or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple filing takes Podcasts to the next level
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple filing takes Podcasts to the next level

post #1 of 46
Thread Starter 
A recently published filing discovered by AppleInsider reveals work by Apple's chief software architect to advance the Podcast beyond its static form and into a live interactive presentation medium suitable for use by educational institutes and businesses for their daily presentations.

"Podcasts of classroom lectures and other presentations typically require manual editing to switch the focus between the video feed of [an] instructor and the slides (or other contents) being presented," Bertrand Serlet, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at Apple, wrote in the 15-page filing. "In a school or enterprise where many presentations take place daily, editing podcasts require a dedicated person, which can be prohibitive. "

To solve this problem, Serlet proposes has proposed an automated content capture and processing system where a live camera feed of a presenter can be automatically merged with a Keynote or PowerPoint presentation to form an entertaining and dynamic podcast that lets the viewer watch the presenter's slides as well as the presenter.

In one example outlined in the filing, the content capture system provides a video stream (Stream A) and an Keynote presentation stream (Stream B) to a recording agent such as a Mac running specialized Podcast creation software. The recording agent then blends the two feeds together based on certain cues and sends the combined feed to a syndication server that would then distribute the video wirelessly as a Podcast to any number of authorized Macs, iPods or iPhones.

Serlet also explained that syndication server could include an automated content creation application that applies one or more operations on the Streams A and/or B to create new content, such as transitions, effects, titles, graphics, audio, narration, avatars, animations, and so forth.

"For example, a content stream (e.g., Stream B) output by the application can be shown as background (e.g., full screen mode) with a small picture in picture (PIP) window overlying the background for showing the video camera output (e.g., Stream A)," he wrote. "If a slide in Stream B does not change (e.g., the "trigger event") for a predetermined interval of time (e.g., 15 seconds), then Stream A can be operated on (e.g., scaled to full screen on the display). A virtual zoom (e.g., Ken Burns effect) or other effect can be applied to Stream A for a close-up of the instructor or other object (e.g., an audience member) in the environment (e.g., a classroom, lecture hall, studio)."



The Apple executive also explained that trigger events can be captured from the actual presentation environment using, for example, the capture system, including patterns of activity of the instructor giving a presentation and/or of the reaction of an audience watching the presentation.

"The instructor could make certain gestures, or movements (e.g., captured by the video camera), speak certain words, commands or phrases (e.g., captured by a microphone as an audio snippet) or take long pauses before speaking, all of which can generate events in Stream A that can be used to trigger operations," he wrote.

"In one exemplary scenario, the video of the instructor could be shown in full screen as a default. But if the capture system detects that the instructor has turned his back to the audience to read a slide of the presentation, such action can be detected in the video stream and used to apply one or more operations on Stream A or Stream B, including zooming Stream B so that the slide being read by the instructor is presented to the viewer in full screen."



Throughout the filing, Serlet outlined examples of several other potential trigger events, such as the movement of a presentation pointer (e.g., a laser pointer) which could then be captured and detected as an event by an "event detector." For instance, the direction of the laser pointer to a slide can indicate that the instructor is talking about a particular area of the slide. Therefore, in one implementation, an operation can be to show the slide to the viewer.

"The movement of a laser pointer can be detected in the video stream using AVSR software or other known pattern matching algorithms that can isolate the laser's red dot on a pixel device and track its motion (e.g., centroiding)," he added. "If a red dot is detected, then slides can be switched or other operations performed on the video or application streams. Alternatively, a laser pointer can emit a signal (e.g., radio frequency, infrared) when activated that can be received by a suitable receiver (e.g., a wireless transceiver) in the capture system and used to initiate one or more operations.

In some other implementations, a detection of a change of state in a stream is used to determine what is captured from the stream and presented in the final media file or podcast. For instance, the instructors transition to a new slide can cause a switch back from a camera feed of the instructor to a slide. When a new slide is presented by the instructor, the application stream containing the slide would be shown first as a default configuration, and then switched to the video stream showing the instructor, respectively, after a first predetermined period of time has expired. In other implementations, after a second predetermined interval of time has expired, the streams can be switched back to the default configuration.

