Matsu, the Foveon shots on DPReview were shot with a 4 megapixel square CCD, basically the same res as the current 6 megapixel crop of d-SLRs except the images it takes are square and not 3:2.
Still, it doesn't matter, a 3 megapixel 3:2 rectangular Foveon still won't create colors from none.
The Nikon's image seems to produce more colors when vertical resolution is in question, but fewer when horizontal...vs the Canon D60.
As I said in my original Foveon reference, $$$ is the only issue. Bayer pattern CCDs are effectively dinosaurs now though. It's only a matter of time.
<strong>Yeah the G4 would be unlikely, but it IS an embedded processor.
Actually I would rather Apple focus on offering competitive hardware instead of wasting their time on cameras. There are already plenty of nice cameras on the market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there were already penty of nice MP3 plays on the market and then the iPod came.
and it's not like the team working on a camera is holding back Motorola processor development
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>
Ahhh....I couldn't resist after seeing this comment. Anyone else checked out Apple's current patents and applications lately?
It's listed as a "housing for a computing device"
Also listed are "Method for setting time stamp in SYT field of packet headers for IEEE-1394 devices" (time code maybe?), "Method and apparatus for a digital video cassette (DVC) decode system", and "System and method using edge processing to remove blocking artifacts from decompressed images".
[quote]and it's not like the team working on a camera is holding back Motorola processor development
<hr></blockquote>
No but it's still R&D money being diverted to designing a camera, when instead the money could be spent on mobo design or OS X development. Wouldn't you rather Apple fired all the iCam people and hired 10 new OS X programmers to work on giving us MORE features and more performance in OS X? I sure would.
Actually I feel the same way about the iPod. It's cool, but at the end of the day it's still just an mp3 player, and portable HDs are cheaper.
No but it's still R&D money being diverted to designing a camera, when instead the money could be spent on mobo design or OS X development. Wouldn't you rather Apple fired all the iCam people and hired 10 new OS X programmers to work on giving us MORE features and more performance in OS X? I sure would.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's naive to assume that OS X's performance shortcomings would be overcome faster by throwing more money at them; in fact, most engineers say that adding personnel to a project ends up slowing it down, as work needs to be re-divided and new people need to be brought up to speed.
It flipping bizarre and the design is down right brilliant. The more I look at it, the more simple it is. It screams of Apple. I have just obtained an artist's illustration (JPG) of the "Lucida" digital camera/camcorder project. It looks like a still-life illustration. I've been informed the artist has worked closely with other projects.
Yes, I will give the picture to a single person at my selection and yes, it does have a microphone and 4 ports; firewire, audio-in, audio-out, video/audio out. They are waterproof and you'll understand why once you see the illustrations. Its sooo simple and elegeantly done.
I will not email it to anyone nor will I host the JPG anywhere. I will only upload the JPG to a single machine and it will be your decision to post it the boards or not. I suggest this: Somebody with at least 1000+ postings (your probably not anybody but an enthusaist) enable anonymous FTP to your computer at home. You must have a dynamic account (dial-up, DSL, cable) and no static IPs. Get an account with a dynamic dns service like dyndns.org. Post your host address (mycomputer.dnydns.org) in this thread. Keep your computer on in the evenings (9pm and later Eastern or whatever) for the next 2-3 weeks and I'll upload it. Make sure your computer tickles their dns servers to update your ip address.
Don't think you could track me, I'll be going through to many computers and the doors will be closed when the upload is complete. You will only know my last IP address and for what its worth, this is my last post.
Oh, one more thing, "Glove" licensing might happen sooner than the July show because of this thread. First a trial ballon with the education market (to see what happens with a Microsoft reaction), then most likely complete glove licensing for EVERYONE when "Jagwire" ships.
<strong>It's done. .... I will not email it to anyone nor will I host the JPG anywhere. I will only upload the JPG to a single machine and it will be your decision to post it the boards or not. I suggest this: Somebody with at least 1000+ postings (your probably not anybody but an enthusaist) enable anonymous FTP to your computer at home. You must have a dynamic account (dial-up, DSL, cable) and no static IPs. Get an account with a dynamic dns service like dyndns.org. Post your host address (mycomputer.dnydns.org) in this thread. Keep your computer on in the evenings (9pm and later Eastern or whatever) for the next 2-3 weeks and I'll upload it. Make sure your computer tickles their dns servers to update your ip address.
