Not to be a nitpicker... but this sentence, "...his proprietary checks with industry sources...", should probably read, "...his checks with proprietary industry sources...", since his process of checking is unlikely to be proprietary.
Your probably correct but since they are paraphrasing what Wu said, he probably said it that way and it is always a grey area on how much you change what an interviewee says...
However, some CRTs are capable of amazing picture resolution. Sony's 34" wide screen does full 1080i for example. With the tube, not down scaled or something. If you pay $200 for TV sure, but CRts that do 720 and 1080 go for around $500 and $1400 respectivly don't they?
I personally think CRT is cabable of the best picture quality (NO ghosting, view angle etc) - unless you start spending $10K+ on plasmas. Although my Sony also wieghs in at 200lbs.......
I wish that were true about crt's resolution, but it's not.
I have Sony XRB sets, and their rez is decidedly not that high. I also have Sony production monitors, and they have 600 lines rez. High, but not the 720 that broadcast has IN THE STUDIO.I say that, because even the best tv tuners are only capable of 330 lines of horiz rez. Hi def tuners are digital, and so are different.
I have a 16:9 Sony production monitor, a 20" that costs several THOUSAND, and does a true 720p.
What is the rez of the digital stream your cable or satellite company sending you? Less than you think!
Sony's 34" set is very good, but 1080i doesn't mean that you are getting what you think you are. I can guarrantee that you aren't getting 1920 x 1080i.
Well, if Jobs can eventually bring all the major studios on board this could begin competing with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Who is gonna want to go drive and rent a movie when you can get any movie old or new instantly streamed to any tv in your house. Better yet, you can take it with you on your iPod!
If THIS were to work over normal cable delivery, Apple would have my iRental right away. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Netflix, etc. would instantly be out of the movie rental business... oh, my...
If THIS were to work over normal cable delivery, Apple would have my iRental right away. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Netflix, etc. would instantly be out of business... oh, my...
Netflix just announced results. The results are that it isn't doing too well.
I'll see if I can find something, but I read this in either the NYTimes or the WSJ today in the morning. Whether it made it to an online page yet, I don't know.
I've got the same thing with someone on ARs today. Read an article in the Times, but it's not on the internet.
No I don't think the file will ever reside on the hard drive at all... Sounds to me like a new faster caching system?
Actually... what about if you consider the system to be a 50GB cache on your hard disk? The cache may store many pieces of your video files, possibly all the pieces, but never as a single file that can be copied or backed up.
Technically speaking your storage is handled by Apple and may be 1 Terrabyte each (especially since if 10 people have the same video, Apple only stores it once).
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
A. I too would hope with a new "Patented caching system" the streaming quality will be better than the current 320x240.
B. Non- Apple hardware? don't count on it.. Apple won't be making money on content (movie) distribution. If they actually do this, it will be to sell Apple hardware. As the article says the new Mac Mini with front row.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
I agree I hope it's better resolution. Apple already has free software on Intel - iDisk and Quicktime/iTunes, all it has to do is sell FrontRow for Windows at a profitable level (while bundling it with Macs &/or Video iPods).
I don't really see why an iDisk would be needed. If it's true that you won't be able to download the content onto your computer, then there is no reason why it should take up space on your iDisk. Obviously, they only need one copy of it on their servers.
Secondly, I don't really see how keeping the content off the hard drive makes it any harder for someone to capture it than if it were a protected file the way videos are right now from iTunes. The average person is not able to get around a DRM or a stream. And someone who is able to do one, probably can do the other. Ultimately, it really only takes one person to get the content all over the file sharing networks.
I don't really see why an iDisk would be needed. If it's true that you won't be able to download the content onto your computer, then there is no reason why it should take up space on your iDisk. Obviously, they only need one copy of it on their servers.
Secondly, I don't really see how keeping the content off the hard drive makes it any harder for someone to capture it than if it were a protected file the way videos are right now from iTunes. The average person is not able to get around a DRM or a stream. And someone who is able to do one, probably can do the other. Ultimately, it really only takes one person to get the content all over the file sharing networks.
I don't believe the file itself will reside on the iDisk but rather a link to the file on Apple's server.
I believe that the reason for using an iDisk rather than a file with DRM is because a 2 hour film with resolution better than the current 320 x 240 (I'm assuming it will be,) would take far too long to download for the average user. If as the article states, Apple has developed and patented a new caching system, the streaming model will allow this to truly be an "on demand" service.
