[quote]Use a VCR or DVD player onscreen menu someday and tell me if you think that UI took much time during the development stage of the product?<hr></blockquote>
It didn't take nearly enough time, based on the number of VCR owners who use the things strictly for playback. How many VCRs have you seen where the clock blinks "12:00?"
The simpler the interface has to be, the harder it is to design well. That's what's so remarkable about the iPod's interface: They obviously spend a lot of time on it, and their work paid off in spades.
<strong>The iPod needs to be much bigger to hold any reasonable amount of data. Make it 50GB not 5. OOh, idea - go a video store with your iPod, fill up on your evening's entertainment, go home and watch through your iDOCk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can anybody say 'Offline RT'? Think about it guys!
Ugh, I think you want to open your mouth before you engage your brain.
<hr></blockquote>
This pretty much typifies the quality of response I'm getting to my posts--nonsense. I believe you meant to say I should engage my brain before opening my mouth.
[quote]
Yes it is not going to fit in perfectly with everybody's setups as they are today, but introduce new tools and you set new paradigms.
<hr></blockquote>
When your tools are only used by 5% of the market, it's very very difficult to set new paradigms.
[quote]
I'm not saying this is going to happen, I just think that you dismissing it shows a complete lack of imagination
<hr></blockquote>
I totally disagree. I'm using my imagination to visualize the iDock in a real world situation, explaining how I think it should work and presenting problems and obstacles I find. Nobody seems to be able to imagine solutions, so it would seem the problems I'm presenting aren't trivial. I'm challenging your ideas and I'm sorry if you can't rise to the challenge.
<strong>When your tools are only used by 5% of the market, it's very very difficult to set new paradigms.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet Apple continues to do so over and over again. The origional Macintosh, Laser Printers for the home user, iMac, mainstream USB, etc... I am sure you can think of more if you really tried. Sure some did not do so well (Newton) but they still made everyone think and spurred a new market that previously did not exist.
At the time of the original macintosh Apple was in a great position regarding marketshare. Those were the days and I remember them fondly.
[quote]mainstream USB<hr></blockquote>
USB is an Intel technology. Apple adopted USB to address the lack of mac-compatible peripherals. Back in the days of ADB, peripheral manufacturers had to build mac-specific versions of their products. As marketshare shrank, these ADB-based peripherals were becoming more and more difficult to find. What Apple did that was unusual was the elimination of legacy connectors (ie SCSI and ADB). PC manufacturers continue to ship hardware with legacy connectors.
[quote]iMac<hr></blockquote>
How did this set a new paradigm? PC manufacturers continue to produce modular, ugly systems for consumers and consumers continue to gobble them up. The iMac is cool , stylsh and simple but it has not set a new paradigm that I can see.
My interpretation of the statement "introduce new tools and you set new paradigms" is that it was alluding to the possibility that A/V electonics manufacturers would produce equipment designed to integrate with an iDock. I have a big problem seeing this happen. Why would A/V manufacturers change their hardware to integrate with a device that has 5% marketshare?
How did this set a new paradigm? PC manufacturers continue to produce modular, ugly systems for consumers and consumers continue to gobble them up. The iMac is cool , stylsh and simple but it has not set a new paradigm that I can see.
My interpretation of the statement "introduce new tools and you set new paradigms" is that it was alluding to the possibility that A/V electonics manufacturers would produce equipment designed to integrate with an iDock. I have a big problem seeing this happen. Why would A/V manufacturers change their hardware to integrate with a device that has 5% marketshare?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your other two quotes also fall into this. What you are saying is that Apple should not do this as they do not have the marketshare to make it fly. You are obviously not arguing with me aobut the origional Macintosh as that did set the trend for nearly all OS's to follow.
As far as the iMac is concerned, yes they are still building ugly boxes, but you are seeing a lot more of the translucent plastics and all-in-one designs that remind you of the iMac, not just in computers either. I have seen irons that look like iMacs for pete's sake. And for the legacy free part of ths issue, that is happening as we speak. Apple was seriously ahead of the curve on that one and showed people that those old ports were not needed for a computer to be useful.
Which segues us nicely into USB. Sure, many computers had it back then, and sure it sounded nice, but try to find anything that used it and you could not. Apple says, "Hey, lets make a box that not only uses it, but that requires it in order to be useful!" Suddenly (it sure seemed like it was overnight) you hve more USB devices than you would have ever thought possible. Sounds like driving the market to me.
I won't even get into firewire and where that is heading.
Lack of marketshare will not stop Apple from putting anything out, and neither should it. Vision is what we have been seeing, some of it is not fully realized, but hey, you can't always hit homeruns.