Don't think you could track me, I'll be going through to many computers and the doors will be closed when the upload is complete. You will only know my last IP address and for what its worth, this is my last post.
Oh, one more thing, "Glove" licensing might happen sooner than the July show because of this thread. First a trial ballon with the education market (to see what happens with a Microsoft reaction), then most likely complete glove licensing for EVERYONE when "Jagwire" ships.
-Allen</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not just make a dummy Yahoo account and put it up on that? Or one of the free hosting sites? or just email it to someone via an annon emailer? Seems like that would be much easier...
minus the < and > tags for [ and ] of course... this way a really long link can look like <a href="http://nothingtoseehere.com"; target="_blank">this</a>
Edit: sorry I also didnt realizze it was your first post... things are a little bit crazy over here... and it seems as iff a lot of people are high strung today... maybe its just me?
Allen, tell us all you want about Glove, and Lucida, but... why post the picture? If you're right, we'll see in July. If it's posted, it'll spread everywhere in a matter of hours.
[quote]It's naive to assume that OS X's performance shortcomings would be overcome faster by throwing more money at them; in fact, most engineers say that adding personnel to a project ends up slowing it down, as work needs to be re-divided and new people need to be brought up to speed.
<hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly think that OS X wouldn't benefit from having a larger team working on it? If so then you are the one who is naive, not I. Obviously the work needs to be divided up for the new personell, but there are PLENTY of things to do with OS X and this should be no problem at all. Do I need to list all the features that still haven't been implemented in OS X yet?
It's true that a point of diminishing returns is eventually reached on any project, where more people aren't going to help. But I doubt Apple is at that point with OS X and all of the iApps. Apple is working with a finite amount of resources and their allocation must be chosen wisely. This is one of the great strrengths of Jobs, if you remember when he got to Apple he canned many projects because Apple was spreading out their R&D budget too thin. Jobs focused the R&D back to the essentials and cut the budget. What I'm saying now is that it wouldn't hurt for a bit more focus, if in fact Apple is working on reinventing the wheel by designing their own iCam.
OS X has lots of areas left for improvement and refinement, plenty of features left to create and invent...if I could pick one area out in particular that needs more work, I'd say audio. it would be great if OS X, DVD player, iMovie and FCP all fully supported Dolby 5.1 surround sound, and if OS X's audio frameworks were a bit more robust. I would love for my Soundblaster Live to be supported in OS X. These are all areas I think Apple would be better off on focusing their efforts, rather than reinventing the wheel with an iCamera.
Why not just make a dummy Yahoo account and put it up on that? Or one of the free hosting sites? or just email it to someone via an annon emailer? Seems like that would be much easier...
<strong>Do you honestly think that OS X wouldn't benefit from having a larger team working on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not for some months.
Adding people to a late project makes it later. Invariably. Read The Mythical Man-Month if you don't believe me. New hires would have to get up to speed on the part of the OS they were working on in order to add to it effectively, and they'd be better off working on a new project, instead of contributing to an existing one.
I have a feeling that Jaguar will silence any complaints about the pace of OS X updates.
There's a sweet spot in team size for any given project. Below that, and you don't have enough resources to effectively finish the project before market forces beat you to the punch. Above that, and the sheer communication burden between programmers (even experienced ones that have been on the project since the beginning) ends up swamping you in meetings and other attempts at disseminating the necessary information. (There are some methods that attempt to partition out the information load, but none have been as successful as you'd think.)
Again, check out The Mythical Man-Month, by Frederick P. Brooks. The 20th Anniversary Edition has some added material that's worth getting, as well.
