QT for mobile devices + IP over firewire=??

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Things are starting to get interesting. QT is a media player, yes, but it's also got deep hooks into OS X. IP over firewire was just announced. Any speculation on what this could mean? I can't wait for MWSF.



edit: <a href="http://news.com.com/2102-1023-976829.html"; target="_blank">link to article</a>



[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    Do people really want to email, watch video and listen to music on their phones. I'm all for technology but computers and recent technology seem to take up time rather than saving it.
  • Reply 2 of 12
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Do people really want to email, watch video and listen to music on their phones. I'm all for technology but computers and recent technology seem to take up time rather than saving it.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't do any of that but email with my pocketpc. And I think that some companies realize that this is only a fad and that's what's so interesting about it. Apple seems to have a better sense of things that most others so I suspect that it's going some where.



    w00t!! 1500 posts! Can I get my life back now??
  • Reply 3 of 12
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    hmm.. I already posted a thread about that some time ago in the OSX forum...



    <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=001748"; target="_blank">TCP/IP over FireWire !</a>



    <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 4 of 12
    This article's focus is about QuickTime, 3GPP, and MPEG-4 and how they will be used with mobile phones. How does this relate to your TCP/IP thread, Defiant?



    Anyway, I'm with hmurchison. I see this as a pretty gimmicky technology for cellular phones. Sure, the kids will drool all over it, but it won't really improve upon current services. It seems more likely to me that this technology will transition into use with some other new digital device (no, NOT the iPod) and possibly integrate with the iApps.



    I sure hope Apple knows what it's doing...
  • Reply 5 of 12
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by Brad:

    <strong>Anyway, I'm with hmurchison. I see this as a pretty gimmicky technology for cellular phones. Sure, the kids will drool all over it, but it won't really improve upon current services. It seems more likely to me that this technology will transition into use with some other new digital device (no, NOT the iPod) and possibly integrate with the iApps.



    I sure hope Apple knows what it's doing...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I guess that's my point by starting this thread. Lots of pieces are now in place to get something like OS X running on other devices. Don't believe me?



    Look at this:







    So we've got Darwin, which we know can run on other platforms. Now we have QT. Audio is already there to some extent. All that's left is the display layer. The upper level stuff, in particular Cocoa and Java2 are just programming languages and one of them, Java2, is already there.



    The thing that interests me most is the Darwin stuff. We've got a hell of a lot of stuff there automatically because of Darwin - especially communications protocols and open standards stuff that is being showcased in the Addressbook, iCal and iSync. Whaddya think?



    [ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 12
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    Here's my take on what's been done already:







    As I was doing this, I thought about Applescript. The terminal is already scriptable, so could it go both ways? That is, can Darwin pass Applescript commands as well? Speculation is fun...



    [ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 12
    klinuxklinux Posts: 453member
    [quote]Originally posted by torifile:

    <strong>IP over firewire was just announced.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    TCIP/IP over Firewire is not a new technology at all (XP builts it by default - I've read they've had it since WinME). It will not become popular in the Apple world for the same reasons why it is not popular at the PC world: cost, length, and the lack of popular demand for speed beyond 100 mbps.
  • Reply 8 of 12
    It might be gimmicky because we thought about the possibilities yet.



    I think it would be cool to watch movie previews while discussing movie options with friends. Or, wouldn't it be cool to send a picture to your parents during a phone call without having to download a picture from your camera and then email it -- which then depends if your parent are online anyway?
  • Reply 9 of 12
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by klinux:

    <strong>



    TCIP/IP over Firewire is not a new technology at all (XP builts it by default - I've read they've had it since WinME). It will not become popular in the Apple world for the same reasons why it is not popular at the PC world: cost, length, and the lack of popular demand for speed beyond 100 mbps.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I realize that it's not a new tech, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Apple just made it available for Macs. I think that it will be more success on the Mac side just because of the increased penetration of firewire over here. It may not be HUGE, but it will certainly be utilized. And if something comes of all this other stuff that utilizes it, I see a big future (ex. an iPod-ish device needing no other connections but firewire. It's almost there as it is).
  • Reply 10 of 12
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    btw..

    [quote] "Apple has pulled ALL mention of the preview release of IP over firewire as well as the download." The software allowed Macs and other devices to use existing IP (networking) protocols and services over FireWire, including AFP, HTTP, FTP, and SSH <hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 11 of 12
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by Defiant:

    <strong>btw..

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    heh, I must be on to SOMEthing.
  • Reply 12 of 12
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    what ?
Sign In or Register to comment.