Next Apple iDevice

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
I was playing around with QT6 and QT Broadcaster today, and I thought of a cool idea for the next Apple Device.



What if they released a firewire DV cam, that had no onboard storage? You could hook it up to your mac, and stream stuff using QTB . Hopefully it would be cheap enough so that people wouldn't say "Thats all it does, and it costs HOW much??" Without onboard storage, it would require a mac (kind of like the ipod). Now what would be really neat, is if you could use your iPod for storage ... which makes both of them more valuable, and would drive iPod sales too. Maybe that is project Lucida?



Also, maybe Apple could add some kind of flash storage (new sony memory stick technology?) and the camera could take regular pictures with it, and that would work as 'standalone' (meaning, no iPod required).



The reason is, my DV cam was pretty damn expensive! If apple had some kind of cheaper alternative, that would be a great compliment to the free QTB and QTSS software.



Thoughts anyone?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    JVC has a camcorder that does something like this but it's a $1100 or so option.
  • Reply 2 of 23
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    My OLYMPUS E-10 can already be used to take pictures directly to my PB via USB. The logical next step would be to connect it to a portable storage device. Of coarse many cameras already use USB, so I would hope that the new iDevice would have both USB and Firewire. But since Apple likes to ignore what the rest of the world does, they will probably just have Firewire.



    A high quality CCD camera and an Apple iDevice...

    Hmmm the possibilities. :eek: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 3 of 23
    cdhostagecdhostage Posts: 1,038member
  • Reply 4 of 23
    myahmacmyahmac Posts: 222member
    can you download diferent tones?



    [ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: myahmac ]</p>
  • Reply 5 of 23
    mrbilldatamrbilldata Posts: 489member
    cdhostage,



    Is that Firewire powered and programmable?



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    [ 06-04-2002: Message edited by: MrBillData ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 23
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    iDon't know



  • Reply 7 of 23
    macmattmacmatt Posts: 91member
    Well!, At least it's a lifestyle device.... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 8 of 23
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    Wow, you could be your own doctor with a camera at the end of that ... not exactly what i had in mind, but Think Different, right?
  • Reply 9 of 23
    cindercinder Posts: 381member
    Why would anyone want a camcorder that couldnt do anything?



    Why would you want to use an MP3 player to store video?



    Where would your MP3s go?



    Oh, buy another one!



    but wait

    why didnt they just put a drive in the camera in the first place?





    pfft.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    I don't get it. If this new camera has no method of storing video, how would it take the video? Isn't that just like recording without a tape?!?!?!?!?!?!?
  • Reply 11 of 23
    stepsonstepson Posts: 95member
    [quote] I don't get it. If this new camera has no method of storing video, how would it take the video? Isn't that just like recording without a tape?!?!?!?!?!?!? <hr></blockquote>



    Its broadcast only, like a webcam. So you use QT broadcaster to broadcast from it, and it doesn't need storage since the mac converts the picture to MPEG 4 format, and streams that out. When I used my camera to stream, i didn't need to be recording to tape (or to my mac either, but i saw there was an option for that).



    Then having external storage would let the thing work like a regular DV cam. Or Camera...



    Well, it was just an idea, I didn't say it was a good idea! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 12 of 23
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I'd think it would be overpriced for a webcam rather than underpriced for a DV cam, because they would sell it as a low-end DV cam (priced above a high end webcam).



    Besides, since when has Apple decided to make something that's severely limited in capabilities unless they don't want it to compete with another of their own products? A new DV cam that's limited to taking movies from your computer would be limited for no good reason other than to save cost.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    Well, according to a very interesting dream I had, Apple's next device will be a hybrid digital camera/digital video camera...



    By the way, I had the dream several months before the 'Lucida' thread started...



    P.S. I also had a different dream about MWNY with G5's running at 2.0 - 2.3 GHz
  • Reply 14 of 23
    g4dudeg4dude Posts: 1,016member
    [quote]Originally posted by Steve's Job:

    <strong>Well, according to a very interesting dream I had, Apple's next device will be a hybrid digital camera/digital video camera...