I don't believe the file itself will reside on the iDisk but rather a link to the file on Apple's server.
I believe that the reason for using an iDisk rather than a file with DRM is because a 2 hour film with resolution better than the current 320 x 240 (I'm assuming it will be,) would take far too long to download for the average user. If as the article states, Apple has developed and patented a new caching system, the streaming model will allow this to truly be an "on demand" service.
The caching scheme means nothing. It still takes the same time to download a file as before. Whether you are streaming it so you can watch it, or downloading it so that you can watch it later, doesn't matter. Your max bandwidth still determines how fast it will come down. And it does have to come down either way. Streaming is the same as downloading.
The question here is whether Apple will have to download that file more than once. The iDisk resides on Apple's servers, not our machine. So there isn't any difference.
If I were to buy a movie, and Apple downloaded it to my machine. That would be one time their bandwidth would be utilized.
But if my wife also wanted to watch it, and then later my daughter, and then if her friends came over and watched it again, Apple would be downloading it 5 times instead of once, if it were in the iDisk, or elsewhere, on Apple's servers.
The caching scheme means nothing. It still takes the same time to download a file as before. Whether you are streaming it so you can watch it, or downloading it so that you can watch it later, doesn't matter. Your max bandwidth still determines how fast it will come down. And it does have to come down either way. Streaming is the same as downloading.
The question here is whether Apple will have to download that file more than once. The iDisk resides on Apple's servers, not our machine. So there isn't any difference.
If I were to buy a movie, and Apple downloaded it to my machine. That would be one time their bandwidth would be utilized.
But if my wife also wanted to watch it, and then later my daughter, and then if her friends came over and watched it again, Apple would be downloading it 5 times instead of once, if it were in the iDisk, or elsewhere, on Apple's servers.
Apple would lose the bandwidth race that way.
I completely disagree for several reasons.
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
FROM APPLE SITE:
What does the Broadband Tuner do exactly?
The installer increases the default values for the size of the TCP send and receive buffers. With larger buffers more data can be in transit at once. A startup configuration file is also updated so that these changes will persist across restarts.
This change has a system wide effect and is applied even if the network is not high speed connection with a high latency, with the exception of modem connections for which the system uses small default TCP buffer sizes.
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
The only way that streaming would make something download quicker would be if it dynamically reduced the resolution of the file. Basically you'd watch it straight away, and the resolution would be reduced to the speed of your connection. The broadband speedup is for connections >8Mbps... so considering Lost at the current resolution requires 0.5Mbps I don't think it's a factor
The enhanced caching is a separate issue. I'm assuming that either we'll give a huge portion of our hard disk (eg 60GB) to the cache and MUCH of our content will be stored locally (though not saved to your file system at all).. or perhaps all your free space will be used as a cache and you won't even know it.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
I think all melgross was saying was that--enhanced or not--a caching system can't make downloading/streaming/whatever any faster. In your example, a movie that takes 3-6 hours to download is simply not watchable via streaming. If it takes 3-6 hours to download, it takes 3-6 hours to download whether that's "downloading" or "streaming". I wouldn't want to spend 3-6 hours watching a 2-hour movie as it streams. The total number of bytes is the same, regardless of "enhanced caching". Now enhanced compression, well that's a whole new story.
Quote:
Originally posted by solsun
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
FROM APPLE SITE:
What does the Broadband Tuner do exactly?
The installer increases the default values for the size of the TCP send and receive buffers. With larger buffers more data can be in transit at once. A startup configuration file is also updated so that these changes will persist across restarts.
This change has a system wide effect and is applied even if the network is not high speed connection with a high latency, with the exception of modem connections for which the system uses small default TCP buffer sizes.
The first two points are clearly wrong. Caching may help Apple keep these files on their own machines, or as Greg says, keep a large part on our own drives - but that is exactly what the article says is NOT going to happen.
When I view a streamed video, my high bandwidth connection (6.144MBS) usually downloads the file long before the file is finished being presented to me on screen. But, if your connection is much slower, say 1.5MBS, then you will have to wait before it even starts. How long will depend upon the file size and resolution.
Broadband tuner is supposed to help latency for hi speed connections. It only has an effect if your connection, first of all, HAS much latency, is truely fast, 5MBS, at least, and your isp will allow it. That last point is something that hasn't been talked about. Some isp's won't allow large packets.
Even if it does work for you, and I've been experimenting with it and have found no improvement on most connections, it won't do more than a 10-20% improvement. Nice, but not major.