Taking his next-generation podcast concept a step further, Serlet went on to say that the capture system could conceivably include a video camera that can follow the instructor as he moves about the environment. The cameras could be moved by human operator or automatically using known location detection technology. The camera location information could then be used to trigger an operation on a stream and/or determine what is captured and presented in the final media file or podcast.

It should be noted that Serlet's concept one of at least three Podcast enhancements proposed by Apple employees in recent patent filings, none of which have come to fruition as of yet. Others include personalized on-demand podcasts and Podmaps.
post #2 of 46
Could make slide presentations more interesting by allowing more on-the-fly interactivity. Sounds like a patent that Steve suggested...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #3 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Could make slide presentations more interesting by allowing more on-the-fly interactivity. Sounds like a patent that Steve suggested...

It's very similar to Steve's setups for Keynote presentations at Macworld, WWDC, etc.

It's interesting.

K
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
EIC- AppleInsider.com
Questions and comments to : kasper@appleinsider.com
Reply
post #4 of 46
Color me crazy, but this looks a lot like the patent suits that Apple has been hit with lately. Mainly, that the concept is not really patent worthy. They are taking existing technologies (broadcasting, video streaming and podcasting) and repackaging them in a shiney new product. There is just nothing that is intrinsically new.

The software that the patent describes seems like it should be copywritable material. I could certainly understand that. It would be an original work ( or a derivative of say, FCP, podcast producer and Keynote).

I understand that Apple has to patent this, or else someone else will. Years will go by, and a faceless "intelectual property right" firm will file a suit in the eastern district of TX claiming that Apple is "willfully and purposefully" infringing on their patents and causing them irreprable damage. You know, we've seen the script before.

Ah, just some ramblings against the current state of patent law.
post #5 of 46
Doesn't the Screenflow product already do most of this? It's easy to capture video of you and what is going on on your screen, switch back and forth, both at once, zoom in, call out areas, etc.
post #6 of 46
Wow, look at the analog volume slider on that iPod!

post #7 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mh71 View Post

Color me crazy, but this looks a lot like the patent suits that Apple has been hit with lately. Mainly, that the concept is not really patent worthy. They are taking existing technologies (broadcasting, video streaming and podcasting) and repackaging them in a shiney new product. There is just nothing that is intrinsically new.

The software that the patent describes seems like it should be copywritable material. I could certainly understand that. It would be an original work ( or a derivative of say, FCP, podcast producer and Keynote).

I understand that Apple has to patent this, or else someone else will. Years will go by, and a faceless "intelectual property right" firm will file a suit in the eastern district of TX claiming that Apple is "willfully and purposefully" infringing on their patents and causing them irreprable damage. You know, we've seen the script before.

Ah, just some ramblings against the current state of patent law.

I would echo the comments here. You mean to tell me that a service like Pandora, which incorporate things like ratings, bookmarking, buying songs, etc. into the player isn't prior art? So much of this stuff is derivative. I personally posted similar thoughts and ideas regarding next generation media player plays many months ago, thoughts which of course are influenced by what lots of different vendors are doing.

The whole patent thing has gotten out of hand, IMHO, and specific to Apple it raises some question, as to whether these types of filings are offensive moves or defensive ones, something I blogged about in:

Upward Mobility, Land Grabs and the iPhone Universe
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...-mobility.html

Check out the post if interested.

Mark
post #8 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richardlol View Post

Doesn't the Screenflow product already do most of this? It's easy to capture video of you and what is going on on your screen, switch back and forth, both at once, zoom in, call out areas, etc.

ScreenFlow is an amazing app! The fact that it uses CoreAnimation so well means that I can have multiple QT videos playing, record myself, use Exposé and not have one hiccup on my MacBook. The editing it allows are simple yet robust.

