Reply 21 of 31
February 17, 2002 6:24PM
[quote]Originally posted by macsrock:
<strong>guess where this leads:<a href="
Dunno. Maybe this guy knows:
78 Lark Drive
South River, NJ 08882
He does own the domain name after all. Maybe he's secretly designing iPad for Apple? Maybe he's Steve's evil twin brother?
[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: jamiemarshall ]</p>
Reply 22 of 31
February 18, 2002 5:08AM
; target="_blank">Take a look</a>
[quote] Record created on 15-Dec-1999 <hr></blockquote>
Reply 23 of 31
February 18, 2002 2:40PM
You guys are all friggin nuts.
When a project is created at any major company a whole series of events get triggered from a budget being created, critical people being culled from other projects, managers assigned, legal searches for trademark, patent, liability protections begin and more.
Apple is a huge corporate enttity that doesn't order toilet paper without having scheduled meetings with a bunch of people to decide on how much to order, from where and how much it will cost.
Part of the process of a new product launch could include protecting possible trade names, such as iPhone. If you don't protect it now it will be taken by some shmuk squater or be held for ransom by domain name host companies (gee thanks ICANN). Its just business.
Somewhere Apple probably DID start up a telephony project that was based on early QuickTime VC work. Unfortunately the infrastructure of the Internet at the time and the last mile issues (which still persist despite all the crap Bill Clinton/Gore did to make them go away) simply did not allow peer to peer real time video conferencing.
The project probably got shelved, the tech went to other places in the Apple machine and the domain name lingers as long as some pencil pusher keeps sticking its renewel fee into some budget somewhere.
The mammals one was also related to Darwin work as either a gimmick or possible portal for the geeks (according to legend). Again it lingers because someone somewhere tacked on $30 to a budget to pay for it.
Sometimes the most obvious solution, no matter how unpopular, is the correct one. Not everything must be a massive conspiracy - littlebuddy.apple.com anyone? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Reply 24 of 31
February 19, 2002 4:56AM
[quote]Originally posted by Nitride:
littlebuddy.apple.com anyone? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow! Thanks for jogging my memory, I had forgot about that whole thing!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> Is it a new iTool? Is it Apple's new web portal? Is it for use with the new iPad?? No it's just some friggin Apple employee who clicked the wrong button or something...
Reply 25 of 31
February 19, 2002 5:29AM
[quote]Originally posted by janitor:
<strong>videophone? nah. how bout apple creating some quality video confrencing software? this is an area where wintel one ups us, and if apple is serious about competeing in business it will nee its own solution... but how serious are they about business? it looks like they're trying to push into 3d, but i'd hardly call that videoconfrencing market... i don't see apples market for videoconfrencing but i still find it infinitly more plausible than a video phone <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> Actually, one of the largest uses for video-conferencing is distance education and training. Apple still has significant market share, and an iPHONE app makes more sense than the Mac stunted CU-Seeme or other vestigial vid conferencing apps on our platform.
Reply 26 of 31
February 19, 2002 7:08AM
Of course, you realise what the biggest market for iphone/video phone technology will be?
Porn drove video on the internet, so we shouldn't underestimate its power to make something like *this* happen. If its going to happen at all.
Reply 27 of 31
February 19, 2002 1:31PM
Have you used Quicktime 6/MPEG-4? If not, then how do you know what they're capable/incapable of doing? Maybe they will enable an iPhone app to work. Why is it so inconceivable? Sure, broadband might be a requirement; but should Apple wait until broadband is in every home just to bring out this tech. MS isn't. Ever hear of NetMeeting?
Reply 28 of 31
February 19, 2002 5:56PM
[quote]Originally posted by Nitride:
<strong>You guys are all friggin nuts.
Apple is a huge corporate enttity that doesn't order toilet paper without having scheduled meetings with a bunch of people to decide on how much to order, from where and how much it will cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm thinking they allocate so much to the custodian budget and/or seperate company that cleans Apple's big houses all over, so if they run out you are wiping your a$$ with your hand and/or paper towels until those run out too. I could be wrong....SJ probably has a portapotty on wheels that follows him along...plus a caravan of comps/his people
Reply 29 of 31
February 19, 2002 11:53PM
I made another thread about this, but I think the video phone functionality will be implemented by Apple into its computers, further solidifying the computer as the digital hub.
iCam coupled with a new iChat (or iPhone) software, would intergrate as seemless as iTunes and iPod. The interface would be simple and the webcam-like device would be FireWire based for maximum throughput.
I think if Apple put the same amount of resources and marketing into this as they have their other "i" apps and devices like iPod, that this could be huge and put the Mac at the forefront of video conferencing.
Apple has had experience with video conferencing. Anyone remember QT Conference?
The thing is that now all the variables are in place: Mac OS X is default, FireWire on all models, G4s almost standard on all lines for AltiVec acceleration, and broadband connections growing among consumers...
[ 02-20-2002: Message edited by: Tarbash ]</p>
Reply 30 of 31
i have questions
February 20, 2002 1:14AM
I actually agree with HLaM above... this could really help Apple keep its share of the education market. When I was in grad school, we held classes in a special studio while several satellite locations joined us. It was run with a process called "CIV" or "Compressed Interactive Video". Distance learning is speading quickly, and I think this sort of technology could spring Apple into the forefront of distance learning. Of course, to be useful as a home/office feature, it would have to be cross-platform, b/c like someone else said above, I'd have the mac to run it, but no one I wanted to call would...
Reply 31 of 31
February 22, 2002 9:10PM
Whether Apple does it or not I hope that someone comes up with an iApp solution to videoconferencing and draw on the power of QT6 and friends.
Education and enterprise could use it if no one else. In states with lots of rural land, the current state of videoconferencing is mesozoic and a real pain to implement. If Apple can make videoconferencing as easy as burning a DVD, then I know lots of takers.