If anyone can do it though (and make it bigtime), Apple can.
And *THAT* is the reason the marketing brand image folks get paid the big bucks. Because we all believe that if *anybody* could pull this off... the only company you'd trust would be Apple.
A feature film download service might actually do quite well. If they format the size to a low enough resolution that it won't scale well for a TV screen, BUT it will look okay on the video iPod's screen or in a small window on your computer, people might go for that. Charge $2 per movie (that you can put on unlimited iPods) and consumers would FLIP OUT.
Why not full screen? Seriously, SD is not a problem for downloading any more. Want proof?
"In an interview after his presentation," wrote Mr. Markoff, "Mr. Jobs demurred. The problem, he suggested, was not that Mac TV was not a good idea, but that the cable companies are monopolies. But he did not close the door entirely."
This is from a NYT op-ed from January 2005, so it's behind the NYTs new firewall of greed. The problem not being addressed (as I think he would agree) is not networks and TiVo but restricted access to content that consumers have no way to route around. There are some networks I cannot watch because my cable provider simply doesn't offer them. Yeah, I could do the satellite thing, but I have some issues with that as well.
Steve's other job is as a content producer. For them to make money, they need as many paying avenues to the consumer as possible, and DVDs are the best one right now. Surely he realizes that throttled access (ticket sales, TV) are in decline as a revenue source, but direct sales are growing (DVD). Direct purchase of programming from the content producer, bypssing the resellers that restrict access (theatre owners and cable companies) is the future. That's precisely what iTMS addresses and why I think he'll repeat the trick for video.
A Mac PVR might be interesting, but it dosen't really solve an existing problem so it's not a slam-dunk market and I think that's what his comment above reflects. Scaled down content isn't what they want. People want what they want when they want it. They want SD or HD programming on demand, with as few restrictions as possible. They don't want to be forced to watch it in the next 72 hours, they want to own it. They don't want to be forced to show up at a certain time to watch it or else they'll never be able to see it again.
I think it's why Steve isn't particularly interested in XM/Sirius or FM receivers in iPods - he want's to blow clean past all of them. Want to hear Howard Stern - download him when *you* want to hear him. That's the model.
Apple is buying Microsoft and Gates will be hung publicly for crimes against humanity.
First,
Second, there are probably some clues in the latest invite just as there were for the one before the nano. (and "One more thing..." typically means ONE more thing)
That said, would Apple update Pro machines with only 3 months till MWSF? It would be nice to see Intel machines, but it just doesn't seem likely. PPC updates I can't see drawing this much attention, that would be a huge let-down to most people (at this point, given all the media attention and hype).
Video iPod would be killer, and warrant this much attention. Can't say I'd bet on a feature film type movie download service though; it doesn't seem like the COMPLETE infrastructure and market are there YET (especially in the US). TV show d/l makes SOME sense but doesn't seem like a very 'Jobs-ian' idea what with his mild dislike for television (at least he hinted at that years ago, "...get people out from behind the boob-tube...").
I would buy an Airport Express AV in a second, but there's not a large need for one YET. Plus, is G speed wireless really fast enough (given sustained, average rates of ~22mbps) for quality Audio and Video? If not they could release something pre-N, but again, this much media attention for just that?
I could be way off, but I'm leaning on it being something entirely new. Speculate on. 8)
Surely they can DRM video files to allow them only to play on authorized computers or iPods and be burned to DVD only a certain number of times. This gives a whole new outlook to pay-per-view. With an iTVS, you'd buy it on demand and watch it at your leisure...AND you get to keep it. How many times have we been at home and thought "gosh, I'd like to watch ________ right now. Problem is, I don't own the DVD and I don't feel like running to Blockbuster or ordering it on Netflix." With iTVS, problem solved. With H.264, it's possible.
What the hell are you talking about? What *hitty ass connection do you have? on my 768mb DSL it takes 5 minutes or less for a 150mb file..
I assume you mean 768kb DSL. Assuming you could fully saturate your line (94 KB/sec), it would take 26 minutes to download a 150MB file. Not sure how you are downloading them in 5 minutes over a 768k line...
Quote:
On my comcast cable (though not in san jose <-- since comcast sucks there) in LA i download at between 3-4mbs second.
First you say you have DSL, now its Comcast? The 5 minute download jives up with a Comcast line, so perhaps you were exaggerating to emphasize?
Ya, I need to update my location info. I am currently in Sacramento for school. The Comcast out here is pretty good, 7Mbps/768Kbps. I have seen my line get up to 750KBps on a good download, or if I have a few torrents going.