If you check Safari's speed numbers in the download window, you can see if this will help. Divide your download speed in bits, as that's how it's rated, by 8. That will give you bytes per second. That is theoretical. Subtract between 15 to 25% of that number, and you will get the maximum bandwidth available to you.
EDIT: sorry, I didn't mean to divide the number in Safari's download window. That is just to check if the number you come up with matches what you are getting in the real world.
For me, the first number is 768,000 bytes per sec. The second, subtracting, say, 20%, gives me 614,400 bytes per sec, which is about right for me. Actually I get a bit more, about 650,000.
The rest is the network chatter. Some of that can possibly be eliminated with Broadband Tuner, but not all.
So you can figure out how much this really helps. Add some of that bandwidth back that you subtracted, but keep 8 to 10% off, you can't get rid of those last few percent.
The first two points are clearly wrong. Caching may help Apple keep these files on their own machines, or as Greg says, keep a large part on our own drives - but that is exactly what the article says is NOT going to happen.
I'm certainly treading a fine line...
Apple doesn't want people having access to the files, so they're not stored on your hard disk.. but they are cached (in some manner). I'm assuming that to be of any value any cache must be rather large... probably hard disk based, and more like your virtual memory file (which, you may realise, you can never get a useful file off!).
This to me doesn't contradict the rumour.... do you think it's possible?
Apple doesn't want people having access to the files, so they're not stored on your hard disk.. but they are cached (in some manner). I'm assuming that to be of any value any cache must be rather large... probably hard disk based, and more like your virtual memory file (which, you may realise, you can never get a useful file off!).
This to me doesn't contradict the rumour.... do you think it's possible?
I wasn't disagreeing with you, by the way. I think that what you said makes sense. It's just not what the article implies.
I really don't know what to think. We don't know if ANY of it is true. Or if it is, which parts.
I suppose that Apple could just stream the video out every time you ask it to. But what bandwidth that will need!
If it's cached on OUR hard drive, then it will be accessable. Unless it's so heavily encoded that we can never decode it. But, even if it's in a virtual memory file, someone can write a small program to retreive it.
Did you know that when you view a video in Safari that you can save it, even if the window has no save arrow? It's in the cache. As long as you haven't turned Safari off after having viewed the file, you can retreive it. Apple even tells us how! So there are various ways of doing this.
But it's either download it to disk, or watch a streamed version. Maybe something from the video is cached on the HD. But not the file itself, just info about it.
If Apple does something on its own servers (or Akamai's), I can't imagine what it could be.
How much memory would you need on your HD to store, say, 50 movies in DVD quality? 40GB, 50GB, 60GB, 70GB, more? If they are giving us hi def, what will that be 720p, as tv gives us? 1080p (like Sony says it's going to encode BR movies)?
How much HD space would we need then? 100GB, 150GB, 200GB?
That would be fine if we could rip them to a DVD or HD disk of some sort so that we could get them off. If not, what happens when the disk crashes, and we have to download 100 hours of films?
Sounds to me like a new faster caching system? As far as backing up the media to DVD, well, I don't think so... As it is right now, video purchased from iTunes can't be burned to DVD so nothing is changing in that regard.. Of course there are always ways around DRM, but this sounds like a pretty viable solution. You can put it on your iPod or watch it anythime you want via FrontRow, but you will never get the physical file in a way which it can be copied...
yeah and you can thank the stockholders and COOKED fearful Industry people for this kind of crap.... I dont blame apple but Steve jobs knows that this stuff is what causes more piracy! and he should make a stand on his consumers rights.more piracy means people hacking and cracking drms...
You know what this all means dont you?
We are slowly being Buttered and lathered up for......
The death of DvD and Optical media.
to stave of piracy and earn a decent profit they are going to take the toys away.............. \
when the Ultimate solution is so easy.... but thats another thread.
Comments
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Not to be a nitpicker... but this sentence, "...his proprietary checks with industry sources...", should probably read, "...his checks with proprietary industry sources...", since his process of checking is unlikely to be proprietary.
Your probably correct but since they are paraphrasing what Wu said, he probably said it that way and it is always a grey area on how much you change what an interviewee says...
Originally posted by waytogobuddy
Good point on the freeze frame, agreed.
However, some CRTs are capable of amazing picture resolution. Sony's 34" wide screen does full 1080i for example. With the tube, not down scaled or something. If you pay $200 for TV sure, but CRts that do 720 and 1080 go for around $500 and $1400 respectivly don't they?