<strong>What I'm saying now is that it wouldn't hurt for a bit more focus, if in fact Apple is working on reinventing the wheel by designing their own iCam. </strong>
<strong>These are all areas I think Apple would be better off on focusing their efforts, rather than reinventing the wheel with an iCamera.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Steve is accutely aware of this fact, and I doubt anyone is being pulled off of OS X to work on the "iCam" (if it even exists). Apple hasn't been laying anyone off lately (atleast not in signifficant quantities) so there should be more than enough heads to go around. And I really don't think Apple is trying to "reinvent the wheel," the company isn't suffereing from the "not invented here" syndome it pioneered in the early 90s, they know their limits.
When it came to the iPod, which was a signifficantly easier feat of engineering than the camera being described here, they collaborated with Pixo, a company that knows about working with multimedia on embedded processors. I'd expect that Apple would collaborate with a company adept at digital photography in their iCam endeavour.
The items you point out are all important things for Apple to focus on, but these concerns are totally separate from the aims of the iCam, which are equally important. Like the iPod, such a camera would bring attention and praise to the Apple brand, not to mention cold hard cash. The iPod drove revenue, it got a few hundred thousand people who weren't in the market for a new Mac to buy *something* from Apple. At $400 each, this brought in countless millions of dollars in revenue and profit, giving Apple the cash to continue development of more important things. An iCam, if pulled off with the panache and innovation of the iPod, will do the same.
I don't think anyone here is in any position to dictate or even speculate on how many people should be working on any given aspect of the OS. I am certain, however, that the concerns you have are shared by Apple's product managers, and that these are things that apple is working on. What I've seen of Jaguar suggests that significant revisions are being made to the OS' core audio structure, whether or not Dolby is part of this, I don't know, but I'm sure it's on Apple's radar screen.
Ultimately, I think we have to look at who would benefit from Dolby 5.1 integration into the OS. Obviously, this would be those who create media that takes advantage of Dolby 5.1, and those who consume it. On the consumer end, that's nearly anyone who plays DVDs on their mac, theoretically. In actuality, it's the very small cross section of those people who use their Mac as their primary means of watching DVDs, and those who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems. The majority of people who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems have a nice, high-end DVD player hooked up to it already. So on the user end, the benefits of 5.1 are very very very marginal, and wouldn't drive sales, atleast not at this point.
On the creation end, we have those people who produce console video games, those who master DVDs, and those who master CDs. DVD's are covered, DVD studio pro includes A.Pack for encoding Dolby audio. Console games? uh, well... no one really develops those on Macs as it is, and Audio CD's are kind of sketchy on OS X right now, though ProTools for X will be out when Jaguar hits the streets. So Apple has some other issues to fix before worrying about Dolby 5.1, so this isn't going to drive sales much either. This feature just isn't on par with the big ones of the past few years, like CD burning, Airport, DVDs, etc, and therefore doesn't earn itself any urgency. It's an industry standard, it's not going anywhere, we'll get there when we get there.
ICam, combined with iChat and the streaming abilities of Quicktime 6 could fill a very important void right now, which is Video conferencing. CUSEEME was the first, and last, great video conferencing app for the Mac, and like most great Mac things, it was way ahead of its time, and the industry is just now catching up with it. The rise of broadband is making video conferencing more practical for the lowly likes of you and i, and not just those of us on big corporate networks, though features like rendevouz will certainly make it super cool for those who are. Um... anywho,
Allen, tell us all you want about Glove, and Lucida, but... why post the picture? If you're right, we'll see in July. If it's posted, it'll spread everywhere in a matter of hours.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps he wants to prove he's telling the truth and not bull****ting like some people assume he is...
A pitcure would sure prove it, but will anyone believe it if he does post it?
Perhaps he wants to prove he's telling the truth and not bull****ting like some people assume he is...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But why do some people have this weird, frantic desire to prove that they're authentic?
It's pretty clear who's authentic and who's not every January and July.
Real information speaks for itself, and the fun for insiders (I would think) lies in dropping hints, living up their place as those who have access to knowledge others would very much like to have.
Posting a picture of the product a month or more before the event announcing the product ain't the mark of a classy insider.
Comments
Still, it doesn't matter, a 3 megapixel 3:2 rectangular Foveon still won't create colors from none.
The Nikon's image seems to produce more colors when vertical resolution is in question, but fewer when horizontal...vs the Canon D60.