'It?s the hot new QuickTime Photo-JPEG codec upon which Final Cut Pro 3?s OfflineRT format is based. Capturing digital video at 320 x 240 and running at a data rate of 660Kbps, the QuickTime Photo-JPEG codec yields approximately 40 minutes of footage per 1GB of hard drive space. You do the math.'
Now think about fitting DV onto a iPod or such device.
Formac's Studio .... a proto iDock or hub has some kind of hardware accelerated encoding from what i remember ... MJPEG or something ....
The clear crystal version of this machine looked very nice, if apple turned their hand to something along similar lines i would think it would be drop-dead gorgeous, and hopefully exceedingly functional ...
They've also released a version with an internal HD as well ...
that's exactly what I thought....hmmm...they obviously spent quite some effort and $ to develop this new codec. 3+hours of video on an iPod? That's the length of feature film...and where does MPEG4 fit into all this? "So many riddles Holmes"
"Long live the QuickTime Airport-Enabled TiVo iThing!"
A 48 gig HD with a full slew of RCA, S-Video, FireWire and Fibre in/out on back with slot to load yer iPod into....
That could be a lot of fun.
*Especially* whif the iPod gets a fatty HD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some observations more to those points:
? The iPod's wheel interface is more familiar to anyone with a modern VCR or to those who have used prosumer video editing equipment. The controls aren't just innovative in the context of an MP3 player - it was chosen as an interface to many devices.
? The storage is not really a limitation if it's taken in the context of other less portable devices. With it's own OS and beefy processors the iPod could in fact be the digital "key" to many devices, containing encryption systems, passwords, edit decision lists, software upgrades, image catalogues, etc. It's seeming generic abilities suggest it's that it could do just about anything in concert with other devices.
? I've heard many new iPod owners remark that it's odd that the case is so smooth and rounded around the metal back but the front of the case is has hard right angle finishes, no attempt to smooth the front surface. This thing is meant to mount flush into some sort of socket...
Finally, I don't think that there will be a new iMac per se.
There will be a new desktop from Apple with a integrated flat screen though. Apple has focused its education push with the laptops, the iBook specifically. We don't need desktops like we did. Inexpensive and semi-portable, the new paradigm will be an appliance who's "configs" - the way the fill it's casing - really turn it into different tools. Video-centric: (big drives, firewire ports for outboard drives and monitors); Audiophile: controller-cabled to sit along with your traditional amps, CD, receiver on the shelf. The iPod is both your remote, and it lets you carry your new CD to work tomorrow; Kitchen Control Center stripped-down for Mom's email and internet only - and oh yeah, it's the cheapest of the lot.
These fit nicely with the new faster processors that Motorola "sez" they have, which are really just clocked up G4s - hotter, but faster for short term relief and fancy new processing tricks like MPEG4 compression. They'll fill the gap until the G5s really debut (NY? Tokyo? Paris?).
that's exactly what I thought....hmmm...they obviously spent quite some effort and $ to develop this new codec. 3+hours of video on an iPod? That's the length of feature film...and where does MPEG4 fit into all this? "So many riddles Holmes"</strong><hr></blockquote>
This basically makes it quite possible that an iPod or such device could transport a reasonable amount of video footage, in fact half way down the Offline RT page it even suggests it?
[quote]Introducing the musical hard disk
Collaborating on a project? If you need to carry three or four hours worth of footage with you to and from a shared computer, here?s a nifty solution: store your footage in OfflineRT format on your iPod?s 5GB hard disk, and carry your part of the project around with you in your shirt pocket.<hr></blockquote>
?now if a port was constructed from the iPod into A/V etc a whole lot becomes possible. Why did they call it iPod after all, why not i{something-to-do-with-MP3's}!
Does quicktime support Offline RT? It seems not alot is known about it other than Apple would never have put the effort in needed to complete the codec if it wasn't a major part of it's future plans.
hrm.... i'd like it if i could just have my mac stop chopping off my filenames. most of my mp3 collection is made up of rather large filenames, which i store on my pc, as my mac truncates them to 31 characters. alas!
Comments
[quote]Use a VCR or DVD player onscreen menu someday and tell me if you think that UI took much time during the development stage of the product?<hr></blockquote>
It didn't take nearly enough time, based on the number of VCR owners who use the things strictly for playback. How many VCRs have you seen where the clock blinks "12:00?"
The simpler the interface has to be, the harder it is to design well. That's what's so remarkable about the iPod's interface: They obviously spend a lot of time on it, and their work paid off in spades.
<strong>The iPod needs to be much bigger to hold any reasonable amount of data. Make it 50GB not 5. OOh, idea - go a video store with your iPod, fill up on your evening's entertainment, go home and watch through your iDOCk.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Can anybody say 'Offline RT'? Think about it guys!
