applenut you know an awful lot about Macs, but when you start acting childish you look so bad. Quit name calling and think about it for a minute. Has Apple ever, [i]ever[/] made software for the PC? I'm not being rhetorical, here, I'm asking a real question. Because if anyone can think of any software Apple has written in the last 10 years that would run on a Wintel machine it's you. You're a smart guy.
Smart enough to understant the point behind my iPod analogy. I know that, unlike a video conference, the iPod doesn't require two parties in order to be functional. But I'm not talking about functionality. I'm talking about branding. Everyone raves about the iPod and agrees that Apple could sell a lot more of them if they made it PC-compatible. But Apple didn't. And why? Because Apple believes if you make a cool enough piece of Mac-only hardware or software it will convince people to buy a Mac.
And yes, I've seen your point from the beginning. Mr. and Mrs Minivan go buy an iMac because they want to videocon with Grampa Joe in Miami. But then they realize that Grampa Joe has a PC, and with their Mac-only iApp they can't. They're screwed and I think that's wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think Apple cares. If you look at its history (at least since Jobs came back) they have been about making cool software that only runs on Macs. Period.
Now let's say you're right. Let's say that Apple makes the industry's coolest and easiest vidcon app... and they make a PC version. Who benefits from that? Well, Dell, and Compaq and Gateway. Because if my Wintel machine now has this great vidcon software, I'm sticking with that machine.
But, Apple figures that if I see a bunch of people with Macs who are doing cool video conferencing quick and easy, and I'm not really good with computers but I really want to try video conferencing, then I'll start thinking about dumping my PC and get a Mac.
I went on record as saying that Jobs was nuts to believe that anyone would buy a $1,200 computer just so they could use a $400 MP3 player. But since then I've read more than one review of the iPod where the PC-reviewer said that she/he would actually consider it. So I'm thinking I was pretty wrong.
And I could be wrong now, too. But re-read this thread and tell me which of us looks 'arrogant' and 'lame.' I've said before that you know more about Macs then most people and your knowledge has helped a lot of us on this forum. Me included. But when you get rude and insulting you look more like some troll who's got nothing better to do with his time than pick a fight. I'm guessing you're just having a bad week.
[quote]applenut you know an awful lot about Macs, but when you start acting childish you look so bad. Quit name calling and think about it for a minute. <hr></blockquote>
again, point taken. last post was a bit out of line but you pissed me off wit your little sarastic post that I responded to.
[quote]Has Apple ever, ever[/] made software for the PC? I'm not being rhetorical, here, I'm asking a real question. Because if anyone can think of any software Apple has written in the last 10 years that would run on a Wintel machine it's you. You're a smart guy.<hr></blockquote>
Well the centerpiece of your video conferencing would be Quicktime and that has been cross platform for many years now. Without it being cross platform it would have never taken off.
Apple has also made several other apps for the PC most notably AppleWorks 6.
[quote]
Smart enough to understant the point behind my iPod analogy. I know that, unlike a video conference, the iPod doesn't require two parties in order to be functional. But I'm not talking about functionality. I'm talking about branding. Everyone raves about the iPod and agrees that Apple could sell a lot more of them if they made it PC-compatible. But Apple didn't. And why? Because Apple believes if you make a cool enough piece of Mac-only hardware or software it will convince people to buy a Mac.
And yes, I've seen your point from the beginning. Mr. and Mrs Minivan go buy an iMac because they want to videocon with Grampa Joe in Miami. But then they realize that Grampa Joe has a PC, and with their Mac-only iApp they can't. They're screwed and I think that's wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think Apple cares. If you look at its history (at least since Jobs came back) they have been about making cool software that [i]only runs on Macs. Period.<hr></blockquote>
actually, if you look at what Apple has been doing since Jobs returned he is making macs use industry standards and as compatible as possible with the PC world. Because face it. We live in a Windows world. Apple has stuck to industry standards to get the most devices/peripherals/software. Apple would likely use MPEG 4 with Quicktime Broadcaster for video conferencing. Note MPEG 4 will also be on Windows in QT and its possible that Quicktime Broadcaster itself may be ported to Windows. Right there you have the tools on both platforms and would be ignorant not to use that advantage.