As I said in my original Foveon reference, $$$ is the only issue. Bayer pattern CCDs are effectively dinosaurs now though. It's only a matter of time.
<strong>Yeah the G4 would be unlikely, but it IS an embedded processor.
Actually I would rather Apple focus on offering competitive hardware instead of wasting their time on cameras. There are already plenty of nice cameras on the market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there were already penty of nice MP3 plays on the market and then the iPod came.
and it's not like the team working on a camera is holding back Motorola processor development
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<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>
Ahhh....I couldn't resist after seeing this comment. Anyone else checked out Apple's current patents and applications lately?
It's listed as a "housing for a computing device"
Also listed are "Method for setting time stamp in SYT field of packet headers for IEEE-1394 devices" (time code maybe?), "Method and apparatus for a digital video cassette (DVC) decode system", and "System and method using edge processing to remove blocking artifacts from decompressed images".
Certainly sounds video related, doesn't it?
If you wanna check on your own....
<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html"; target="_blank">http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html</a>;
Just do a search for AN/apple
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: taboo ]
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: taboo ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
No but it's still R&D money being diverted to designing a camera, when instead the money could be spent on mobo design or OS X development. Wouldn't you rather Apple fired all the iCam people and hired 10 new OS X programmers to work on giving us MORE features and more performance in OS X? I sure would.
Actually I feel the same way about the iPod. It's cool, but at the end of the day it's still just an mp3 player, and portable HDs are cheaper.
I guess I'm not much of a gadget who4e.
<strong>
No but it's still R&D money being diverted to designing a camera, when instead the money could be spent on mobo design or OS X development. Wouldn't you rather Apple fired all the iCam people and hired 10 new OS X programmers to work on giving us MORE features and more performance in OS X? I sure would.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's naive to assume that OS X's performance shortcomings would be overcome faster by throwing more money at them; in fact, most engineers say that adding personnel to a project ends up slowing it down, as work needs to be re-divided and new people need to be brought up to speed.
a little commone sence people pleasE? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
It flipping bizarre and the design is down right brilliant. The more I look at it, the more simple it is. It screams of Apple. I have just obtained an artist's illustration (JPG) of the "Lucida" digital camera/camcorder project. It looks like a still-life illustration. I've been informed the artist has worked closely with other projects.
Yes, I will give the picture to a single person at my selection and yes, it does have a microphone and 4 ports; firewire, audio-in, audio-out, video/audio out. They are waterproof and you'll understand why once you see the illustrations. Its sooo simple and elegeantly done.
I will not email it to anyone nor will I host the JPG anywhere. I will only upload the JPG to a single machine and it will be your decision to post it the boards or not. I suggest this: Somebody with at least 1000+ postings (your probably not anybody but an enthusaist) enable anonymous FTP to your computer at home. You must have a dynamic account (dial-up, DSL, cable) and no static IPs. Get an account with a dynamic dns service like dyndns.org. Post your host address (mycomputer.dnydns.org) in this thread. Keep your computer on in the evenings (9pm and later Eastern or whatever) for the next 2-3 weeks and I'll upload it. Make sure your computer tickles their dns servers to update your ip address.
Don't think you could track me, I'll be going through to many computers and the doors will be closed when the upload is complete. You will only know my last IP address and for what its worth, this is my last post.
Oh, one more thing, "Glove" licensing might happen sooner than the July show because of this thread. First a trial ballon with the education market (to see what happens with a Microsoft reaction), then most likely complete glove licensing for EVERYONE when "Jagwire" ships.
-Allen
<strong>It's done. .... I will not email it to anyone nor will I host the JPG anywhere. I will only upload the JPG to a single machine and it will be your decision to post it the boards or not. I suggest this: Somebody with at least 1000+ postings (your probably not anybody but an enthusaist) enable anonymous FTP to your computer at home. You must have a dynamic account (dial-up, DSL, cable) and no static IPs. Get an account with a dynamic dns service like dyndns.org. Post your host address (mycomputer.dnydns.org) in this thread. Keep your computer on in the evenings (9pm and later Eastern or whatever) for the next 2-3 weeks and I'll upload it. Make sure your computer tickles their dns servers to update your ip address.
