- 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.
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)
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$$!!
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)
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>
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 <ahem> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
<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.
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>
Heh...yeah...just saying most submerisble watches don't even survive free-dive depths.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah : i was just kidding ..., concerning the watch you are true indeed. The greatest problem is the lack of water resistance after the replacement of battery : you can notice that the Rolex does not need battery ...and have the world record of immersion 33 000 feets.
Comments
He obviously knows something.
<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?
<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.
<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>
<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>
<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>
<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.
Natch.
D
<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.
<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>
[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: murk ]</p>
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!
<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?
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!"
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.
the Fovean chip is amazing!
(not that I know anything about typical ccd designs)
Pres
<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.
<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
<strong>
Buy a Rolex submariner
Heh...yeah...just saying most submerisble watches don't even survive free-dive depths.
<strong>
Heh...yeah...just saying most submerisble watches don't even survive free-dive depths.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah : i was just kidding ..., concerning the watch you are true indeed. The greatest problem is the lack of water resistance after the replacement of battery : you can notice that the Rolex does not need battery ...and have the world record of immersion 33 000 feets.