OK, but the BitTorrent masses are already out there sucking down the bandwidth. Shifting some of them to a legal system doesn't add to the bandwidth problem.
You don't? How many people use Bit-torrent vs. iTunes? How many people even know what torrenting is? Have you ever seen a commercial on TV about getting your stuff through torrents? I don't think there is even close to 100,000 no 50,000 people torrenting every day on a daily basis. 800,000+ is a range less figure. I was using it as an increasing unit. If Apple wants to enter the torrent game they can go ahead. I'm talking about something much bigger than torrenting.
You don't? How many people use Bit-torrent vs. iTunes? How many people even know what torrenting is? Have you ever seen a commercial on TV about getting your stuff through torrents? I don't think there is even close to 100,000 no 50,000 people torrenting every day on a daily basis. 800,000+ is a range less figure. I was using it as an increasing unit. If Apple wants to enter the torrent game they can go ahead. I'm talking about something much bigger than torrenting.
There are FAR more than 100,000 people out there torrenting. There's estimated to be about 10M users of P2P apps, and BT is safely 1/4 of that. My mom discovered BT for christs sake. If you want specific content, it's about your only resource. And it's not like my mom isn't willing to pay - she's happy to buy premium services but sometimes the specific thing that she wants just isn't available to her at any price.
We know that Apple is selling about 1.25M songs a day right now. I can routinely spot popular torrent files with 5,000 people sharing it - for one file. The useage is MUCH higher than you think.
And I still don't see how much it would change for Apple who must already be pushing upwards of 10TB/day out of the iTMS. So maybe that jumps to 50TB. Is 50TB/day any more impossible a problem to solve than 10TB? I don't see it.
Apple's servers in general are the fastest I've seen on the net. I pulled the Tiger DVD image off their site in about 20-25 min on one of the two OC-3 lines my campus has at about 4 MB/s (yes byte and yes the disk image is legal). At the moment they have bandwidth to burn but I don't see that continuing if they start selling movies.
I would buy an Airport Express AV in a second, but there's not a large need for one YET. Plus, is G speed wireless really fast enough (given sustained, average rates of ~22mbps) for quality Audio and Video?
It would be fast enough if the content already resided in the Airport Express device. Maybe it is more like the Airport Extreme only with a hard drive. If you wanted something from this device, then it would have to be sent/called wirelessly to/from your computer; like, say a web page from the internet or a movie from the hard drive. If you wanted to watch a movie on your big-screen tv, you would just control this new Airport-type device with some app (like maybe iTunes) and it would then send the movie to your tv ? which is connected to it via wires (RCA plugs, Super Video, or whatever...). No worries about bandwidth in this manner.
It would be fast enough if the content already resided in the Airport Express device. Maybe it is more like the Airport Extreme only with a hard drive. If you wanted something from this device, then it would have to be sent/called wirelessly to/from your computer; like, say a web page from the internet or a movie from the hard drive. If you wanted to watch a movie on your big-screen tv, you would just control this new Airport-type device with some app (like maybe iTunes) and it would then send the movie to your tv ? which is connected to it via wires (RCA plugs, Super Video, or whatever...). No worries about bandwidth in this manner.
No, it's plenty fast enough for video even from any device. Even a HD H.264 stream is only 5mb/s. A SD one is 1mb/s or less.
TiV, Replay, and MCE have been shoving less-efficient video around wireless networks for a while now.
I can't believe you are debating the merits of torrents vs an iTunes Video Store. Have anyone had bandwidth-problems from Apple? Anyone? Ever? I live in Sweden and Apple easily saturates my 10 Mbps connection. I easily get +1 MB/s while downloading stuff (not from iDisk though).
Who knows.. they might even include som P2P functionality into iTunes with a P2P-button if iTMS/iTVS is slow. The cost is that you would also open up your archive to fellow iTuners. iTunes would of couse only share FairPlay protected stuff. iTunes would report the purchase to iTMS/iTVS, bill your credit card and give some cash your seeding pals for their trouble. Micropayments baby!
10 million registered credit cards in iTMS. That'd be one heck of a P2P network and if everyone get something back for participating (cach only usable in iTMS/iTVS and AppleStore of couse) then I think it'd be a win-win-win soution for Apple, the customers and the content providers.
And.. They would get A LOT of press, and it would be really innovative.
Hmm, I still have trouble believing Mac updates. Even a screen resolution increase on the PowerBook shouldn't be enough for a special event. Maybe he'll link the video iPod to the increased screen real estate of the PowerBooks - "watch the videos you purchased on your iPod or on your wide screen PowerBook." Still seems like a stretch to me though.
