Ok but I still think this leads not to brickier WIFiPods but more a keyboardless/tablet thingy and/or a separate iPod-like remote (no HD, merely WIFI control of remote playlists) but that there won't be actual WIFI enabled regular and mini iPods.
Ok, WIFiPods. We both have one. I have a song that you don't. And I want to listen to that playlist you played at the party again. Now neither of us can actually copy the music from the other's iPod due to DRM. So we stream. What, are we both standing? Sitting? I need to be in range for the duration of you streaming off my iPod? Now, can I also listen to music on my own iPod while this is happening? Or am I stuck listening to what you are hearing? Additionally, can I simultaneously stream music from your iPod? Is what I'm playing the only outgoing stream?
I simply don't see the utility. Just switch each others iPods and skip WIFI. I guess one to many iPod streams might be cool but again, why exactly will there be multiple individuals ignoring eachother with headphones whilsts stream from eachother's iPods? Sounds like one of those lame blind date techno trends like where everyone can blackberry text any stranger in the room, or when everyone has beepers and needs to pair up with whoever beeped them.
the argument against it that i've heard in the past still holds true. the cost to manufacture a dvd compared to a cd is reasonably close. but the cost to upload a dvd compared to a cd is astronomically OUT of favor for any vendor that has to pay for their bandwidth. people can download limewire copies of movies from other individuals because they don't pay for their bandwidth. nearly all of us on broadband have unlimited upload. in order to make an iFlicks Movie Store viable, the prices would be higher than the cost of the dvd itself.
Unless Apple/studios used the Bit Torrent approach (or similar) to serve the movies.
Considering a bought movie on iMovie Store (whatever) would go for 9.99 for regular length movies, I would assume that for Apple, sending ~4.7GB of data doesn't cost $9.99 each time. What might it cost?
If giganews charges $99.99 for 100GB/year that would be equivalent to about 20 movies or so. Myself, I buy about 2-6 DVDs a year. I'd easily pay $99.99 for 20 movies or perhaps it would be $9.99 a movie for those that just want a few a year.
Granted, a 100GB newsgroup account will be more spread thin over the course of a year, like 300 sessions of downloading, with smaller bursts of data, less intensive than downloading entire movies all at once in just 20 sessions a year.
Anyway I don't see it as prohibitively expensive. (Yeah there is licensing and royalties and server costs too etc.)
Now, admittedly there are problems such as on campuses or businesses that already are bandwidth strapped to the point of prohibiting entire ports and protocols.
i remember when you posted this and thought you were of your rocker then.......but now..........i believe it........i can see apple doing this and i can see it working.
this could be the most amazing thing apple has EVER done!
Unless Apple/studios used the Bit Torrent approach (or similar) to serve the movies.
Considering a bought movie on iMovie Store (whatever) would go for 9.99 for regular length movies, I would assume that for Apple, sending ~4.7GB of data doesn't cost $9.99 each time. What might it cost?
If giganews charges $99.99 for 100GB/year that would be equivalent to about 20 movies or so. Myself, I buy about 2-6 DVDs a year. I'd easily pay $99.99 for 20 movies or perhaps it would be $9.99 a movie for those that just want a few a year.
Granted, a 100GB newsgroup account will be more spread thin over the course of a year, like 300 sessions of downloading, with smaller bursts of data, less intensive than downloading entire movies all at once in just 20 sessions a year.
Anyway I don't see it as prohibitively expensive. (Yeah there is licensing and royalties and server costs too etc.)
Now, admittedly there are problems such as on campuses or businesses that already are bandwidth strapped to the point of prohibiting entire ports and protocols.
It has to happen sometime though...
While I agree that a movie store has a market NOW, I think it is a quick fad that will fade away once people realize how crappy the quality is. As Stevie has said best, people dont wanna watch their movies hundreds of times (except Old School), and they surely dont wanna watch it at low res. After all, why have an HDTV to play web-compressed movies???? I tihnk Apple is smart to shy away. *We* might be looked upon as stupid for a while, but give it a year.
First off, by movie store do you mean to purchase or to rent?
If it was $9.99 to purchase, assuming the movies were came in either a DVD image file or high bitrate divx, I think it would go over very well.
OH! IDEA just hit me. What if when you purchased a movie you had access to lets say, a 700mb divx, a 1.4gb divx and the 4.7gb dvd .img file.