I've recently made some simple tutorials for a switcher I know. Mostly for fun, but the 1 minute videos only take about 5 minutes to edit,a dn that includes using the fancy angled screen display like in Apple keynotes, reflections, expanded view around the mouse, etc.


PS: You can check out a video of it in action in the link above.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #9 of 46
The nice feature of this would be that it is blending together two pieces of information. The video of the lecturer, and the slides. While the body recognition features would be great... Just having the ability to switch between video and slides at my discretion would be wonderful.
post #10 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Wow, look at the analog volume slider on that iPod!

Not to mention the mainframe needed to run the Syndication Server!
post #11 of 46
Doesn't this technology (PPT + PiP of presenter) already exist, and in spades?!
post #12 of 46
It's a good idea--get around the problem of needing someone to do camera cuts by providing both feeds, so the viewers can choose for themselves. Whether it qualifies for patent protection is another story. DVD players already permit viewers to choose a camera angle, which would seem to be prior art.

But there's a far more serious problem with podcasting as it is now, particularly in an education context, Podcasting is like newscasting. It assumes an audience that's waiting for each episode as it comes out. That is often not true.

Currently, if someone wants to study a topic for which there's an extensive series of podcasts, say Japanese101, they have to manage everything by hand, starting months back, carefully downloading a few episodes, listening to them, and then going back for a few more, going to a great deal of effort not to loose track of where they are.

That is poor. Podcasting needs an 'education mode' that would let users select when they start and how many episodes a week to download. Interested in learning Japanese but already knowing a little, I'd could choose to start Japanese101 with Episode 20 and have two episodes a week downloaded through iTunes to my iPod without my having to klutz with anything.

Do that, and podcasting becomes a real educational medium.
post #13 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408 View Post

Wow, look at the analog volume slider on that iPod!

Wow! - I wonder if the Macintosh LC 550 and the Powerbook 540 are included?
post #14 of 46
Another one of these junk patents where Apple appears to do a lot of hand-waving (an especially appropriate description given some of the their description, e.g. "the instructor could make certain gestures, or movements [...] that can be used to trigger operations") about something they apparently have no technology to back up.

And for my next patent, the coffee maker will make coffee when "certain gestures, or movements" are "used to trigger [the] operation".
post #15 of 46
post #16 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mh71 View Post

Color me crazy, but this looks a lot like the patent suits that Apple has been hit with lately. Mainly, that the concept is not really patent worthy. They are taking existing technologies (broadcasting, video streaming and podcasting) and repackaging them in a shiney new product. There is just nothing that is intrinsically new.

The software that the patent describes seems like it should be copywritable material. I could certainly understand that. It would be an original work ( or a derivative of say, FCP, podcast producer and Keynote).

I understand that Apple has to patent this, or else someone else will. Years will go by, and a faceless "intelectual property right" firm will file a suit in the eastern district of TX claiming that Apple is "willfully and purposefully" infringing on their patents and causing them irreprable damage. You know, we've seen the script before.

Ah, just some ramblings against the current state of patent law.

If it's patentable, they should patent it. Better than facing lawsuits that could force them into unfavorable licensing deals or get stuck with judgments that could cost them millions. They are duty-bound to protect and increase AAPL stock for the shareholders.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #17 of 46
Hello iMovie 09
post #18 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mh71 View Post

Color me crazy, but this looks a lot like the patent suits that Apple has been hit with lately. Mainly, that the concept is not really patent worthy. They are taking existing technologies (broadcasting, video streaming and podcasting) and repackaging them in a shiney new product. There is just nothing that is intrinsically new.

The software that the patent describes seems like it should be copywritable material. I could certainly understand that. It would be an original work ( or a derivative of say, FCP, podcast producer and Keynote).

I understand that Apple has to patent this, or else someone else will. Years will go by, and a faceless "intelectual property right" firm will file a suit in the eastern district of TX claiming that Apple is "willfully and purposefully" infringing on their patents and causing them irreprable damage. You know, we've seen the script before.

