Repeat after me. It doesn't matter. Why waste bandwidth for a format that most people cannot tell the difference between. Again with the spec argument, 1080P is bigger than 720P so therefore MUST be better, more useful, more appreciated. Baloney. Netflix is literally taking over the streaming market and doesn't even come close to 1080P for most user's bandwidth connections. And customers are fine with that it would appear.
1080P matters for me, my 20/20 vision, and my 55" TV that we sit @ 10 feet from.
We watch netflix streamed movies on our TV because there isn't an option to stream 1080p, not that it matters with U-Verse's new 250GB/month cap.
Repeat after me. It doesn't matter. Why waste bandwidth for a format that most people cannot tell the difference between. Again with the spec argument, 1080P is bigger than 720P so therefore MUST be better, more useful, more appreciated. Baloney. Netflix is literally taking over the streaming market and doesn't even come close to 1080P for most user's bandwidth connections. And customers are fine with that it would appear.
With a species continually driven by instant gratification convenience is king.
Despite the crappy quality of 128Kbps iTMS files coupled with DRM it still managed to be the world's largest music store; despite the crappy 320x240 Flash video of YouTube it still became one of the world's most visored sites and distributor of streaming video; despite the poor 320p, and later 480p, quality Flash video of Hulu it still became a widely popular method of watching missed television shows instead of waiting for the physical media to be sold or an episode to re-air; and despite the lack of eye-spooging HD Netflix's streaming service is overtaking it's physical media service and surely far outstripals its Blu-ray rentals.
While I agree with those who said that Apple could just hold 1 copy of a song/video that's being offered in iTunes and use that to serve millions of users, this kind of service would, at least from my point of view, be less useful that what Amazon is currently offering. I personally wish Apple would offer the chance for me to upload whatever files, whether iTunes can recognize or not, and use those files on any iOS devices. But maybe that's just me. \
But Apple doesn't need to store each song even if the end user uploads it.
What Apple could do is have the end user upload their copy, process it, and then stream THEIR (as in Apples copy) to the end user. Essentially Apple could create a dropbox like system for music storage without hosting the end users files.
That's the whole point. Like DropBox and Time Machine the file isn't uploaded if they already have it. There is absolutely no reason very user would need to upload the same song back to the iTS sever.
Ever try to upload a large file to Dropbox and it seems to fo it instantly even though your Internet connection couldn't possibly be that fast? That's because it only needs one copy of a file, not a distinct copy for each user on the system.
... Wonder when Apple will unveil it's new "iRobot"? (would have to get rights from the estate of Issac Asimov!)
Asimov has no trademarks on the word "Robot" (nor can he have), and has never used "iRobot" either.
For that matter, Spielberg has no right charging for Android using "Droid" since it's a word in public use for decades previous to his films and he has never made mobile phones. You can bet that if Apple had chosen "Droid" instead of "iPhone" they surely wouldn't be paying the guy anything for it.
Sometimes people are so scared of lawsuits they do strange things though. The USA is the most litigious nation on the planet bar none.
I love how people are so unimpressed with that reported capacity. Even allowing 1) very generous file sizes (Blu Ray-quality 10G), and, 2) assuming roughly half of it as usable with the rest going to loss for redundancy and room for growth, if it were just for movies there would easily be room for many hundred thousand. If it's less than Blu-Ray quality the number of titles would jump exponentially. Anyhow, who knows if this is just one round of drive orders. First? Last before going online?
Edit - redundant responses because I took too long to compose this. My math might not be exact. I'm using some rough numbers but desarc has better numbers.
Your number is as good as him. 1080p movie in mkv @ 10 GB. look just as good as bluray. I doubt anyone would use bluray bit-rate for streaming.
They're not going to store Blu-ray for streaming. That's ludicrous. The first constraint on that bitrate would be the bandwidth to the destination. (Very few people are going to experience sustained 5 MB/second, in spite of the marketing claims of some providers and promising future roadmaps.) That's long before we even begin discussion of server-side storage space.
Maybe I'm just totally clueless on this, but 12 petabytes doesn't sound a lot to me. I mean a single portable harddrive nowadays have at least 1TB storage on average, so 12,000 TB is like only 12k portable harddrives, how is that enough to serve millions of users?
Even if I use a very conservative estimate and say Apple offers the same storage as Amazon (20 GB per person), 12 petabytes is only serving 600k people.
at first, and in that scenario, yes, it seems small. but like the article said, no where in the announced purchase does it mention using this storage for the cloud. rather, this storage is for iTunes, and it sounds like specifically for movies. 12PB could store roughly 10-12 million more standard def movies or around roughly 4-6 million HD movies. thats quite the addition to iTunes, especially when you take into account that this isn't a total sum after the order, but the order is for 12PB more than what they currently have...