Don't think you could track me, I'll be going through to many computers and the doors will be closed when the upload is complete. You will only know my last IP address and for what its worth, this is my last post.
Oh, one more thing, "Glove" licensing might happen sooner than the July show because of this thread. First a trial ballon with the education market (to see what happens with a Microsoft reaction), then most likely complete glove licensing for EVERYONE when "Jagwire" ships.
-Allen</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why not just make a dummy Yahoo account and put it up on that? Or one of the free hosting sites? or just email it to someone via an annon emailer? Seems like that would be much easier...
Dave
My apologies for that link, but this was my first post, and I din't realize that it wouldn't wrap.
*sigh* Too bad I'm not well known enough. My measly like cable modem will wait for someone else to host it.
DDagradi
[email protected]
<strong>Paul-
My apologies for that link, but this was my first post, and I din't realize that it wouldn't wrap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
dont worry about it next time do a link like <URL=http://nothingtoseehere.com]this[/URL>
minus the < and > tags for [ and ] of course... this way a really long link can look like <a href="http://nothingtoseehere.com"; target="_blank">this</a>
Edit: sorry I also didnt realizze it was your first post... things are a little bit crazy over here... and it seems as iff a lot of people are high strung today... maybe its just me?
[ 05-27-2002: Message edited by: Paul ]</p>
Allen, tell us all you want about Glove, and Lucida, but... why post the picture? If you're right, we'll see in July. If it's posted, it'll spread everywhere in a matter of hours.
"stay tuned"
<hr></blockquote>
Do you honestly think that OS X wouldn't benefit from having a larger team working on it? If so then you are the one who is naive, not I. Obviously the work needs to be divided up for the new personell, but there are PLENTY of things to do with OS X and this should be no problem at all. Do I need to list all the features that still haven't been implemented in OS X yet?
It's true that a point of diminishing returns is eventually reached on any project, where more people aren't going to help. But I doubt Apple is at that point with OS X and all of the iApps. Apple is working with a finite amount of resources and their allocation must be chosen wisely. This is one of the great strrengths of Jobs, if you remember when he got to Apple he canned many projects because Apple was spreading out their R&D budget too thin. Jobs focused the R&D back to the essentials and cut the budget. What I'm saying now is that it wouldn't hurt for a bit more focus, if in fact Apple is working on reinventing the wheel by designing their own iCam.
OS X has lots of areas left for improvement and refinement, plenty of features left to create and invent...if I could pick one area out in particular that needs more work, I'd say audio. it would be great if OS X, DVD player, iMovie and FCP all fully supported Dolby 5.1 surround sound, and if OS X's audio frameworks were a bit more robust. I would love for my Soundblaster Live to be supported in OS X. These are all areas I think Apple would be better off on focusing their efforts, rather than reinventing the wheel with an iCamera.
<strong>
Why not just make a dummy Yahoo account and put it up on that? Or one of the free hosting sites? or just email it to someone via an annon emailer? Seems like that would be much easier...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Do you honestly think that OS X wouldn't benefit from having a larger team working on it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not for some months.
Adding people to a late project makes it later. Invariably. Read The Mythical Man-Month if you don't believe me. New hires would have to get up to speed on the part of the OS they were working on in order to add to it effectively, and they'd be better off working on a new project, instead of contributing to an existing one.
I have a feeling that Jaguar will silence any complaints about the pace of OS X updates.
There's a sweet spot in team size for any given project. Below that, and you don't have enough resources to effectively finish the project before market forces beat you to the punch. Above that, and the sheer communication burden between programmers (even experienced ones that have been on the project since the beginning) ends up swamping you in meetings and other attempts at disseminating the necessary information. (There are some methods that attempt to partition out the information load, but none have been as successful as you'd think.)
Again, check out The Mythical Man-Month, by Frederick P. Brooks. The 20th Anniversary Edition has some added material that's worth getting, as well.
