Jobs dismisses then hints at portable video players.

homhom
Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
The NY Times posted an article/interview with Mr. Jobs himself. Obviously, the question of a portable video player come up. Jobs had this to say,

Quote:

First, he said, on a video player, "there?s just no equivalent of headphones." That is, when you put on headphones and press Play on a music player, the results are spectacular-you get a very close equivalent to the concert-hall experience.



But watching video on a tiny three-inch hand-held screen is almost nothing like the experience of watching a movie in a theater or even on TV. It can?t approach the same realism or emotional impact.



He is right on the money with this. There is no video equivalent to head phones. This isn't even something I had considered before. He also goes on to talk about why digital music sales works, but digital movie sales won't. When it comes to watching a movie, the consumer has multiple ways to watch it. Movie theater, dvd, video, PPV, HBO, broadcast tv, ect. Whereas with music there was only one way to buy it, the record shop.



However, the most interesting item was when he hinted that Apple had a video player running around in the bowels of Cupertino. Some FrankenPod that would also play movies. I think this pretty much shows how Apple uses their R&D. Prototype all these technologies. If Apple can't make it work well, then nobody else will have a shot. There's likely a tablet, PDO, PVR, ect all sitting collecting dust
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    Is there also a hint that Apple IS working on a functional equivalent of headphones for video? One of his main points is that screen size limits the visual experience. Now if you want to simulate the experience of watching a movie or large-screen TV, I think the only way you could do it on a small device is to use something like glasses which fill the field of view with video.



    From memory, plenty of things like this have come onto the market, in various guises (TV glasses, VR headsets, etc.) Also from memory, these things have suffered from side effects, like sore eyes and headaches, etc. But perhaps Apple is having a go at doing it right.
  • Reply 2 of 21
    Holy Stereo Threads Batman



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...876#post524876

    Quote:

    posted 01-08-2004 04:46 PM



  • Reply 3 of 21
    aphelionaphelion Posts: 736member




    Sony Glastron
  • Reply 4 of 21
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion





    Sony Glastron




    Sir, this is a FAMILY SITE... please remove your adult "toys" from the threads. Thank you



    I think it would be good if it could just be a holder of video, and then use the headphone port also as an A/V out port as well... THAT is possible!
  • Reply 5 of 21
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    When that man is right, he's right. I don't think Apple is focusing much on portable video players as they are focused on getting Quicktime to be used at the video content delivery system for digital systems. I don't see portable video "iPod" devices going anywhere, despite what Bill Gates says.
  • Reply 6 of 21
    homhom Posts: 1,098member
    Where I can see video becoming popular is on mobile phones, but only in certain circumstances. I would love to be able to watch a 30 second video with the weather forecast or news headlines. Nothing fancy, no movies, no tv shows, but simple content tailored to a mobile platform. Apple is going in this direction with QuickTime's great 3GPP support. This would be much more convenient than WAP.
  • Reply 7 of 21
    I think it would also be cool to check out movie times on my phone and then having the option of watching previews...kind of like Sherlock/Watson.
  • Reply 8 of 21
    We have that on our new 3G network here in OZ. I can watch the latest news and sport, watch movie trailers, video chat, take photos and videos and heads more. Of course the phones are only Windows compatable...
  • Reply 9 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aphelion





    Sony Glastron




    That looks like a real hassle to use.



    I had a little think, and here are some ideas for a future product.



    Firstly, I think it needs to completely cover the eyes, like snow goggles, (see here for an example, although ours would perhaps be smaller. The total covering (ie. no natural light) would allow an immersive experience.



    Secondly, it needs to have a camera mounted on the front, so that the user can swith between digital content and whatever it is that is in front of them. A light could go on to indicate to others that the user is in camera mode. Given the advances in mobile phone cameras, I don't think size will be an issue soon.



    Thirdly, the device which holds the data needs to be an iPod, preferably iPod mini sized device, assuming we don't want it to weigh down the goggles themselves. Capacity and bandwidth are obviously current issues. An iPod wheel would be good here because you could navigate options while looking at them in the goggles.



    Fourthly, the display itself must be a curved surface which ends very close to the skin where the goggles contact. Again, this is about the immersive experience. This could be achieved in future with all these new-fangled OLED displatys on flexible plastic, etc. I don't know the technical issues surronding this technology. One thing that would be hard is making the display look correct while also displaying on a curved surface. That sounds compute intensive to me.



    I think what will be difficult is the resolution. I wouldn't even bother with this kind of device unless the resolution was really high, so that watching a movie, TV show, website, was sufficiently similar to actually seeing it with your own eyes. This is obviously some ways out into the future of disply technology.



    Thanks for coming out.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NJANJA2

    That looks like a real hassle to use.



    I had a little think, and here are some ideas for a future product.



    Firstly, I think it needs to completely cover the eyes, like snow goggles, (see here for an example, although ours would perhaps be smaller. The total covering (ie. no natural light) would allow an immersive experience.



    Secondly, it needs to have a camera mounted on the front, so that the user can swith between digital content and whatever it is that is in front of them. A light could go on to indicate to others that the user is in camera mode. Given the advances in mobile phone cameras, I don't think size will be an issue soon.



    Thirdly, the device which holds the data needs to be an iPod, preferably iPod mini sized device, assuming we don't want it to weigh down the goggles themselves. Capacity and bandwidth are obviously current issues. An iPod wheel would be good here because you could navigate options while looking at them in the goggles.



    Fourthly, the display itself must be a curved surface which ends very close to the skin where the goggles contact. Again, this is about the immersive experience. This could be achieved in future with all these new-fangled OLED displatys on flexible plastic, etc. I don't know the technical issues surronding this technology. One thing that would be hard is making the display look correct while also displaying on a curved surface. That sounds compute intensive to me.