    By the way, I had the dream several months before the 'Lucida' thread started...



    P.S. I also had a different dream about MWNY with G5's running at 2.0 - 2.3 GHz </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, according to a very interesting dream I had, two chicks at once is the way to go.



    Who the hell has computer dreams?!?!?!?!?!



    [ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: G4Dude ]</p>
  • Reply 15 of 23
    anamacanamac Posts: 80member
    I was at the Apple site to check out QuickTime 6 and got distracted by the things to read, including the fact sheet for MPEG-4.



    Combined with Steve J's comment in the C-Net article today that mp4 "blows away mp3", my first thought was that the next gen iPod would not be the coolest mp3 player...it would be the first mp4 player (and who knows what other goodies they could pack into it) <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 16 of 23
    myahmacmyahmac Posts: 222member
    hey wait that could work. if say you take a n ipod and slide it into the webcam. kinda like a dock. say the cam has a firewire jack on the inside. then you could choose between you sizes on the camera when you got it. like a 5gb model a 10 gb model and a 20. that is if they come ou with 20. then you could connect your ipod to the computer, iphoto launches, itunes launches, and so does imvoie, they all update and voila! life is crazy when you dont have sleep
  • Reply 17 of 23
    Updating the current iPod line to play .mp4 or .aac files shouldn't be that hard to do. The processing power of the iPod should be sufficent. I'm quite confident that Apple will release an iPod updater to play the newly QT6 supported formats to play those files as well making it the first portable AAC and MPEG4audio player around. I also guess there will be an update to iTunes2 to support playback and encoding of AAC files.

    greetings form the monsterjaeger
  • Reply 18 of 23
    dbdb Posts: 3member
    Like anamac I got distracted at the apple mpeg4 fact page. I looked at the list of companies in the ISMA list and went Sun's homepage. Their homepage links to their JXTA technology ....



    "04.Jun.02--JXTA technology allows any digital device--or peer--connected to any network, to independently discover and communicate with other peers, creating connected communities. Everything from cell phones to workstations and servers can talk to each other and securely share files and pictures. People have complete access to content across multiple devices, regardless of location, regardless of network. "

    I know it's old news but Sun have also strategically invested in Kasenna (part of the ISMA). Kasenna developed video on demand s/w.



    Ok. I know I'm clutching
  • Reply 19 of 23
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    [quote]Originally posted by anamac:

    <strong>Combined with Steve J's comment in the C-Net article today that mp4 "blows away mp3", my first thought was that the next gen iPod would not be the coolest mp3 player...it would be the first mp4 player</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hey, that's a great idea... In the article SJ says that at the same quality an MPEG4 video stream takes only 2/3 of the bandwidth... Does anyone know if that figure can be applied to an encoded MPEG4 audio file? Maybe Programmer or somebody else knowledgeable can answer this? I wouldn't mind increasing by 1/3 the number of songs my aging 5 GB iPod could hold... And one more question: would it be possible to store and play a mix of MP3 and MP4 audio files? I'd think so, but then I'm pretty ignorant about these things...



    ZoSo



    [ 06-06-2002: Message edited by: ZoSo ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 23
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    Looks like somebody else had the same idea: from the XLR8 front page



    Aiff - 45.2 MB - cd quality (cd audio)

    MP3 - 6.1 MB - 192 kbps (sounds good)

    MP4 - 1.8 MB - 56 kbps (drastic loss of highs)

    MP4 - 3.1 MB - 96 kbps (sounds as good as 192 mp3)

    MP4 - 6.2 MB - 192 kbps (close to aiff quality)

    OGG - 6.2 MB - 192 kbps (warble of a 96 kbps mp3)



    So, it definitely means more songs on the 'Pod. Now the only incognita is "can the 'Pod decode MP4s too"?



    Can't wait... <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />



    ZoSo
Sign In or Register to comment.