Then once you "puchased" the movie you could choose to download one right away and then another at a later time.
Say I bought "Old School" (My fav) on the iMovie whatever, I could download it in the 700mb divx file just to watch and then i could download it later in the 4.7gb file.
It seems that a (hypothetical) i**** would now come in handy....
Hope springs confusedly,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
As I said in a previous thread Remote desktop now contains everything to manage mac or other device remotely. A light version could be well placed in the i**** if any
As I said in a previous thread Remote desktop now contains everything to manage mac or other device remotely. A light version could be well placed in the i**** if any
This does appear to harmonize with a couple of Jobs' cryptic (or non) responses during the release of Airport Express, particularly when asked about remote controls. Things are beginning to come together...
This would be cool if they make one - an iLife only machine! - and sells it dirt cheap. Of course, make it a G4. But I think its appeal would be very limited like Pinpin.
He started from nothing, worked hard against all the adversity he likely faced, as anyone does in business but especially so a young black man in a fledgling music genre (at the time).
Thanks to the existing structure, he was able to amass a fortune....he's a multi-millionaire. Being successful is not a bad thing.
Problem is that now that he has climbed up the latter and is on the parapet, he wants to pull up the ladder behind him, so no one else can climb up out of the ghetto (or trailer park or tenements) they same way he did.
That's certainly not what he did. He battled against the odds in a system set up against him, lost a few battles (sampling), and won a few, and he's trying to use his influence to make it easier for the next Chuck D. The industry is no friend to artists, and especially hip-hop artists. They make all their money with live shows and merchandise sales, like most musicians. There are a few, glittering exceptions, but they're exceptions.
The people trying to make it hard are the people supporting the status quo. It enriches them, so who cares what it does to someone else?
Quote:
It is too arrogant/ignorant to suddenly say that the system is bad despite it working for you so magnificently. Any system can be made to work and be improved. But he wants to completely dismantle it with no logical, well-thought out replacement that I've ever heard of. (I'll gladly listen to alternatives).
I think you should read his arguments a little more carefully, and you should be aware that it's quite possible to benefit personally from a system while thinking the system is essentially broken, then turn around and use your success to reform it. It's not arrogance or ignorance, it's just keeping your eyes open and looking beyond your own person. After all, no-one would listen to Chuck D if he was some random guy trying to sell a few hundred copies of his self-published CD, right?
Quote:
I mean I can envision a world where all music, all t-shirts, all posters, all CD/DVDs, all concerts are free, listeners/viewers pay nothing for anything anywhere. Let artists rely solely on voluntary contributions. Pay out of appreciation. I love you Ray Charles, here's $10.
You're missing the point. The point is not that everything should be free. The point is that right now, in the real world, artists are lucky to make a dime from a recording. They're far more likely to lose money, which gives the record company leverage over them, lather, rinse, repeat. Right now, in the real world, musicians make a living performing live and selling merchandise (some also by selling CDs at live shows, which you can do without major label support). So, as it is — and this attitude is common among the musicians I know, including my own band — CDs are seen as promotional material. It's a rare and privileged few who can actually make a living from CD sales. Given that, why bother trying to make recorded music a profit center? These days it doesn't cost much to make a decent record, so you can write it off as advertizing and distribute it as widely as possible. And which network distributes your work widely, for free? Oh, and it's patronized heavily by college students. They don't buy much in the best case, but their colleges pay very well. There are bands that do quite well for themselves touring college campuses.
This is not about a dream, and it's not about "everything should be free." It's about promotion, and in the end, about success on your own terms. Including financial success. And it addresses things as they are, not as someone would wish them to be. Believe me, there are a whole lot of people who dream of a music industry that works. And then they wake up.
This would be cool if they make one - an iLife only machine! - and sells it dirt cheap. Of course, make it a G4. But I think its appeal would be very limited like Pinpin.
Ok, I'm confused (and a little slow), what exactly is Kormac predicting for WWDC and the near future (ie. will be introduced this year). Can someone summarise it?
Something like ..
- New iMac with detachable screen and HighDefTV??
- QT7?
- Some kinda handheld device?
- .... ?
I can't put all his little pieces together, and am totally lost by how HDTV fits in with the iMac and what would be good about it. ?
I like Kormac's ideas about the iPad and iStation. It may have been what Steve Jobs had in mind when he originally talked about the "Digital Hub" a couple of years ago. Airport Express is a step in the right direction but my hope is that there is (much) more to come.
