for right and left hand.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm picturing a Sony DSC-F707 without the camera body, all controls on the top, lcd in the back. Basically its tube shaped and looks like a big camera lense.

[quote]Originally posted by Tom Mornini:
<strong>

No, no, no!

Sales and Marketing 101: Give away the razor and sell the blades!

Mac OS X x86 is FREE. But it doesn't come with any iApps...those cost extra. :-)

Can you imagine how much Cocoa and Carbon software would be available in 2 years if Apple sold OS X x86 site licenses for $129?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh boy, Mac can also have 2 zillion worthless applications. There's already a plethora of worthless programs generated and given out at versiontracker.

(edit: there are some goodones at versiontracker too)

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Bigc ]</p>

To be honest Panasonic have already done it!! This looks really cool! If Apple took this and trashed the crappy Secure Digital card stuff and built in a hard drive ALA iPod. This would kick some major a$$!!

<a href="http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/ewear/sd_av.asp#digital" target="_blank">New Panasonic device...</a>

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: warpd ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Bigc:
<strong>

Oh boy, Mac can also have 2 zillion worthless applications. There's already a plethora of worthless programs generated and given out at versiontracker.

(edit: there are some goodones at versiontracker too)

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Bigc ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Are you suggesting this isn't healthy?

One of the reasons that Wintel won (the first round!) was the availability of tons of "worthless" software.

If they're worthless to almost everyone, they're called "vertical applications."

And non-availability of vertical applications has been THE main impediment to Macintosh acceptance. You see, it turns out that nearly everyone "needs" some bizarre and obscure piece of software, in addition to the horizontal applications that the Macintosh has always had plenty of. In fact, the reason that Apple managed to not completely implode is that it (we) had the undisputed lead in a very large veritical market, 'creative'.

Read the boards, damnit! How many times have we all read threads "If Apple doesn't do this, I'm switching!" Well, they're asking Apple to compete with the entire Wintel INDUSTRY.

There's one right now who says he's ready to abandon the Macintosh if Apple doesn't show a PVR capable laptop at Macworld! I guarantee you that Sony didn't write the PVR software for the laptop that he's going to buy. It's just a bundled application that started out vertical and is just beginning to have horizontal appeal.

I've heard and accepted, and formulated on my own, lots of reasons why it's potentially dangerous to release OS X x86. I agree completely on how much damage it could potentially do to Apple Computer, Inc.

But, the naysayers should seriously consider the potential good as well. A general release? Perhaps not. But...what if Apple could pull it off in such a way that:

1) They make money.
2) They grow acceptance of OS X.
3) They increase demand for Apple hardware.

Is this impossible, or have we (and Apple) just not yet figured a way to achieve all three goals? Perhaps "one size fits all" would be better expressed "one OS fits all."

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Tom Mornini ]</p>

[quote]Originally posted by Tom Mornini:
<strong>

Are you suggesting this isn't healthy?

One of the reasons that Wintel won (the first round!) was the availability of tons of "worthless" software.

If they're worthless to almost everyone, they're called "vertical applications."

And non-availability of vertical applications has been THE main impediment to Macintosh acceptance. You see, it turns out that nearly everyone "needs" some bizarre and obscure piece of software, in addition to the horizontal applications that the Macintosh has always had plenty of. In fact, the reason that Apple managed to not completely implode is that it (we) had the undisputed lead in a very large veritical market, 'creative'.

Read the boards, damnit! How many times have we all read threads "If Apple doesn't do this, I'm switching!" Well, they're asking Apple to compete with the entire Wintel INDUSTRY.

There's one right now who says he's ready to abandon the Macintosh if Apple doesn't show a PVR capable laptop at Macworld! I guarantee you that Sony didn't write the PVR software for the laptop that he's going to buy. It's just a bundled application that started out vertical and is just beginning to have horizontal appeal.

I've heard and accepted, and formulated on my own, lots of reasons why it's potentially dangerous to release OS X x86. I agree completely on how much damage it could potentially do to Apple Computer, Inc.

But, the naysayers should seriously consider the potential good as well. A general release? Perhaps not. But...what if Apple could pull it off in such a way that:

1) They make money.
2) They grow acceptance of OS X.
3) They increase demand for Apple hardware.

Is this impossible, or have we (and Apple) just not yet figured a way to achieve all three goals? Perhaps "one size fits all" would be better expressed "one OS fits all."

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Tom Mornini ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah I agree it is good that people are writing lots of programs for OS X and I have ported some of my old stuff I used in UNIX in the 70's. It is a lot better than it use to be.

By your reasoning, I guess I don't need a lot of "Vertical Apps", but it is better than not having any.

The Panasonic camera has been reviewed in several places and the biggest complaint was the quality of the images. Sure it's the size of a Zippo lighter, but quality IS important. If "Lucida" turns out to be real &lt;ahem&gt; then it'd best have superior circuitry. The digital camera market is a rough and wooly place to be these days, prices marching ever downward. Natch it'd have to have a HD inside.