Comments
Originally posted by Bancho
If anyone can do it though (and make it bigtime), Apple can.
And *THAT* is the reason the marketing brand image folks get paid the big bucks. Because we all believe that if *anybody* could pull this off... the only company you'd trust would be Apple.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
A feature film download service might actually do quite well. If they format the size to a low enough resolution that it won't scale well for a TV screen, BUT it will look okay on the video iPod's screen or in a small window on your computer, people might go for that. Charge $2 per movie (that you can put on unlimited iPods) and consumers would FLIP OUT.
Why not full screen? Seriously, SD is not a problem for downloading any more. Want proof?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/cnbc/
Now, here's my other loose thread:
"In an interview after his presentation," wrote Mr. Markoff, "Mr. Jobs demurred. The problem, he suggested, was not that Mac TV was not a good idea, but that the cable companies are monopolies. But he did not close the door entirely."
This is from a NYT op-ed from January 2005, so it's behind the NYTs new firewall of greed. The problem not being addressed (as I think he would agree) is not networks and TiVo but restricted access to content that consumers have no way to route around. There are some networks I cannot watch because my cable provider simply doesn't offer them. Yeah, I could do the satellite thing, but I have some issues with that as well.
Steve's other job is as a content producer. For them to make money, they need as many paying avenues to the consumer as possible, and DVDs are the best one right now. Surely he realizes that throttled access (ticket sales, TV) are in decline as a revenue source, but direct sales are growing (DVD). Direct purchase of programming from the content producer, bypssing the resellers that restrict access (theatre owners and cable companies) is the future. That's precisely what iTMS addresses and why I think he'll repeat the trick for video.
A Mac PVR might be interesting, but it dosen't really solve an existing problem so it's not a slam-dunk market and I think that's what his comment above reflects. Scaled down content isn't what they want. People want what they want when they want it. They want SD or HD programming on demand, with as few restrictions as possible. They don't want to be forced to watch it in the next 72 hours, they want to own it. They don't want to be forced to show up at a certain time to watch it or else they'll never be able to see it again.
I think it's why Steve isn't particularly interested in XM/Sirius or FM receivers in iPods - he want's to blow clean past all of them. Want to hear Howard Stern - download him when *you* want to hear him. That's the model.
Originally posted by GreggWSmith
Apple is buying Microsoft and Gates will be hung publicly for crimes against humanity.
First,
Second, there are probably some clues in the latest invite just as there were for the one before the nano. (and "One more thing..." typically means ONE more thing)
That said, would Apple update Pro machines with only 3 months till MWSF? It would be nice to see Intel machines, but it just doesn't seem likely. PPC updates I can't see drawing this much attention, that would be a huge let-down to most people (at this point, given all the media attention and hype).
Video iPod would be killer, and warrant this much attention. Can't say I'd bet on a feature film type movie download service though; it doesn't seem like the COMPLETE infrastructure and market are there YET (especially in the US). TV show d/l makes SOME sense but doesn't seem like a very 'Jobs-ian' idea what with his mild dislike for television (at least he hinted at that years ago, "...get people out from behind the boob-tube...").
I would buy an Airport Express AV in a second, but there's not a large need for one YET. Plus, is G speed wireless really fast enough (given sustained, average rates of ~22mbps) for quality Audio and Video? If not they could release something pre-N, but again, this much media attention for just that?
I could be way off, but I'm leaning on it being something entirely new. Speculate on. 8)
.02 USD
Originally posted by webmail
What the hell are you talking about? What *hitty ass connection do you have? on my 768mb DSL it takes 5 minutes or less for a 150mb file..
I assume you mean 768kb DSL. Assuming you could fully saturate your line (94 KB/sec), it would take 26 minutes to download a 150MB file. Not sure how you are downloading them in 5 minutes over a 768k line...
On my comcast cable (though not in san jose <-- since comcast sucks there) in LA i download at between 3-4mbs second.
First you say you have DSL, now its Comcast? The 5 minute download jives up with a Comcast line, so perhaps you were exaggerating to emphasize?
Ya, I need to update my location info. I am currently in Sacramento for school. The Comcast out here is pretty good, 7Mbps/768Kbps. I have seen my line get up to 750KBps on a good download, or if I have a few torrents going.
Originally posted by johnsonwax
OK, but the BitTorrent masses are already out there sucking down the bandwidth. Shifting some of them to a legal system doesn't add to the bandwidth problem.