The best part about Apple's future digital hub is that it will be extremely difficult to replicate by companies like Microsoft because it involves so many Apple core technologies (OS X, iTunes, iPod, QuickTime, Remote Desktop, MPEG 4, AirPort, Firewire, etc). Apple has everything under one roof, they make the whole widget.
Ok, I'm confused (and a little slow), what exactly is Kormac predicting for WWDC and the near future (ie. will be introduced this year). Can someone summarise it?
What is he predicting? I'll summarize it: Anything and Everything.
kormac's speculations are back to their great old quality ... if not always accurate!!
Obviously G5's aren't going to be the focus, so Consumer Products (mostly software - iLife and .Mac) will be consolidated or improved and possibly a re-defining of QT for the future. If QT can get wireless and mobile and out there faster than MS Media stuff, Apple can be situated to "iPod" video as we have been hoping for years.
The question is what killer utility will be included in Tiger that could use another spoke in the "digital hub?" An OS independent QT on top of an iBox, might be it, but that doesn't seem enough to me to start off a NEW market for developers to get excited about...just a fancy VCR? It needs to be something more to do with infrastructure, like announcing strategic partnerships to even better streamline content creation to delivery. I think that is what the relatively dormant .Mac is to evolve into, and a new home device to use the content seemlessly....
New hardware, if any, obviously seems to center around the iMac. Obviously the G5 won't fit into the current hemisphere for a while so I'm sure the new iMac will need to be redesigned. How can you redefine the consumer Mac while introducing a new consumer "box?" Well maybe you integrate the two. So I expect the product announcement will not just be a tablet or other periferal. With a new OS on the horizon, I think this is a time for Apple to significantly redefine the home PC .... I just hope there will be $700 version.
maybe they will make a mini-ibox with the new 50 gig mini drive from toshiba which could record T.V like tivo but also act as a portable firewire drive for the new dumbterminal or pda like device. it could also stream the T.V. through airport express to anywhere in your house. Maybe apple will go the opposite way of AIO devices and go modular.
Comments
Ok, WIFiPods. We both have one. I have a song that you don't. And I want to listen to that playlist you played at the party again. Now neither of us can actually copy the music from the other's iPod due to DRM. So we stream. What, are we both standing? Sitting? I need to be in range for the duration of you streaming off my iPod? Now, can I also listen to music on my own iPod while this is happening? Or am I stuck listening to what you are hearing? Additionally, can I simultaneously stream music from your iPod? Is what I'm playing the only outgoing stream?
I simply don't see the utility. Just switch each others iPods and skip WIFI.
Or I'm old.
Originally posted by admactanium
the argument against it that i've heard in the past still holds true. the cost to manufacture a dvd compared to a cd is reasonably close. but the cost to upload a dvd compared to a cd is astronomically OUT of favor for any vendor that has to pay for their bandwidth. people can download limewire copies of movies from other individuals because they don't pay for their bandwidth. nearly all of us on broadband have unlimited upload. in order to make an iFlicks Movie Store viable, the prices would be higher than the cost of the dvd itself.
Unless Apple/studios used the Bit Torrent approach (or similar) to serve the movies.
Considering a bought movie on iMovie Store (whatever) would go for 9.99 for regular length movies, I would assume that for Apple, sending ~4.7GB of data doesn't cost $9.99 each time. What might it cost?
If giganews charges $99.99 for 100GB/year that would be equivalent to about 20 movies or so. Myself, I buy about 2-6 DVDs a year. I'd easily pay $99.99 for 20 movies or perhaps it would be $9.99 a movie for those that just want a few a year.
Granted, a 100GB newsgroup account will be more spread thin over the course of a year, like 300 sessions of downloading, with smaller bursts of data, less intensive than downloading entire movies all at once in just 20 sessions a year.
Anyway I don't see it as prohibitively expensive. (Yeah there is licensing and royalties and server costs too etc.)
Now, admittedly there are problems such as on campuses or businesses that already are bandwidth strapped to the point of prohibiting entire ports and protocols.
It has to happen sometime though...
Originally posted by kormac77
Hint from past
I realy have to go.
See ya later!
i remember when you posted this and thought you were of your rocker then.......but now..........i believe it........i can see apple doing this and i can see it working.
this could be the most amazing thing apple has EVER done!
i hope your right kormac.