I personally think CRT is cabable of the best picture quality (NO ghosting, view angle etc) - unless you start spending $10K+ on plasmas. Although my Sony also wieghs in at 200lbs.......
I wish that were true about crt's resolution, but it's not.
I have Sony XRB sets, and their rez is decidedly not that high. I also have Sony production monitors, and they have 600 lines rez. High, but not the 720 that broadcast has IN THE STUDIO.I say that, because even the best tv tuners are only capable of 330 lines of horiz rez. Hi def tuners are digital, and so are different.
I have a 16:9 Sony production monitor, a 20" that costs several THOUSAND, and does a true 720p.
What is the rez of the digital stream your cable or satellite company sending you? Less than you think!
Sony's 34" set is very good, but 1080i doesn't mean that you are getting what you think you are. I can guarrantee that you aren't getting 1920 x 1080i.
Originally posted by solsun
Well, if Jobs can eventually bring all the major studios on board this could begin competing with Blockbuster and Hollywood Video. Who is gonna want to go drive and rent a movie when you can get any movie old or new instantly streamed to any tv in your house. Better yet, you can take it with you on your iPod!
If THIS were to work over normal cable delivery, Apple would have my iRental right away. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Netflix, etc. would instantly be out of the movie rental business... oh, my...
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
If THIS were to work over normal cable delivery, Apple would have my iRental right away. Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Netflix, etc. would instantly be out of business... oh, my...
Netflix just announced results. The results are that it isn't doing too well.
Originally posted by melgross
Netflix just announced results. The results are that it isn't doing too well.
Do you have a link? Thanks, mel.
Originally posted by SpamSandwich
Do you have a link? Thanks, mel.
I'll see if I can find something, but I read this in either the NYTimes or the WSJ today in the morning. Whether it made it to an online page yet, I don't know.
I've got the same thing with someone on ARs today. Read an article in the Times, but it's not on the internet.
Originally posted by melgross
...with someone on ARs today...
???Apple Retards discussion board???
Originally posted by solsun
No I don't think the file will ever reside on the hard drive at all... Sounds to me like a new faster caching system?
Actually... what about if you consider the system to be a 50GB cache on your hard disk? The cache may store many pieces of your video files, possibly all the pieces, but never as a single file that can be copied or backed up.
Technically speaking your storage is handled by Apple and may be 1 Terrabyte each (especially since if 10 people have the same video, Apple only stores it once).
Originally posted by solsun
A. I too would hope with a new "Patented caching system" the streaming quality will be better than the current 320x240.
B. Non- Apple hardware? don't count on it.. Apple won't be making money on content (movie) distribution. If they actually do this, it will be to sell Apple hardware. As the article says the new Mac Mini with front row.
I also don't think this method of selling movies will be for PC users because of the whole streaming from iDisk thing. This may be an attempt to lure windows users over to the new intel macs.
I agree I hope it's better resolution. Apple already has free software on Intel - iDisk and Quicktime/iTunes, all it has to do is sell FrontRow for Windows at a profitable level (while bundling it with Macs &/or Video iPods).
Originally posted by aplnub
???Apple Retards discussion board???
That's a good one, actually.
Arstechnica.com
I thought that everyone here knew about it. I was wrong.
Secondly, I don't really see how keeping the content off the hard drive makes it any harder for someone to capture it than if it were a protected file the way videos are right now from iTunes. The average person is not able to get around a DRM or a stream. And someone who is able to do one, probably can do the other. Ultimately, it really only takes one person to get the content all over the file sharing networks.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
I don't really see why an iDisk would be needed. If it's true that you won't be able to download the content onto your computer, then there is no reason why it should take up space on your iDisk. Obviously, they only need one copy of it on their servers.
Secondly, I don't really see how keeping the content off the hard drive makes it any harder for someone to capture it than if it were a protected file the way videos are right now from iTunes. The average person is not able to get around a DRM or a stream. And someone who is able to do one, probably can do the other. Ultimately, it really only takes one person to get the content all over the file sharing networks.
I don't believe the file itself will reside on the iDisk but rather a link to the file on Apple's server.
I believe that the reason for using an iDisk rather than a file with DRM is because a 2 hour film with resolution better than the current 320 x 240 (I'm assuming it will be,) would take far too long to download for the average user. If as the article states, Apple has developed and patented a new caching system, the streaming model will allow this to truly be an "on demand" service.
Originally posted by solsun
I don't believe the file itself will reside on the iDisk but rather a link to the file on Apple's server.