Apple has made it a point to make macs and pcs talk to each other as seamless as possible. Making a mac only video chat network would defeat all that work and would also be looked upon very poorly upon the general public and make it seem as if macs were not compatible. Not a Good Idea?
[quote]
Now let's say you're right. Let's say that Apple makes the industry's coolest and easiest vidcon app... and they make a PC version. Who benefits from that? Well, Dell, and Compaq and Gateway. Because if my Wintel machine now has this great vidcon software, I'm sticking with that machine. <hr></blockquote>
considering this stuff would be built-in to the mac and would cost the pc user I would say Apple wins.
[quote]
But, Apple figures that if I see a bunch of people with Macs who are doing cool video conferencing quick and easy, and I'm not really good with computers but I really want to try video conferencing, then I'll start thinking about dumping my PC and get a Mac. <hr></blockquote>
I don't see this happening. Video conferencing has been on the PC for years now and MS has implemented it into the OS. Nothing to be amazed her.
Apple may actually have to make it Messenger compatible <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Applenut, I agree. A Mac-only iCam and iConference would suffer the same fate as eWorld (remember that?), simply due to the fact that it was a minority service and never got off the ground.
With iPod, iTunes, iMovie, etc., Apple really doesn't have to worry about cross platform capability (see Applenut's posts), but with video conferencing, cross platform capability must be the centerpiece. It also opens up huge markets for the "iCam", since it would be marketed at the entire industry, rather than the Apple segment of the market.
Wouldn't it just be easier to have something that uses QT, RealPlayer, WMP, or whatever other technologies. Maybe it isn't the cleanest, but I'm sure a number of third party vid-con apps could get you talking to just about anyone, over whatever app you need. Kinda the way you can do IM now; using ICQ, or M$, or whatever you and your friends/family/business partners have in common.
I think the best solution would be for a slick-easy to use QT player to the task, using a variety of Apple and 3rd party plug-ins to ensure cross platform compatibility.
My feeling is that this will truly take-off when we get an efficient, stable, flexible, and most importantly, universally standard codec. MPEG-4 may be what we've all been waiting for.
[quote]Now let's say you're right. Let's say that Apple makes the industry's coolest and easiest vidcon app... and they make a PC version. Who benefits from that? Well, Dell, and Compaq and Gateway. Because if my Wintel machine now has this great vidcon software, I'm sticking with that machine. <hr></blockquote>
I think that Apple eventually will add VideoConferencing to its run of iApps, and I have no doubts that it will be the slickest, easiest to use VC app out there. But they would be much better off to make it compatible existing standards and let it talk to other clients like NetMeeting or Windows Messenger (which is basically MSN Messenger and NetMeeting all rolled into one easier to use app) so that we can talk to our PC friends.
On another note, I wish MS would implement the File Transfer feature in Messenger for Mac, then it would feel like a complete app.
Don´t we already know what Apple is doing? Didn´t they show of some kind of video conference app a couple of month ago at the QT conference? And didn´t it use MPEG-4?
I say standarts all the way. If Apple piggybag on some MS "standart" we´ll be at the mercy of them. It may hurt at first to be one of the only ones using a official standart but I believe that it will survive the longest.
Beyond all of the technological jargon, it's important to note that the timing is right. In fact, it couldn't be better.
Since 9/11, most companies are looking for better ways to communicate 'face-to-face' than via travel. My company just invested $185,000 in video conference equipment, and some are saying we'll need to pay $15k a day to broadcast to 6 locations.