<a href="http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/offlinert.html"; target="_blank">Offline RT</a>
Any coincidence that the iPod is on this page as well?
You guys have SEEN this LaserLink, right? Just put an IR emitter on the iPod and point it towards the TV of your choice (LL equipped, of course).
Maybe GigaWire is firewire over IR?
Prob not
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: JRC ]</p>
Ugh, I think you want to open your mouth before you engage your brain.
<hr></blockquote>
This pretty much typifies the quality of response I'm getting to my posts--nonsense. I believe you meant to say I should engage my brain before opening my mouth.
[quote]
Yes it is not going to fit in perfectly with everybody's setups as they are today, but introduce new tools and you set new paradigms.
<hr></blockquote>
When your tools are only used by 5% of the market, it's very very difficult to set new paradigms.
[quote]
I'm not saying this is going to happen, I just think that you dismissing it shows a complete lack of imagination
<hr></blockquote>
I totally disagree. I'm using my imagination to visualize the iDock in a real world situation, explaining how I think it should work and presenting problems and obstacles I find. Nobody seems to be able to imagine solutions, so it would seem the problems I'm presenting aren't trivial. I'm challenging your ideas and I'm sorry if you can't rise to the challenge.
<strong>When your tools are only used by 5% of the market, it's very very difficult to set new paradigms.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet Apple continues to do so over and over again. The origional Macintosh, Laser Printers for the home user, iMac, mainstream USB, etc... I am sure you can think of more if you really tried. Sure some did not do so well (Newton) but they still made everyone think and spurred a new market that previously did not exist.
At the time of the original macintosh Apple was in a great position regarding marketshare. Those were the days and I remember them fondly.
[quote]mainstream USB<hr></blockquote>
USB is an Intel technology. Apple adopted USB to address the lack of mac-compatible peripherals. Back in the days of ADB, peripheral manufacturers had to build mac-specific versions of their products. As marketshare shrank, these ADB-based peripherals were becoming more and more difficult to find. What Apple did that was unusual was the elimination of legacy connectors (ie SCSI and ADB). PC manufacturers continue to ship hardware with legacy connectors.
[quote]iMac<hr></blockquote>
How did this set a new paradigm? PC manufacturers continue to produce modular, ugly systems for consumers and consumers continue to gobble them up. The iMac is cool , stylsh and simple but it has not set a new paradigm that I can see.
My interpretation of the statement "introduce new tools and you set new paradigms" is that it was alluding to the possibility that A/V electonics manufacturers would produce equipment designed to integrate with an iDock. I have a big problem seeing this happen. Why would A/V manufacturers change their hardware to integrate with a device that has 5% marketshare?
<strong>
How did this set a new paradigm? PC manufacturers continue to produce modular, ugly systems for consumers and consumers continue to gobble them up. The iMac is cool , stylsh and simple but it has not set a new paradigm that I can see.
My interpretation of the statement "introduce new tools and you set new paradigms" is that it was alluding to the possibility that A/V electonics manufacturers would produce equipment designed to integrate with an iDock. I have a big problem seeing this happen. Why would A/V manufacturers change their hardware to integrate with a device that has 5% marketshare?</strong><hr></blockquote>
And your other two quotes also fall into this. What you are saying is that Apple should not do this as they do not have the marketshare to make it fly. You are obviously not arguing with me aobut the origional Macintosh as that did set the trend for nearly all OS's to follow.
As far as the iMac is concerned, yes they are still building ugly boxes, but you are seeing a lot more of the translucent plastics and all-in-one designs that remind you of the iMac, not just in computers either. I have seen irons that look like iMacs for pete's sake. And for the legacy free part of ths issue, that is happening as we speak. Apple was seriously ahead of the curve on that one and showed people that those old ports were not needed for a computer to be useful.
Which segues us nicely into USB. Sure, many computers had it back then, and sure it sounded nice, but try to find anything that used it and you could not. Apple says, "Hey, lets make a box that not only uses it, but that requires it in order to be useful!" Suddenly (it sure seemed like it was overnight) you hve more USB devices than you would have ever thought possible. Sounds like driving the market to me.
I won't even get into firewire and where that is heading.
Lack of marketshare will not stop Apple from putting anything out, and neither should it. Vision is what we have been seeing, some of it is not fully realized, but hey, you can't always hit homeruns.
Seeing that nobody is biting or is too busy squabling I'll quote from <a href="http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/offlinert.html"; target="_blank">this page</a> as I tried before.