Originally posted by kormac77
Do you remember my i****v2 ? Do you still belive me ?
If you do, your whish will come this year!
OK......
So.....
It just occurred to me....
And I am wondering....
If THIS has anything to do with any of the above.
It seems that a (hypothetical) i**** would now come in handy....
Hope springs confusedly,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Originally posted by johnq
Unless Apple/studios used the Bit Torrent approach (or similar) to serve the movies.
Considering a bought movie on iMovie Store (whatever) would go for 9.99 for regular length movies, I would assume that for Apple, sending ~4.7GB of data doesn't cost $9.99 each time. What might it cost?
If giganews charges $99.99 for 100GB/year that would be equivalent to about 20 movies or so. Myself, I buy about 2-6 DVDs a year. I'd easily pay $99.99 for 20 movies or perhaps it would be $9.99 a movie for those that just want a few a year.
Granted, a 100GB newsgroup account will be more spread thin over the course of a year, like 300 sessions of downloading, with smaller bursts of data, less intensive than downloading entire movies all at once in just 20 sessions a year.
Anyway I don't see it as prohibitively expensive. (Yeah there is licensing and royalties and server costs too etc.)
Now, admittedly there are problems such as on campuses or businesses that already are bandwidth strapped to the point of prohibiting entire ports and protocols.
It has to happen sometime though...
While I agree that a movie store has a market NOW, I think it is a quick fad that will fade away once people realize how crappy the quality is. As Stevie has said best, people dont wanna watch their movies hundreds of times (except Old School), and they surely dont wanna watch it at low res. After all, why have an HDTV to play web-compressed movies???? I tihnk Apple is smart to shy away. *We* might be looked upon as stupid for a while, but give it a year.
If it was $9.99 to purchase, assuming the movies were came in either a DVD image file or high bitrate divx, I think it would go over very well.
OH! IDEA just hit me. What if when you purchased a movie you had access to lets say, a 700mb divx, a 1.4gb divx and the 4.7gb dvd .img file.
Then once you "puchased" the movie you could choose to download one right away and then another at a later time.
Say I bought "Old School" (My fav) on the iMovie whatever, I could download it in the 700mb divx file just to watch and then i could download it later in the 4.7gb file.
Originally posted by Mandricard
OK......
So.....
It just occurred to me....
And I am wondering....
If THIS has anything to do with any of the above.
It seems that a (hypothetical) i**** would now come in handy....
Hope springs confusedly,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
As I said in a previous thread Remote desktop now contains everything to manage mac or other device remotely. A light version could be well placed in the i**** if any
Originally posted by therubicon
As I said in a previous thread Remote desktop now contains everything to manage mac or other device remotely. A light version could be well placed in the i**** if any
This does appear to harmonize with a couple of Jobs' cryptic (or non) responses during the release of Airport Express, particularly when asked about remote controls. Things are beginning to come together...
Originally posted by othello
so maybe the ibox will see the light of day?
This would be cool if they make one - an iLife only machine! - and sells it dirt cheap. Of course, make it a G4. But I think its appeal would be very limited like Pinpin.
Originally posted by othello
so maybe the ibox will see the light of day?
From Apple or more probably from third parties
Originally posted by johnq
The problem with the Chuck D mentality is this:
He started from nothing, worked hard against all the adversity he likely faced, as anyone does in business but especially so a young black man in a fledgling music genre (at the time).
Thanks to the existing structure, he was able to amass a fortune....he's a multi-millionaire. Being successful is not a bad thing.
Problem is that now that he has climbed up the latter and is on the parapet, he wants to pull up the ladder behind him, so no one else can climb up out of the ghetto (or trailer park or tenements) they same way he did.
That's certainly not what he did. He battled against the odds in a system set up against him, lost a few battles (sampling), and won a few, and he's trying to use his influence to make it easier for the next Chuck D. The industry is no friend to artists, and especially hip-hop artists. They make all their money with live shows and merchandise sales, like most musicians. There are a few, glittering exceptions, but they're exceptions.
The people trying to make it hard are the people supporting the status quo. It enriches them, so who cares what it does to someone else?
It is too arrogant/ignorant to suddenly say that the system is bad despite it working for you so magnificently. Any system can be made to work and be improved. But he wants to completely dismantle it with no logical, well-thought out replacement that I've ever heard of. (I'll gladly listen to alternatives).