Natch.

D

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>

I'm picturing a Sony DSC-F707 without the camera body, all controls on the top, lcd in the back. Basically its tube shaped and looks like a big camera lense.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, I can see something like that. That would make sense with being easily used left or right handed. An atypical, but streamlined, shape would be a classic apple trademark.

This does seem like it would be a likely release for July. QT 6 optimized for sure. Firewire. No mention of HD recording, but that seems like a safe bet after ipod. Maybe a ram buffer to save on battery life. The underwater ability could be a built-in marketing gimick more than an actual useful feature. I can see the commercials now.

Still no explanation of how the lens will stay scratch and ding resistant with such impressive underwater abilities.

[quote]Originally posted by apple.otaku:
<strong>

I'm picturing a Sony DSC-F707 without the camera body, all controls on the top, lcd in the back. Basically its tube shaped and looks like a big camera lense.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Recess the lcd into the tube and you've taken care of one of the most needed features on digital cameras/camcorders. The lcd's need to be shaded in sunlight, or they are almost unviewable. I, like Eugene, have questions about the lens protection. Maybe it could have a waterproof, replaceable filter to catch the scratches. The lens would still be sealed even if the filter was damaged and leaking.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>

Sorry. Double post.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>

Don't scuff at the waterproof-part of "Lucida". Here's why:

How many of you guys go around wearing a watch capable of diving to the ocean floor? And how many of you have actually been there, or planning a trip down there any time soon? Not many I suspect. Yet that does not stop any self-respecting watchmaker from producing and selling you one. Nothing but marketing. If Apple were to sell the "Lucida" they would simply push the same buttons. And it should work great.

Regarding OS X on x86 I just can't ever see it happening (it would be nothing short of a support-nightmare for Apple). One the other hand there is nothing stopping Apple from making a naked x86-PC (without Windows or any other OS installed). Make it BTO with all the hallmarks of Apple design and quality and sell it to the Linux-crowd. The best part of it would of course be that any profit stays in Cupertino and not one cent goes to M$. Granted, it would probably not be a big seller, but then again such a move would royally piss of Bill Gates and his henchmen.

Apple, MAKE MY DAY!

[quote]Originally posted by Telomar:
<strong>

If I recall correctly Educational institutions are actually required to purchase XP licenses for every piece of hardware. That is to say if you have 500 Macs and 500 PCs you have to purchase 1000 licenses. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You mean they have to buy XP licenses for computers that don't even run it? :confused:

And they try to claim they are not a monopoly <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

"I know you want a DVD player, but you have to buy these 40 Betamax tapes along with it!"

I have no opinion on wether or not allen has real knowledge or is making this stuff up. IMO it doesn't really matter.

My $.02:

Glove: If Apple's not already considering this then they really, really ought to. Apple needs to increase the market share of their hardware and a free site license should help. Especially with all the organizations that are trying to <a href="http://www.TheRegUS.com/content/4/25014.html" target="_blank">figure what to do</a> about MicroSoft's new licensing scheme.

Lucida: The night before allen's post I was trying to imagine what would be the best choice for Apple's next digital lifestyle product. The product I came up with was a camera using <a href="http://www.foveon.com/X3_tech.html" target="_blank">the Foveon chip</a>. Making it water resistant is good as long as it doesn't add much to the price or interfere with usability - It would be nice if you don't have to worry about your camera becoming an $800 paperweight if it starts raining at your picnic.

WHOA,

the Fovean chip is amazing!

(not that I know anything about typical ccd designs)

Pres

[quote]Originally posted by Tyrihans:
<strong>Don't scuff at the waterproof-part of "Lucida". Here's why:

How many of you guys go around wearing a watch capable of diving to the ocean floor? And how many of you have actually been there, or planning a trip down there any time soon? Not many I suspect. Yet that does not stop any self-respecting watchmaker from producing and selling you one. Nothing but marketing. If Apple were to sell the "Lucida" they would simply push the same buttons. And it should work great.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but when the face of your $30 Casio gets scuffed, it's not going to effect you as much as a scratched lens. And have you ever taken a Casio rated for 50M down more than 20 feet? I've taken Fossil watches rated for 200M down to 30 feet rec. dive depth and they've died on me...

Every digital watch I've taken down to 150 feet has died on me.

[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Yeah, but when the face of your $30 Casio gets scuffed, it's not going to effect you as much as a scratched lens. And have you ever taken a Casio rated for 50M down more than 20 feet? I've taken Fossil watches rated for 200M down to 30 feet rec. dive depth and they've died on me...

Every digital watch I've taken down to 150 feet has died on me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Buy a Rolex submariner

[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
Buy a Rolex submariner
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Heh...yeah...just saying most submerisble watches don't even survive free-dive depths.