    I think what will be difficult is the resolution. I wouldn't even bother with this kind of device unless the resolution was really high, so that watching a movie, TV show, website, was sufficiently similar to actually seeing it with your own eyes. This is obviously some ways out into the future of disply technology.



    Thanks for coming out.




    OK, but I think your line of thinking actually speaks to the downside of the whole "video pod" notion.



    First of all, where are you going to strap on this rig? On the bus? No way am I going to leave myself deaf and blind in public. On a plane? Seems like by the time you drag all that hardware with you you might as well bring a laptop. No point if you have access to a real display, so home is out (though I guess there might be some use for a "personal display" when you don't want to disturb others). Maybe on vacation, but seems kinda creepy.



    The thing is, any kind of portable video player that tries to make up for a tiny screen by some sort of "immersive" display completely isolates the user from his surroundings (and I don't think being able to toggle to an external camera really addresses this, at least psychologically). The reason music players work in the world is you can choose how much to concentrate on the music while still being able to pay attention to your enviroment. That's a big part of what makes them "portable", in the sense that the experience is portable, not just the data: you can use them as you go about your business. There is just no way for video to duplicate "portability" in this sense, so I can't see how there can ever be a video device truly analogous to the ipod, regardless of the display tech.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    OK, but I think your line of thinking actually speaks to the downside of the whole "video pod" notion.



    First of all, where are you going to strap on this rig? On the bus? No way am I going to leave myself deaf and blind in public. On a plane? Seems like by the time you drag all that hardware with you you might as well bring a laptop. No point if you have access to a real display, so home is out (though I guess there might be some use for a "personal display" when you don't want to disturb others). Maybe on vacation, but seems kinda creepy.



    The thing is, any kind of portable video player that tries to make up for a tiny screen by some sort of "immersive" display completely isolates the user from his surroundings (and I don't think being able to toggle to an external camera really addresses this, at least psychologically). The reason music players work in the world is you can choose how much to concentrate on the music while still being able to pay attention to your enviroment. That's a big part of what makes them "portable", in the sense that the experience is portable, not just the data: you can use them as you go about your business. There is just no way for video to duplicate "portability" in this sense, so I can't see how there can ever be a video device truly analogous to the ipod, regardless of the display tech.




    Yeah, mostly agreed. Except for not doing it on the bus/train/public. Where I come from, it's not an issue. I hdan't thought of it being dangerous. Fair enough point though. Maybe that would be solved with the camera always being on, but the content is displayed on a simulated screen, seemingly floating in mid-air. At that stage of course, you may as well go for the glasses with projected images on them. So...... don't know.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    I think the only sensible option for portable video with and iPod sized device is to have it connect to an external display, at which point it ceases to become portable, at which point it looses its raison d'etre.



    Steve was being ironical - which I understand that North Americans have problems in understanding at times. He was taking the piss of all the rumour mongers like those here that refuse to accept that Apple is not working on such a device - despite his own numerous comments to the contrary.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    keshkesh Posts: 621member
    MIT has a good working system right now. It's really just a pair of normal glasses with a transparent LCD in one lens. Data displays on the LCD and by refocusing your eye, you can either look at the computer screen (which looks like it's floating in front of you) or see the world around you.



    Of course, theirs also had a big camera attached that talked to the computer on your belt, which wirelessly talked to the campus supercomputer, which performed facial recognition, which matched your face to personal info, which then uploaded all the personal info to your portable computer, which displayed on the screen so you could know things about total strangers that are talking to you.
  • Reply 14 of 21
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Aw, Steve's just messin' with ya. He's playing the FUD game while Ive's elves beaver away. A 'photo' pod is an inevitability. The thing is that the tech just isn't here yet. Epson have just announced one with a 200dpi screen but it is still just too small (3.5in I think). Let the Epsons and Sonys create the public awareness of the utility of these things and then blow em all away in say, Jan 2005? A year or so later and the inescapable conclusion of the whole iTunes thing (did you see the HP deal? Wow.) is downloadable films. That means DRM and limited number of devices on which to store. I.e. A couple of Macs, an Apple Media box for the lounge perhaps and a number of 'video' pods. Steve's going the whole way with the media thing. He owns Pixar after all, who will be a major film industry power after they have extricated themselves from the Disney deal. Steve may even be running Disney by then.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I'll say it again. What is the f***ing point of putting a tiny screen in your pocket. Just because it can be done does not mean that everybody will suddenly want one. That would be the biggest flop product in history.

    Look at the sony glastron. That thing has been around for years. How many of you have one? I thought about it when it was introduced, but realized I didn't need it. Who actually needs a video iPod? Any of you?
  • Reply 16 of 21
    Quote:

    [b]Originally posted by onlooker :[/i]

    ... Look at the sony glastron. That thing has been around for years...



    Sony has discontinued the Glastron. I tried one out too, awsome display. The problem wasn't eye strain ~ it was vertigo, when wearing the goggles if you moved about or turned your head rapidly your sense of balance could be disrupted by the lack of visual cues to movement in your field of vision.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    onlookeronlooker Posts: 5,252member
    I didn't know it was discontinued, but I was aware that you couldn't wear it for the length of a movie because of problems it caused with your vision.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    is anyone thinking....built-in projectors?
  • Reply 19 of 21
    nr9nr9 Posts: 182member
    how about implant a plug into your head so it directly transmits the movie to your brain. when the plug is connected to your head, you lose your entire field of vision and it ecomes the movie.
  • Reply 20 of 21
    Just get a ****in iBook or 12'' Powerbook...there's your portable life.
Sign In or Register to comment.