Ah, just some ramblings against the current state of patent law.

Knowledge of patent law is helpful here.

It is perfectly all right to combine the patents of others in a way that none of them singly would have been used, if that results in a product, or service, that is unique, when compared to those other patents, as this appears to be.

This may, or may not, incorporate other patented work. Are you saying that you have knowledge that it does?

Or are you just guessing?
post #19 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

I would echo the comments here. You mean to tell me that a service like Pandora, which incorporate things like ratings, bookmarking, buying songs, etc. into the player isn't prior art? So much of this stuff is derivative. I personally posted similar thoughts and ideas regarding next generation media player plays many months ago, thoughts which of course are influenced by what lots of different vendors are doing.

The whole patent thing has gotten out of hand, IMHO, and specific to Apple it raises some question, as to whether these types of filings are offensive moves or defensive ones, something I blogged about in:

Upward Mobility, Land Grabs and the iPhone Universe
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...-mobility.html

Check out the post if interested.

Mark

Can you illustrate what you are saying?

Simply because a cursury look at something SEEMS, to the unsophistacated in those areas, to be similar, doesn't mean that they are.

There is often more than one way to do something. It's rarely the end result that is patentable, but the way of getting that result.

I don't know enough about the way Pandora does what it does, or for that matter, exactly what it does.

You are saying that what Apple is proposing here is what Pandora does, in the way it does it?
post #20 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

It's a good idea--get around the problem of needing someone to do camera cuts by providing both feeds, so the viewers can choose for themselves. Whether it qualifies for patent protection is another story. DVD players already permit viewers to choose a camera angle, which would seem to be prior art.

There is no similarity. Camera angles on DVD are recorded, and edited in advance. You are merely choosing between one recording, as in a chapter, and another. This is a live interaction, which is entirely different.

Quote:
But there's a far more serious problem with podcasting as it is now, particularly in an education context, Podcasting is like newscasting. It assumes an audience that's waiting for each episode as it comes out. That is often not true.

Currently, if someone wants to study a topic for which there's an extensive series of podcasts, say Japanese101, they have to manage everything by hand, starting months back, carefully downloading a few episodes, listening to them, and then going back for a few more, going to a great deal of effort not to loose track of where they are.

That is poor. Podcasting needs an 'education mode' that would let users select when they start and how many episodes a week to download. Interested in learning Japanese but already knowing a little, I'd could choose to start Japanese101 with Episode 20 and have two episodes a week downloaded through iTunes to my iPod without my having to klutz with anything.

Do that, and podcasting becomes a real educational medium.

Again, this for a live presentation, not a recorded, static lecture.
post #21 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

Another one of these junk patents where Apple appears to do a lot of hand-waving (an especially appropriate description given some of the their description, e.g. "the instructor could make certain gestures, or movements [...] that can be used to trigger operations") about something they apparently have no technology to back up.

And for my next patent, the coffee maker will make coffee when "certain gestures, or movements" are "used to trigger [the] operation".

Can you show why it's a "junk" patent application? Other than your overall distain of Apple's patents, that is.
post #22 of 46

The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.

The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.
post #23 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Can you illustrate what you are saying?

Simply because a cursury look at something SEEMS, to the unsophistacated in those areas, to be similar, doesn't mean that they are.

There is often more than one way to do something. It's rarely the end result that is patentable, but the way of getting that result.

I don't know enough about the way Pandora does what it does, or for that matter, exactly what it does.

You are saying that what Apple is proposing here is what Pandora does, in the way it does it?

Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).

And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.

My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.

Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.

The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).

I raise this whole topic in:

The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...orpion-th.html

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.

Mark
post #24 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Knowledge of patent law is helpful here.

It is perfectly all right to combine the patents of others in a way that none of them singly would have been used, if that results in a product, or service, that is unique, when compared to those other patents, as this appears to be.

This may, or may not, incorporate other patented work. Are you saying that you have knowledge that it does?