When will I be able to buy a 12 petabyte USB thumb drive?
No, you heard it wrong. That is the storage for the revised iPod shuffle redesigned to be the size of a usb thumb drive to be presented and demoed by Steve at WWDC!
About time... for a while every iPod revision was smaller with greater memory and then... nothing... yep, about time the tradition continues!
the maximum bitrate for blu-ray is 40mbps [not mBps]. that's 5MB/second.
5MB/second = 300MB/minute = 18GB/hour.
12PB [or 12,000TB - remember 1TB = 1024GB before formatting] / 18GB is a satanic 666,666 hours of completely uncompressed 1080p.
Maximum bitrate for Blu-ray video is 40 Mb/s, yes. But we do want audio as well, right? But it's really irrelevant, since most of the iDevices will choke on that.
Incidentally the data on a Blu-ray disk is extremely compressed (uncompressed video, or even losslessly compressed video is several hundred megabits per second).
blu-ray is a highly compressed format. 5MB/s is highly compressed compared to uncompressed 1080p 24fps, which is 95MB/s for 8-bit color and 127MB/s for 10-bit color. This is 334 or 445GB/hr. Yeah Blu-ray is pretty damn compressed.
Comments
First...
Who's your daddy.
Just love going to the comments to see that the #2 spot (article in #1) has a deep thought like that.
Could we maybe skip these for a while, Please.
Thanks for your kind consideration.
When will I be able to buy a 12 petabyte USB thumb drive?
I think that size thumb drive is still in the wheelbarrow edition. That being said it will probably be early next spring don't ya think
BTW: I hope it is at least USB 2.
Repeat after me. It doesn't matter. Why waste bandwidth for a format that most people cannot tell the difference between. Again with the spec argument, 1080P is bigger than 720P so therefore MUST be better, more useful, more appreciated. Baloney. Netflix is literally taking over the streaming market and doesn't even come close to 1080P for most user's bandwidth connections. And customers are fine with that it would appear.
1080P matters for me, my 20/20 vision, and my 55" TV that we sit @ 10 feet from.
We watch netflix streamed movies on our TV because there isn't an option to stream 1080p, not that it matters with U-Verse's new 250GB/month cap.
Um, I think it's pretty certain apple knows how much storage space they need to do whatever they're planning to do
Repeat after me. It doesn't matter. Why waste bandwidth for a format that most people cannot tell the difference between. Again with the spec argument, 1080P is bigger than 720P so therefore MUST be better, more useful, more appreciated. Baloney. Netflix is literally taking over the streaming market and doesn't even come close to 1080P for most user's bandwidth connections. And customers are fine with that it would appear.
With a species continually driven by instant gratification convenience is king.
Despite the crappy quality of 128Kbps iTMS files coupled with DRM it still managed to be the world's largest music store; despite the crappy 320x240 Flash video of YouTube it still became one of the world's most visored sites and distributor of streaming video; despite the poor 320p, and later 480p, quality Flash video of Hulu it still became a widely popular method of watching missed television shows instead of waiting for the physical media to be sold or an episode to re-air; and despite the lack of eye-spooging HD Netflix's streaming service is overtaking it's physical media service and surely far outstripals its Blu-ray rentals.
But Apple doesn't need to store each song even if the end user uploads it.
What Apple could do is have the end user upload their copy, process it, and then stream THEIR (as in Apples copy) to the end user. Essentially Apple could create a dropbox like system for music storage without hosting the end users files.
That's the whole point. Like DropBox and Time Machine the file isn't uploaded if they already have it. There is absolutely no reason very user would need to upload the same song back to the iTS sever.
Ever try to upload a large file to Dropbox and it seems to fo it instantly even though your Internet connection couldn't possibly be that fast? That's because it only needs one copy of a file, not a distinct copy for each user on the system.
... Wonder when Apple will unveil it's new "iRobot"? (would have to get rights from the estate of Issac Asimov!)
Asimov has no trademarks on the word "Robot" (nor can he have), and has never used "iRobot" either.
For that matter, Spielberg has no right charging for Android using "Droid" since it's a word in public use for decades previous to his films and he has never made mobile phones. You can bet that if Apple had chosen "Droid" instead of "iPhone" they surely wouldn't be paying the guy anything for it.
Sometimes people are so scared of lawsuits they do strange things though. The USA is the most litigious nation on the planet bar none.