You don't? How many people use Bit-torrent vs. iTunes? How many people even know what torrenting is? Have you ever seen a commercial on TV about getting your stuff through torrents? I don't think there is even close to 100,000 no 50,000 people torrenting every day on a daily basis. 800,000+ is a range less figure. I was using it as an increasing unit. If Apple wants to enter the torrent game they can go ahead. I'm talking about something much bigger than torrenting.
Originally posted by onlooker
You don't? How many people use Bit-torrent vs. iTunes? How many people even know what torrenting is? Have you ever seen a commercial on TV about getting your stuff through torrents? I don't think there is even close to 100,000 no 50,000 people torrenting every day on a daily basis. 800,000+ is a range less figure. I was using it as an increasing unit. If Apple wants to enter the torrent game they can go ahead. I'm talking about something much bigger than torrenting.
There are FAR more than 100,000 people out there torrenting. There's estimated to be about 10M users of P2P apps, and BT is safely 1/4 of that. My mom discovered BT for christs sake. If you want specific content, it's about your only resource. And it's not like my mom isn't willing to pay - she's happy to buy premium services but sometimes the specific thing that she wants just isn't available to her at any price.
We know that Apple is selling about 1.25M songs a day right now. I can routinely spot popular torrent files with 5,000 people sharing it - for one file. The useage is MUCH higher than you think.
And I still don't see how much it would change for Apple who must already be pushing upwards of 10TB/day out of the iTMS. So maybe that jumps to 50TB. Is 50TB/day any more impossible a problem to solve than 10TB? I don't see it.
Originally posted by octane
I would buy an Airport Express AV in a second, but there's not a large need for one YET. Plus, is G speed wireless really fast enough (given sustained, average rates of ~22mbps) for quality Audio and Video?
It would be fast enough if the content already resided in the Airport Express device. Maybe it is more like the Airport Extreme only with a hard drive. If you wanted something from this device, then it would have to be sent/called wirelessly to/from your computer; like, say a web page from the internet or a movie from the hard drive. If you wanted to watch a movie on your big-screen tv, you would just control this new Airport-type device with some app (like maybe iTunes) and it would then send the movie to your tv ? which is connected to it via wires (RCA plugs, Super Video, or whatever...). No worries about bandwidth in this manner.
Originally posted by rongold
It would be fast enough if the content already resided in the Airport Express device. Maybe it is more like the Airport Extreme only with a hard drive. If you wanted something from this device, then it would have to be sent/called wirelessly to/from your computer; like, say a web page from the internet or a movie from the hard drive. If you wanted to watch a movie on your big-screen tv, you would just control this new Airport-type device with some app (like maybe iTunes) and it would then send the movie to your tv ? which is connected to it via wires (RCA plugs, Super Video, or whatever...). No worries about bandwidth in this manner.
No, it's plenty fast enough for video even from any device. Even a HD H.264 stream is only 5mb/s. A SD one is 1mb/s or less.
TiV, Replay, and MCE have been shoving less-efficient video around wireless networks for a while now.
Who knows.. they might even include som P2P functionality into iTunes with a P2P-button if iTMS/iTVS is slow. The cost is that you would also open up your archive to fellow iTuners. iTunes would of couse only share FairPlay protected stuff. iTunes would report the purchase to iTMS/iTVS, bill your credit card and give some cash your seeding pals for their trouble. Micropayments baby!
10 million registered credit cards in iTMS. That'd be one heck of a P2P network and if everyone get something back for participating (cach only usable in iTMS/iTVS and AppleStore of couse) then I think it'd be a win-win-win soution for Apple, the customers and the content providers.
And.. They would get A LOT of press, and it would be really innovative.
I speculate no more than 1.7ghz.
Displays for the powerbook. based on this quote
'sources expect the number of pixels packed into the displays to increase by about 15 percent on the 15- and 17-inch models'
would anyone care to guestimate possible resolutions referencing our current display res of 1280x854 ?
Originally posted by Targon
would anyone care to guestimate possible resolutions referencing our current display res of 1280x854 ?
Perhaps each steps up to the next Apple type resolution, so
15" = 1280x854 becomes 1440x900
17" = 1440x900 becomes 1650x1050
Fixed that for ya.
Originally posted by audiopollution
The bittorrent app. I use, Azureus, is telling me:
And that is for the trackerless torrents only. So only people with those additional ports opened, and are running Azureus will show up in that count.
I read (over the summer) that Bittorrent had become the number 1 p2p app with over 2.5 million users at any given moment in time.