I believe that the reason for using an iDisk rather than a file with DRM is because a 2 hour film with resolution better than the current 320 x 240 (I'm assuming it will be,) would take far too long to download for the average user. If as the article states, Apple has developed and patented a new caching system, the streaming model will allow this to truly be an "on demand" service.
The caching scheme means nothing. It still takes the same time to download a file as before. Whether you are streaming it so you can watch it, or downloading it so that you can watch it later, doesn't matter. Your max bandwidth still determines how fast it will come down. And it does have to come down either way. Streaming is the same as downloading.
The question here is whether Apple will have to download that file more than once. The iDisk resides on Apple's servers, not our machine. So there isn't any difference.
If I were to buy a movie, and Apple downloaded it to my machine. That would be one time their bandwidth would be utilized.
But if my wife also wanted to watch it, and then later my daughter, and then if her friends came over and watched it again, Apple would be downloading it 5 times instead of once, if it were in the iDisk, or elsewhere, on Apple's servers.
Apple would lose the bandwidth race that way.
Originally posted by melgross
The caching scheme means nothing. It still takes the same time to download a file as before. Whether you are streaming it so you can watch it, or downloading it so that you can watch it later, doesn't matter. Your max bandwidth still determines how fast it will come down. And it does have to come down either way. Streaming is the same as downloading.
The question here is whether Apple will have to download that file more than once. The iDisk resides on Apple's servers, not our machine. So there isn't any difference.
If I were to buy a movie, and Apple downloaded it to my machine. That would be one time their bandwidth would be utilized.
But if my wife also wanted to watch it, and then later my daughter, and then if her friends came over and watched it again, Apple would be downloading it 5 times instead of once, if it were in the iDisk, or elsewhere, on Apple's servers.
Apple would lose the bandwidth race that way.
I completely disagree for several reasons.
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
FROM APPLE SITE:
What does the Broadband Tuner do exactly?
The installer increases the default values for the size of the TCP send and receive buffers. With larger buffers more data can be in transit at once. A startup configuration file is also updated so that these changes will persist across restarts.
This change has a system wide effect and is applied even if the network is not high speed connection with a high latency, with the exception of modem connections for which the system uses small default TCP buffer sizes.
Originally posted by solsun
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
The only way that streaming would make something download quicker would be if it dynamically reduced the resolution of the file. Basically you'd watch it straight away, and the resolution would be reduced to the speed of your connection. The broadband speedup is for connections >8Mbps... so considering Lost at the current resolution requires 0.5Mbps I don't think it's a factor
The enhanced caching is a separate issue. I'm assuming that either we'll give a huge portion of our hard disk (eg 60GB) to the cache and MUCH of our content will be stored locally (though not saved to your file system at all).. or perhaps all your free space will be used as a cache and you won't even know it.
Originally posted by solsun
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
I think all melgross was saying was that--enhanced or not--a caching system can't make downloading/streaming/whatever any faster. In your example, a movie that takes 3-6 hours to download is simply not watchable via streaming. If it takes 3-6 hours to download, it takes 3-6 hours to download whether that's "downloading" or "streaming". I wouldn't want to spend 3-6 hours watching a 2-hour movie as it streams.
Originally posted by solsun
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
Oh, hadn't thought of that--good point!
Originally posted by solsun
I completely disagree for several reasons.
1. The article clearly states that this service will be utilizing a newly patented caching system.
2. Streaming is definitely NOT the same thing as downloading... A 2 hour film at say standard definition quality could take upwards of 3-6 hours to download, your average Joe is not going to wait that long.. However, If the file were streaming and using an enhanced caching system along with Apple's new Broadband Tuner app, the file could begin being viewed within several minutes of the purchase, even with a standard broadband connection.
3. Broadband Tuner 1.0 - that little app that Apple came out with last week, it makes sense now....
FROM APPLE SITE:
What does the Broadband Tuner do exactly?
The installer increases the default values for the size of the TCP send and receive buffers. With larger buffers more data can be in transit at once. A startup configuration file is also updated so that these changes will persist across restarts.
This change has a system wide effect and is applied even if the network is not high speed connection with a high latency, with the exception of modem connections for which the system uses small default TCP buffer sizes.
The first two points are clearly wrong. Caching may help Apple keep these files on their own machines, or as Greg says, keep a large part on our own drives - but that is exactly what the article says is NOT going to happen.