Or are you just guessing?

Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.

I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.

As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!
post #25 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

Your push-backs are absolutely reasonable and fair questions, and to be clear, I am NOT saying that this filing overlaps with Pandora (after closer review, it decidedly does not).

And I definitely get the nature and specificity of methods in defining what it unique and patent-able and what it is not.

My concern is two fold. One is a perception that Apple is watching all of the chatter and ideas churning within blogosphere, products/features being rolled out by startups, etc. and building a patent portfolio specifically by trying to anticipate some of the toll roads that subsequent innovators will need to go down, and using their ample resources to file first.

Those toll roads may be open and free today, but nothing precludes Apple from taking a more aggressive stance down the road, which is alarming given that they are trying to grow a developer ecosystem around these same innovations.

The second concern is that Apple's history with developers is decidedly mixed so one has to read the tea leaves and figure out whether the patent play is orthogonal to third party developer innovation, a positive (e.g., the case where Apple pledges transparency, grants formal patent licenses to developers in exchange for covenants not to sue) or a negative (Apple will ultimately compete with or squeeze its partners down the road).

I raise this whole topic in:

The Scorpion, the Frog and the iPhone SDK
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...orpion-th.html

Don't get me wrong. I love Apple and I love Apple products, but as an entrepreneur, I always try to be pragmatic and aware of all of the moving parts at play.

Mark

I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.

Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.

One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.

It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.
post #26 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mh71 View Post

Well knowledge of anything or simply grasping at straws has never been a barrier to entry around here.

I agree with what you say, I just don't think the law should be quite so broad. IIRC, the two main stipulations for a patent are that it is unique and not obvious. Given the host of other similar, but not quite the same products and services, I'm not sure it would pass a "not obvious" test.

As I mentioned earlier, Apple has also been on the recieving end of these patents. An example is the Visual Voicemail patent. We have had the ability to radomly (sp?) access bits of information on a device from a list ever since the GUI made its way to the public in 1984 - well really since Zerox got to work. I can select emails, pictures, addresses, appointments, tasks, phonenumbers, files, music, podcasts, bookmarks, actions of a certain program and all kinds of other things from a list or in any order I want. But, when its a voicemail, it suddenly becomes a patentable invention. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

It reminds me of an Onion Radio News Item from a couple of months back. Taco Bell introduces a completely new way of combining the same 7 incrediants by putting the cheese underneath the lettuce. It tasts so much different!

Again, deeper knowledge is required before one can say that something is right or not. I haven't programmed for over ten years, so I'm not up to "modern" standards there, but I can say that these areas which you mentioned are all different. About the only thing that can't be patented is a direct take from nature in the area of math, for example. Therefore, algorithms, when discovered, can't be patented. Actual lines of code may be, or may not be.

Just because some things look the same on the surface doesn't mean that they are the same inside. Also, a patent in one area may not be valid if applied to another area. It depends on how broad the patent claim is, and whether it is challenged. Even if there are previous patents, they may not be valid, and upon challenge, be lost.

Computer patent law is still in its infancy. There will be, no doubt, some major rulings coming down over the years that will define what can and can't be done, more clearly.

But for now the old principles apply.
post #27 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I see nothing wrong with a company attempting to block off the isthmus through which all others must sail. That is just fine. Nowhere does it say that companies must leave open the route to competition to others.

Patents last 20 years, while this may seem long in such a fast moving world of computers, it's fair. If everyone lives by those same rules.

One might argue, and I do so myself, that certain types of patents should be for a shorter time, say ten years, or even possibly seven. But the principal holds. A company that is able to spot trends before others, and come up with ways to exploit those trends before others is valuable. If they do, then their prescience, and vigor in those matters should be rewarded with a patent.

It's up to others to come up with the countermoves. Interestingly enough, often it's the small companies that do.

I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"

No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.

Mark
post #28 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The first and third of those links are totally irrelevent to this.