I think you should read his arguments a little more carefully, and you should be aware that it's quite possible to benefit personally from a system while thinking the system is essentially broken, then turn around and use your success to reform it. It's not arrogance or ignorance, it's just keeping your eyes open and looking beyond your own person. After all, no-one would listen to Chuck D if he was some random guy trying to sell a few hundred copies of his self-published CD, right?
I mean I can envision a world where all music, all t-shirts, all posters, all CD/DVDs, all concerts are free, listeners/viewers pay nothing for anything anywhere. Let artists rely solely on voluntary contributions. Pay out of appreciation. I love you Ray Charles, here's $10.
You're missing the point. The point is not that everything should be free. The point is that right now, in the real world, artists are lucky to make a dime from a recording. They're far more likely to lose money, which gives the record company leverage over them, lather, rinse, repeat. Right now, in the real world, musicians make a living performing live and selling merchandise (some also by selling CDs at live shows, which you can do without major label support). So, as it is — and this attitude is common among the musicians I know, including my own band — CDs are seen as promotional material. It's a rare and privileged few who can actually make a living from CD sales. Given that, why bother trying to make recorded music a profit center? These days it doesn't cost much to make a decent record, so you can write it off as advertizing and distribute it as widely as possible. And which network distributes your work widely, for free? Oh, and it's patronized heavily by college students. They don't buy much in the best case, but their colleges pay very well. There are bands that do quite well for themselves touring college campuses.
This is not about a dream, and it's not about "everything should be free." It's about promotion, and in the end, about success on your own terms. Including financial success. And it addresses things as they are, not as someone would wish them to be. Believe me, there are a whole lot of people who dream of a music industry that works. And then they wake up.
Originally posted by limtc
This would be cool if they make one - an iLife only machine! - and sells it dirt cheap. Of course, make it a G4. But I think its appeal would be very limited like Pinpin.
you mean pippin !
one, it won't be dirt cheap. its an apple remember.
and i think you would be surprised by the appeal. remember what people said about the ipod...
Originally posted by othello
you mean pippin !
one, it won't be dirt cheap. its an apple remember.
and i think you would be surprised by the appeal. remember what people said about the ipod...
Maybe I just don't believe in a set top box, unless it is dirt cheap. Even EyeHome is a little too expensive for me (but a cool device though!).
Something like ..
- New iMac with detachable screen and HighDefTV??
- QT7?
- Some kinda handheld device?
- .... ?
I can't put all his little pieces together, and am totally lost by how HDTV fits in with the iMac and what would be good about it. ?
HS
The best part about Apple's future digital hub is that it will be extremely difficult to replicate by companies like Microsoft because it involves so many Apple core technologies (OS X, iTunes, iPod, QuickTime, Remote Desktop, MPEG 4, AirPort, Firewire, etc). Apple has everything under one roof, they make the whole widget.
Originally posted by HippyShoes
Ok, I'm confused (and a little slow), what exactly is Kormac predicting for WWDC and the near future (ie. will be introduced this year). Can someone summarise it?
What is he predicting? I'll summarize it: Anything and Everything.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
What is he predicting? I'll summarize it: Anything and Everything.
you must hate wasting your time posting in his thread then, right?
c'mon kormac keep talking man!
Obviously G5's aren't going to be the focus, so Consumer Products (mostly software - iLife and .Mac) will be consolidated or improved and possibly a re-defining of QT for the future. If QT can get wireless and mobile and out there faster than MS Media stuff, Apple can be situated to "iPod" video as we have been hoping for years.
The question is what killer utility will be included in Tiger that could use another spoke in the "digital hub?" An OS independent QT on top of an iBox, might be it, but that doesn't seem enough to me to start off a NEW market for developers to get excited about...just a fancy VCR? It needs to be something more to do with infrastructure, like announcing strategic partnerships to even better streamline content creation to delivery. I think that is what the relatively dormant .Mac is to evolve into, and a new home device to use the content seemlessly....
New hardware, if any, obviously seems to center around the iMac. Obviously the G5 won't fit into the current hemisphere for a while so I'm sure the new iMac will need to be redesigned. How can you redefine the consumer Mac while introducing a new consumer "box?" Well maybe you integrate the two. So I expect the product announcement will not just be a tablet or other periferal. With a new OS on the horizon, I think this is a time for Apple to significantly redefine the home PC .... I just hope there will be $700 version.