<strong>What I'm saying now is that it wouldn't hurt for a bit more focus, if in fact Apple is working on reinventing the wheel by designing their own iCam. </strong>
<strong>These are all areas I think Apple would be better off on focusing their efforts, rather than reinventing the wheel with an iCamera.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think Steve is accutely aware of this fact, and I doubt anyone is being pulled off of OS X to work on the "iCam" (if it even exists). Apple hasn't been laying anyone off lately (atleast not in signifficant quantities) so there should be more than enough heads to go around. And I really don't think Apple is trying to "reinvent the wheel," the company isn't suffereing from the "not invented here" syndome it pioneered in the early 90s, they know their limits.
When it came to the iPod, which was a signifficantly easier feat of engineering than the camera being described here, they collaborated with Pixo, a company that knows about working with multimedia on embedded processors. I'd expect that Apple would collaborate with a company adept at digital photography in their iCam endeavour.
The items you point out are all important things for Apple to focus on, but these concerns are totally separate from the aims of the iCam, which are equally important. Like the iPod, such a camera would bring attention and praise to the Apple brand, not to mention cold hard cash. The iPod drove revenue, it got a few hundred thousand people who weren't in the market for a new Mac to buy *something* from Apple. At $400 each, this brought in countless millions of dollars in revenue and profit, giving Apple the cash to continue development of more important things. An iCam, if pulled off with the panache and innovation of the iPod, will do the same.
I don't think anyone here is in any position to dictate or even speculate on how many people should be working on any given aspect of the OS. I am certain, however, that the concerns you have are shared by Apple's product managers, and that these are things that apple is working on. What I've seen of Jaguar suggests that significant revisions are being made to the OS' core audio structure, whether or not Dolby is part of this, I don't know, but I'm sure it's on Apple's radar screen.
Ultimately, I think we have to look at who would benefit from Dolby 5.1 integration into the OS. Obviously, this would be those who create media that takes advantage of Dolby 5.1, and those who consume it. On the consumer end, that's nearly anyone who plays DVDs on their mac, theoretically. In actuality, it's the very small cross section of those people who use their Mac as their primary means of watching DVDs, and those who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems. The majority of people who have Dolby 5.1 audio systems have a nice, high-end DVD player hooked up to it already. So on the user end, the benefits of 5.1 are very very very marginal, and wouldn't drive sales, atleast not at this point.
On the creation end, we have those people who produce console video games, those who master DVDs, and those who master CDs. DVD's are covered, DVD studio pro includes A.Pack for encoding Dolby audio. Console games? uh, well... no one really develops those on Macs as it is, and Audio CD's are kind of sketchy on OS X right now, though ProTools for X will be out when Jaguar hits the streets. So Apple has some other issues to fix before worrying about Dolby 5.1, so this isn't going to drive sales much either. This feature just isn't on par with the big ones of the past few years, like CD burning, Airport, DVDs, etc, and therefore doesn't earn itself any urgency. It's an industry standard, it's not going anywhere, we'll get there when we get there.
ICam, combined with iChat and the streaming abilities of Quicktime 6 could fill a very important void right now, which is Video conferencing. CUSEEME was the first, and last, great video conferencing app for the Mac, and like most great Mac things, it was way ahead of its time, and the industry is just now catching up with it. The rise of broadband is making video conferencing more practical for the lowly likes of you and i, and not just those of us on big corporate networks, though features like rendevouz will certainly make it super cool for those who are. Um... anywho,
ciao,
[ 05-28-2002: Message edited by: scadboy ]</p>
<strong>Jesus, 'Allen McJones' sure is paranoid.
Allen, tell us all you want about Glove, and Lucida, but... why post the picture? If you're right, we'll see in July. If it's posted, it'll spread everywhere in a matter of hours.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Perhaps he wants to prove he's telling the truth and not bull****ting like some people assume he is...
A pitcure would sure prove it, but will anyone believe it if he does post it?
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Perhaps he wants to prove he's telling the truth and not bull****ting like some people assume he is...
</strong><hr></blockquote>
But why do some people have this weird, frantic desire to prove that they're authentic?
It's pretty clear who's authentic and who's not every January and July.
Real information speaks for itself, and the fun for insiders (I would think) lies in dropping hints, living up their place as those who have access to knowledge others would very much like to have.
Posting a picture of the product a month or more before the event announcing the product ain't the mark of a classy insider.