I'm in a training department for a company with 400 branches. My department spends about $200k a year on travel. If Apple could provide a simple, low-cost solution, we could probably convince the IT Gods that it would be worth the commitment to try the Apple platform. (of course, we'd need to agree to support it ourselves - and we would).
iConference (or whatever) WILL use a cross-platform technology, Quicktime or otherwise, end of story. For confirmation, see iChat... note AIM support, not a standard per se, but it's the only thing that makes the app useful (which it would NOT be if it only allowed chat to mac.com addresses).
rr.
[edit: of course this is all presuming there will be an iConference ]
I just wanted to point out that at the most recent Shareholders' meeting, Steve Jobs pretty much said that there would be something involving video conferencing coming out of Cupertino. He didn't give a time frame, but I think we should expect it soon.
Comments
<strong>/me digs in pocket, grabs handful of chill-pills, hands them out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
point taken.
apologies
Smart enough to understant the point behind my iPod analogy. I know that, unlike a video conference, the iPod doesn't require two parties in order to be functional. But I'm not talking about functionality. I'm talking about branding. Everyone raves about the iPod and agrees that Apple could sell a lot more of them if they made it PC-compatible. But Apple didn't. And why? Because Apple believes if you make a cool enough piece of Mac-only hardware or software it will convince people to buy a Mac.
And yes, I've seen your point from the beginning. Mr. and Mrs Minivan go buy an iMac because they want to videocon with Grampa Joe in Miami. But then they realize that Grampa Joe has a PC, and with their Mac-only iApp they can't. They're screwed and I think that's wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think Apple cares. If you look at its history (at least since Jobs came back) they have been about making cool software that only runs on Macs. Period.
Now let's say you're right. Let's say that Apple makes the industry's coolest and easiest vidcon app... and they make a PC version. Who benefits from that? Well, Dell, and Compaq and Gateway. Because if my Wintel machine now has this great vidcon software, I'm sticking with that machine.
But, Apple figures that if I see a bunch of people with Macs who are doing cool video conferencing quick and easy, and I'm not really good with computers but I really want to try video conferencing, then I'll start thinking about dumping my PC and get a Mac.
I went on record as saying that Jobs was nuts to believe that anyone would buy a $1,200 computer just so they could use a $400 MP3 player. But since then I've read more than one review of the iPod where the PC-reviewer said that she/he would actually consider it. So I'm thinking I was pretty wrong.
And I could be wrong now, too. But re-read this thread and tell me which of us looks 'arrogant' and 'lame.' I've said before that you know more about Macs then most people and your knowledge has helped a lot of us on this forum. Me included. But when you get rude and insulting you look more like some troll who's got nothing better to do with his time than pick a fight. I'm guessing you're just having a bad week.
[quote]applenut you know an awful lot about Macs, but when you start acting childish you look so bad. Quit name calling and think about it for a minute. <hr></blockquote>
again, point taken. last post was a bit out of line but you pissed me off wit your little sarastic post that I responded to.
[quote]Has Apple ever, ever[/] made software for the PC? I'm not being rhetorical, here, I'm asking a real question. Because if anyone can think of any software Apple has written in the last 10 years that would run on a Wintel machine it's you. You're a smart guy.<hr></blockquote>
Well the centerpiece of your video conferencing would be Quicktime and that has been cross platform for many years now. Without it being cross platform it would have never taken off.
Apple has also made several other apps for the PC most notably AppleWorks 6.
[quote]
Smart enough to understant the point behind my iPod analogy. I know that, unlike a video conference, the iPod doesn't require two parties in order to be functional. But I'm not talking about functionality. I'm talking about branding. Everyone raves about the iPod and agrees that Apple could sell a lot more of them if they made it PC-compatible. But Apple didn't. And why? Because Apple believes if you make a cool enough piece of Mac-only hardware or software it will convince people to buy a Mac.