'It?s the hot new QuickTime Photo-JPEG codec upon which Final Cut Pro 3?s OfflineRT format is based. Capturing digital video at 320 x 240 and running at a data rate of 660Kbps, the QuickTime Photo-JPEG codec yields approximately 40 minutes of footage per 1GB of hard drive space. You do the math.'
Now think about fitting DV onto a iPod or such device.
Formac's Studio .... a proto iDock or hub has some kind of hardware accelerated encoding from what i remember ... MJPEG or something ....
The clear crystal version of this machine looked very nice, if apple turned their hand to something along similar lines i would think it would be drop-dead gorgeous, and hopefully exceedingly functional ...
They've also released a version with an internal HD as well ...
href="http://www.formac.com/html/shopformac.html?cid=shop_products_studio";
[ 12-05-2001: Message edited by: jobes ]</p>
<strong>
Can anybody say 'Offline RT'? Think about it guys!
<a href="http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/offlinert.html"; target="_blank">Offline RT</a>
Any coincidence that the iPod is on this page as well?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now *this* is interesting.
Remember the thread--several months ago--who's subject went something along the lines of:
"Long live the QuickTime Airport-Enabled TiVo iThing!"
That may not reflect everything this iDock could be, but it cannot be far off.
A 48 gig HD with a full slew of RCA, S-Video, FireWire and Fibre in/out on back with slot to load yer iPod into....
That could be a lot of fun.
*Especially* whif the iPod gets a fatty HD.
that's exactly what I thought....hmmm...they obviously spent quite some effort and $ to develop this new codec. 3+hours of video on an iPod? That's the length of feature film...and where does MPEG4 fit into all this? "So many riddles Holmes"
<strong>
"Long live the QuickTime Airport-Enabled TiVo iThing!"
A 48 gig HD with a full slew of RCA, S-Video, FireWire and Fibre in/out on back with slot to load yer iPod into....
That could be a lot of fun.
*Especially* whif the iPod gets a fatty HD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some observations more to those points:
? The iPod's wheel interface is more familiar to anyone with a modern VCR or to those who have used prosumer video editing equipment. The controls aren't just innovative in the context of an MP3 player - it was chosen as an interface to many devices.
? The storage is not really a limitation if it's taken in the context of other less portable devices. With it's own OS and beefy processors the iPod could in fact be the digital "key" to many devices, containing encryption systems, passwords, edit decision lists, software upgrades, image catalogues, etc. It's seeming generic abilities suggest it's that it could do just about anything in concert with other devices.
? I've heard many new iPod owners remark that it's odd that the case is so smooth and rounded around the metal back but the front of the case is has hard right angle finishes, no attempt to smooth the front surface. This thing is meant to mount flush into some sort of socket...
Finally, I don't think that there will be a new iMac per se.
There will be a new desktop from Apple with a integrated flat screen though. Apple has focused its education push with the laptops, the iBook specifically. We don't need desktops like we did. Inexpensive and semi-portable, the new paradigm will be an appliance who's "configs" - the way the fill it's casing - really turn it into different tools. Video-centric: (big drives, firewire ports for outboard drives and monitors); Audiophile: controller-cabled to sit along with your traditional amps, CD, receiver on the shelf. The iPod is both your remote, and it lets you carry your new CD to work tomorrow; Kitchen Control Center stripped-down for Mom's email and internet only - and oh yeah, it's the cheapest of the lot.
These fit nicely with the new faster processors that Motorola "sez" they have, which are really just clocked up G4s - hotter, but faster for short term relief and fancy new processing tricks like MPEG4 compression. They'll fill the gap until the G5s really debut (NY? Tokyo? Paris?).
<strong>naderby...
that's exactly what I thought....hmmm...they obviously spent quite some effort and $ to develop this new codec. 3+hours of video on an iPod? That's the length of feature film...and where does MPEG4 fit into all this? "So many riddles Holmes"</strong><hr></blockquote>
This basically makes it quite possible that an iPod or such device could transport a reasonable amount of video footage, in fact half way down the Offline RT page it even suggests it?
[quote]Introducing the musical hard disk
Collaborating on a project? If you need to carry three or four hours worth of footage with you to and from a shared computer, here?s a nifty solution: store your footage in OfflineRT format on your iPod?s 5GB hard disk, and carry your part of the project around with you in your shirt pocket.<hr></blockquote>
?now if a port was constructed from the iPod into A/V etc a whole lot becomes possible. Why did they call it iPod after all, why not i{something-to-do-with-MP3's}!
Does quicktime support Offline RT? It seems not alot is known about it other than Apple would never have put the effort in needed to complete the codec if it wasn't a major part of it's future plans.
<a href="http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=458 832" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=technologynews&StoryID=458 832</a>