The second is not, but as Apple has stated, there are methods to follow a presenter around. It's still not a game changer, as it is allowable to incorporate it into a more complex patent application, if indeed, that is what Apple must do.

LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.

The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.
post #29 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypermark View Post

I see nothing wrong with what Apple is doing in the abstract, either. It's part of the playing field that we all play on. That said, the more your business is predicated on growing an ecosystem, it's fair game for your constituency base to shine a light on those moves, and ask, "What's your end goal?"

No deeper analysis and spotlighting intent than that.

Mark

That's perfectly fine.
post #30 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

LOL. The first one is exactly this. "Gesture Tracking and Recognition for Lecture Video Editing: This paper presents a gesture based driven approach for video editing. Given a lecture video, we adopt novel approaches to automatically detect and synchronize its content with electronic slides. The gestures in each synchronized topic (or shot) are then tracked and recognized continuously. By registering shots and slides and recovering their transformation, the regions where the gestures take place can be known. Based on the recognized gestures and their registered positions, the information in slides can be seamlessly extracted, not only to assist video editing, but also to enhance the quality of original lecture video." The other two are prerequisite/related technologies.

The difference is that these people actually implemented something, and not Apple's hand waving vagueness.

That's not what Apple is doing.
post #31 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is no similarity. Camera angles on DVD are recorded, and edited in advance. You are merely choosing between one recording, as in a chapter, and another. This is a live interaction, which is entirely different.

Again, this for a live presentation, not a recorded, static lecture.

Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.

Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.
post #32 of 46
Didn't Al Gore mention he had this idea back in '58?

M=Ec2
post #33 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Why limit it to live presentation (in fact, the one diagram shows it being downloaded to an iPod)? They should use it for recorded lectures, too. You have a much broader application. How many people listen to podcasts live? I don't think I ever have. Mostly I watch on my iPod while commuting.

Of course, you'd have to use a QuickTime (or other) container and potentially lose the openness of the current podcast format. But you could simply put two video tracks in the same QT container and provide the user a way to switch between them. On the iPhone or iPod touch you could just swipe between views, like turning your head between the presenter to the slides.

Fine with me. We were just discussing what Apple said they were doing.
post #34 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeNsteinNo View Post

Didn't Al Gore mention he had this idea back in '58?

M=Ec2

You know, remarks about that are so tiring.

Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. But, he was way ahead of the curve in trying to get legislation in an attempt to open it up to the larger population. That's on record. It's been distorted way out of proportion.
post #35 of 46
You are right on the internet thing.

Today he came out with a real thing (see goggle news). End the use of fossil fuels by 2018. He just might use the Apple interactive podcast app to make his point.
post #36 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeNsteinNo View Post

Today he came out with a real thing (see goggle news). End the use of fossil fuels by 2018.

Now we wait for them to redefine the word fossil.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #37 of 46
Want to see a neat video? Type "al gore 1958" into the goggle web search box. Click on the result titled "THE REFERENCE FRAME" then read the comments below the video frame. Just think how Al could do one better with the forthcoming apple app.

AG=MC2
post #38 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeNsteinNo View Post

Want to see a neat video? Type "al gore 1958" into the goggle web search box. Click on the result titled "THE REFERENCE FRAME" then read the comments below the video frame. Just think how Al could do one better with the forthcoming apple app.

AG=MC2

1) Why didn't you just post a direct link?
2) I didn't see any comments under The Reference Frame" link.
3) I am not clear on what your point is about Al Gore.
4) I don't get what the M=EC2 and AG-MC2 is supposed to mean.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #39 of 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

ScreenFlow is an amazing app!

Thanks for the link to ScreenFlow. Cool video on their site. Downloaded the app and now off to play with it [ScreenFlow, I mean].
post #40 of 46
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/02/un...ming-1958.html

There are other ones if you do the web search.

I thought Al Gore was on the Apple board! Promote the new app with fossil fuel presentations.

As far as the equations, I don't what they mean, I'm no Einstein.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple filing takes Podcasts to the next level