And yes, I've seen your point from the beginning. Mr. and Mrs Minivan go buy an iMac because they want to videocon with Grampa Joe in Miami. But then they realize that Grampa Joe has a PC, and with their Mac-only iApp they can't. They're screwed and I think that's wrong. I'm just saying that I don't think Apple cares. If you look at its history (at least since Jobs came back) they have been about making cool software that [i]only runs on Macs. Period.<hr></blockquote>
actually, if you look at what Apple has been doing since Jobs returned he is making macs use industry standards and as compatible as possible with the PC world. Because face it. We live in a Windows world. Apple has stuck to industry standards to get the most devices/peripherals/software. Apple would likely use MPEG 4 with Quicktime Broadcaster for video conferencing. Note MPEG 4 will also be on Windows in QT and its possible that Quicktime Broadcaster itself may be ported to Windows. Right there you have the tools on both platforms and would be ignorant not to use that advantage.
Apple has made it a point to make macs and pcs talk to each other as seamless as possible. Making a mac only video chat network would defeat all that work and would also be looked upon very poorly upon the general public and make it seem as if macs were not compatible. Not a Good Idea?
[quote]
Now let's say you're right. Let's say that Apple makes the industry's coolest and easiest vidcon app... and they make a PC version. Who benefits from that? Well, Dell, and Compaq and Gateway. Because if my Wintel machine now has this great vidcon software, I'm sticking with that machine. <hr></blockquote>
considering this stuff would be built-in to the mac and would cost the pc user I would say Apple wins.
[quote]
But, Apple figures that if I see a bunch of people with Macs who are doing cool video conferencing quick and easy, and I'm not really good with computers but I really want to try video conferencing, then I'll start thinking about dumping my PC and get a Mac. <hr></blockquote>
I don't see this happening. Video conferencing has been on the PC for years now and MS has implemented it into the OS. Nothing to be amazed her.
Apple may actually have to make it Messenger compatible <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I think we both agree that it would be in Apple's best interest to make a vidcon app that is cross platform. I just don't think they will.
With iPod, iTunes, iMovie, etc., Apple really doesn't have to worry about cross platform capability (see Applenut's posts), but with video conferencing, cross platform capability must be the centerpiece. It also opens up huge markets for the "iCam", since it would be marketed at the entire industry, rather than the Apple segment of the market.
I think the best solution would be for a slick-easy to use QT player to the task, using a variety of Apple and 3rd party plug-ins to ensure cross platform compatibility.
My feeling is that this will truly take-off when we get an efficient, stable, flexible, and most importantly, universally standard codec. MPEG-4 may be what we've all been waiting for.
I think that Apple eventually will add VideoConferencing to its run of iApps, and I have no doubts that it will be the slickest, easiest to use VC app out there. But they would be much better off to make it compatible existing standards and let it talk to other clients like NetMeeting or Windows Messenger (which is basically MSN Messenger and NetMeeting all rolled into one easier to use app) so that we can talk to our PC friends.
On another note, I wish MS would implement the File Transfer feature in Messenger for Mac, then it would feel like a complete app.
Sorry for the tangent.
--PB
<strong>...so that we can talk to our PC friends.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Don´t we already know what Apple is doing? Didn´t they show of some kind of video conference app a couple of month ago at the QT conference? And didn´t it use MPEG-4?
I say standarts all the way. If Apple piggybag on some MS "standart" we´ll be at the mercy of them. It may hurt at first to be one of the only ones using a official standart but I believe that it will survive the longest.
Since 9/11, most companies are looking for better ways to communicate 'face-to-face' than via travel. My company just invested $185,000 in video conference equipment, and some are saying we'll need to pay $15k a day to broadcast to 6 locations.
I'm in a training department for a company with 400 branches. My department spends about $200k a year on travel. If Apple could provide a simple, low-cost solution, we could probably convince the IT Gods that it would be worth the commitment to try the Apple platform. (of course, we'd need to agree to support it ourselves - and we would).
rr.
[edit: of course this is all presuming there will be an iConference
[ 05-14-2002: Message edited by: ricRocket ]</p>
Matthew