When I view a streamed video, my high bandwidth connection (6.144MBS) usually downloads the file long before the file is finished being presented to me on screen. But, if your connection is much slower, say 1.5MBS, then you will have to wait before it even starts. How long will depend upon the file size and resolution.
Broadband tuner is supposed to help latency for hi speed connections. It only has an effect if your connection, first of all, HAS much latency, is truely fast, 5MBS, at least, and your isp will allow it. That last point is something that hasn't been talked about. Some isp's won't allow large packets.
Even if it does work for you, and I've been experimenting with it and have found no improvement on most connections, it won't do more than a 10-20% improvement. Nice, but not major.
If you check Safari's speed numbers in the download window, you can see if this will help. Divide your download speed in bits, as that's how it's rated, by 8. That will give you bytes per second. That is theoretical. Subtract between 15 to 25% of that number, and you will get the maximum bandwidth available to you.
EDIT: sorry, I didn't mean to divide the number in Safari's download window. That is just to check if the number you come up with matches what you are getting in the real world.
For me, the first number is 768,000 bytes per sec. The second, subtracting, say, 20%, gives me 614,400 bytes per sec, which is about right for me. Actually I get a bit more, about 650,000.
The rest is the network chatter. Some of that can possibly be eliminated with Broadband Tuner, but not all.
So you can figure out how much this really helps. Add some of that bandwidth back that you subtracted, but keep 8 to 10% off, you can't get rid of those last few percent.
Originally posted by melgross
The first two points are clearly wrong. Caching may help Apple keep these files on their own machines, or as Greg says, keep a large part on our own drives - but that is exactly what the article says is NOT going to happen.
I'm certainly treading a fine line...
Apple doesn't want people having access to the files, so they're not stored on your hard disk.. but they are cached (in some manner). I'm assuming that to be of any value any cache must be rather large... probably hard disk based, and more like your virtual memory file (which, you may realise, you can never get a useful file off!).
This to me doesn't contradict the rumour.... do you think it's possible?
Originally posted by GregAlexander
I'm certainly treading a fine line...
Apple doesn't want people having access to the files, so they're not stored on your hard disk.. but they are cached (in some manner). I'm assuming that to be of any value any cache must be rather large... probably hard disk based, and more like your virtual memory file (which, you may realise, you can never get a useful file off!).
This to me doesn't contradict the rumour.... do you think it's possible?
I wasn't disagreeing with you, by the way. I think that what you said makes sense. It's just not what the article implies.
I really don't know what to think. We don't know if ANY of it is true. Or if it is, which parts.
I suppose that Apple could just stream the video out every time you ask it to. But what bandwidth that will need!
If it's cached on OUR hard drive, then it will be accessable. Unless it's so heavily encoded that we can never decode it. But, even if it's in a virtual memory file, someone can write a small program to retreive it.
Did you know that when you view a video in Safari that you can save it, even if the window has no save arrow? It's in the cache. As long as you haven't turned Safari off after having viewed the file, you can retreive it. Apple even tells us how! So there are various ways of doing this.
But it's either download it to disk, or watch a streamed version. Maybe something from the video is cached on the HD. But not the file itself, just info about it.
If Apple does something on its own servers (or Akamai's), I can't imagine what it could be.
How much memory would you need on your HD to store, say, 50 movies in DVD quality? 40GB, 50GB, 60GB, 70GB, more? If they are giving us hi def, what will that be 720p, as tv gives us? 1080p (like Sony says it's going to encode BR movies)?
How much HD space would we need then? 100GB, 150GB, 200GB?
That would be fine if we could rip them to a DVD or HD disk of some sort so that we could get them off. If not, what happens when the disk crashes, and we have to download 100 hours of films?
Sounds to me like a new faster caching system? As far as backing up the media to DVD, well, I don't think so... As it is right now, video purchased from iTunes can't be burned to DVD so nothing is changing in that regard.. Of course there are always ways around DRM, but this sounds like a pretty viable solution. You can put it on your iPod or watch it anythime you want via FrontRow, but you will never get the physical file in a way which it can be copied...
yeah and you can thank the stockholders and COOKED fearful Industry people for this kind of crap.... I dont blame apple but Steve jobs knows that this stuff is what causes more piracy! and he should make a stand on his consumers rights.more piracy means people hacking and cracking drms...
You know what this all means dont you?
We are slowly being Buttered and lathered up for......
The death of DvD and Optical media.
to stave of piracy and earn a decent profit they are going to take the toys away..............
when the Ultimate solution is so easy.... but thats another thread.