I love how people are so unimpressed with that reported capacity. Even allowing 1) very generous file sizes (Blu Ray-quality 10G), and, 2) assuming roughly half of it as usable with the rest going to loss for redundancy and room for growth, if it were just for movies there would easily be room for many hundred thousand. If it's less than Blu-Ray quality the number of titles would jump exponentially. Anyhow, who knows if this is just one round of drive orders. First? Last before going online?
Edit - redundant responses because I took too long to compose this. My math might not be exact. I'm using some rough numbers but desarc has better numbers.
Your number is as good as him. 1080p movie in mkv @ 10 GB. look just as good as bluray. I doubt anyone would use bluray bit-rate for streaming.
Wonder when Apple will unveil it's new "iRobot"? (would have to get rights from the estate of Issac Asimov!)
They might also want to contact the (well-established) iRobot corporation....
www.irobot.com/
I joke only to relieve the tension. I hope he has many more years--for his family and for Apple.
The drives will be used in the North Carolina "Data Center" for the digitization of Steve!
It's for his iBook library.
the maximum bitrate for blu-ray is 40mbps [not mBps]. that's 5MB/second.
5MB/second = 300MB/minute = 18GB/hour.
12PB [or 12,000TB - remember 1TB = 1024GB before formatting] / 18GB is a satanic 666,666 hours of completely uncompressed 1080p.
[or if James Cameron has his way, 12PB will store about 2,500 hours of 60fps quad HD 3D Avatar nonsense].
here's an idea of where video bitrates are heading: http://bit.ly/goBzat
They're not going to store Blu-ray for streaming. That's ludicrous. The first constraint on that bitrate would be the bandwidth to the destination. (Very few people are going to experience sustained 5 MB/second, in spite of the marketing claims of some providers and promising future roadmaps.) That's long before we even begin discussion of server-side storage space.
Thompson
Maybe I'm just totally clueless on this, but 12 petabytes doesn't sound a lot to me. I mean a single portable harddrive nowadays have at least 1TB storage on average, so 12,000 TB is like only 12k portable harddrives, how is that enough to serve millions of users?
Even if I use a very conservative estimate and say Apple offers the same storage as Amazon (20 GB per person), 12 petabytes is only serving 600k people.
at first, and in that scenario, yes, it seems small. but like the article said, no where in the announced purchase does it mention using this storage for the cloud. rather, this storage is for iTunes, and it sounds like specifically for movies. 12PB could store roughly 10-12 million more standard def movies or around roughly 4-6 million HD movies. thats quite the addition to iTunes, especially when you take into account that this isn't a total sum after the order, but the order is for 12PB more than what they currently have...
Best part: We don't need new hardware, only new software.
Worst part: Apple will release new hardware and never. EVER. allow the current Apple TV to output 1080p.
Another best part: It only costs $99.
It's for his iBook library.
Reminds me the Wong Library from Futurama.
We have time only till december 27 2012, so it doesn't matter.
I thought it was Dec. 21. You mean we have to go through one more Christmas?
When will I be able to buy a 12 petabyte USB thumb drive?
No, you heard it wrong. That is the storage for the revised iPod shuffle redesigned to be the size of a usb thumb drive to be presented and demoed by Steve at WWDC!
About time... for a while every iPod revision was smaller with greater memory and then... nothing... yep, about time the tradition continues!
the maximum bitrate for blu-ray is 40mbps [not mBps]. that's 5MB/second.
5MB/second = 300MB/minute = 18GB/hour.
12PB [or 12,000TB - remember 1TB = 1024GB before formatting] / 18GB is a satanic 666,666 hours of completely uncompressed 1080p.
Maximum bitrate for Blu-ray video is 40 Mb/s, yes. But we do want audio as well, right? But it's really irrelevant, since most of the iDevices will choke on that.
Incidentally the data on a Blu-ray disk is extremely compressed (uncompressed video, or even losslessly compressed video is several hundred megabits per second).
the maximum bitrate for blu-ray is 40mbps [not mBps]. that's 5MB/second.
5MB/second = 300MB/minute = 18GB/hour.
12PB [or 12,000TB - remember 1TB = 1024GB before formatting] / 18GB is a satanic 666,666 hours of completely uncompressed 1080p.
[or if James Cameron has his way, 12PB will store about 2,500 hours of 60fps quad HD 3D Avatar nonsense].
here's an idea of where video bitrates are heading: http://bit.ly/goBzat
blu-ray is a highly compressed format. 5MB/s is highly compressed compared to uncompressed 1080p 24fps, which is 95MB/s for 8-bit color and 127MB/s for 10-bit color. This is 334 or 445GB/hr. Yeah Blu-ray is pretty damn compressed.