So...ummm...does this mean we'll never get DVR on computers ever?
I mean, just 8 years ago, encoding MP3s made everything else on my computer so slow I could barely do anything while it was happening. Heck!!! PLAYING an MP3 was a something that would bog down the whole system.
Really...I don't understand your lack of vision.
And I don't understand your lack of comprehension.
Where did I ever say that we'd never get DVRs on computers? Please point me to it, because I sure as hell don't recall saying that. Don't make crap up out of thin air.
Well *duh* we'll get it when the hardware is capable. Don't be dense. The fact is, that right now, it isn't for the majority of Mac users. And Apple simply doesn't add things to the OS, at the consumer level, that the vast majority of their new machines can't handle. See iChat above.
Quote:
DVR doesn't need to be something that's available to G3 or even G4 users. It could be something only installable on Dual G5 computers. I'm sure they can handle it with CPU cycles to spare for other apps...today! But saying it doesn't belong on computers and only dedicated devices should handle this kind of stuff is rather ridiculous.
Again, I didn't say that.
What I said was that *RIGHT NOW*, the hardware isn't up to the task, *EVEN WITH REAL TIME THREADS*. RT threads don't make the problem go away. That was the only point I was making, you've managed to make up this other crap though. Good derail.
Can you imagine the *BITCHING* that would happen if Apple produced a DVR product in Tiger, and then said "Oops, sorry, only Dual G5 owners can use it!" Oh. My. God. The screaming would be insane.
We'll see it when the full line, including the iMac, can handle the load. Until then, it's not going to happen.
So you agree that DVR can potentially be added to top end computers? And that buying a dedicated DVR is a waste of money if the computer *could* run DVR and FCP simultaneously and acceptably?
That wasn't so bad was it? TV and TV recording has a place with computers. I'm glad you agree.
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.
And the PowerMacs today (which are the likely computers that *would* be running FCP) could handle FCP and DVR.
If two 2.5GHz CPUs can't handle encoding and FCP at the same time...I'd be surprised.
Of course, if we're talking super high image quality encoding, there would be some problems.
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.
And the PowerMacs today (which are the likely computers that *would* be running FCP) could handle FCP and DVR.
If two 2.5GHz CPUs can't handle encoding and FCP at the same time...I'd be surprised.
Of course, if we're talking super high image quality encoding, there would be some problems.
Thank you. Sheesh. And those problems of quality are precisely the types of things that Apple^h^h^h^h^hJobs finds unacceptable. When the hardware is sufficient such that the user doesn't have to think about "Oh, is it okay if I run this now, or should I check to see if there's an iDVR run scheduled?", only then is there a possibility of it becoming an iApp.
Thank you. Sheesh. And those problems of quality are precisely the types of things that Apple^h^h^h^h^hJobs finds unacceptable. When the hardware is sufficient such that the user doesn't have to think about "Oh, is it okay if I run this now, or should I check to see if there's an iDVR run scheduled?", only then is there a possibility of it becoming an iApp.
Ok, ok...
But DVR aside...TV is feasible on current hardware yet it's being downplayed because it's a passive experience. That I don't get.
I sometimes listen to music passively. Just launch iTunes to listen to music. Why couldn't I do the same for TV?
I got my computer in my bedroom...I watch DVDs from my bed at night. Why should I not be allowed to watch TV from bed?
Like I said...when computers are cheap enough, they could potentially populate many rooms of the house and act as a TV or sound system, or photo frame when it's not being used. So why should Apple get a head start and bring TV to computers.
I wish I still had my 7100/66 AV...them were the days. My family had the computer in the kitchen and we could all watch TV from there.
I even remember recording clips of Yoda on that computer because I thought he was hilarious when Luke first meets him. This stuff was possible 10 years ago on certain Apple computers, out-of-the-box. 10 years later, no traces of this.
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.
Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).
The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).
I see the the following issues:
a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.
b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.
In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.
What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.
User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.
You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).
The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?
The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.
"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."
TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.
What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.
But DVR aside...TV is feasible on current hardware yet it's being downplayed because it's a passive experience. That I don't get.
Others may be using that argument (say, Jobs). I'm not.
Quote:
I sometimes listen to music passively. Just launch iTunes to listen to music. Why couldn't I do the same for TV?
I got my computer in my bedroom...I watch DVDs from my bed at night. Why should I not be allowed to watch TV from bed?
Because we all know you'd cue up the Playboy channel, and no one wants to be responsible for *that*...
Quote:
Like I said...when computers are cheap enough, they could potentially populate many rooms of the house and act as a TV or sound system, or photo frame when it's not being used. So why should Apple get a head start and bring TV to computers.
I wish I still had my 7100/66 AV...them were the days. My family had the computer in the kitchen and we could all watch TV from there.
I even remember recording clips of Yoda on that computer because I thought he was hilarious when Luke first meets him. This stuff was possible 10 years ago on certain Apple computers, out-of-the-box. 10 years later, no traces of this.
Well for one thing, I bet those clips were low quality postage stamp sized frames, weren't they? The expected quality level has risen considerably in the last decade, to meet the possibilities of the hardware.
As for adding such a feature, you can now, with something like ElGato's products.
Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).
The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).
I see the the following issues:
a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.
b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.
In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.
What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.
User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.
You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).
The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?
The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.
"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."
TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.
What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.
No. no. no and NO!
I don't agree with anything you've said...Not one.
Ergonomics have nothing to do with anything. What you said about ergonomics is just a bunch of nonsense.
Computers don't need to be personal devices...they can be as social as TVs...and TVs can be as personal as computers. People can play games together on the same computer just like someone can decide to watch a show that someone else doesn't want to watch.
In the future there will always be software that pushes the limits of hardware...the problems you and Kickaha talk about have never been new and will continue to exist in the year 2153. So whether DVR comes now or in 10 years...there will always be a program that *could* use up all of the CPU and not share enough CPU with the DVR app or even MP3 encoding app. Of course the OS won't allow that but there will always be apps that don't run at full speed...that's the nature of things.
Of course, my year 2153 example is a joke...I'm sure by that time the whole computer experience will be different...and I'm sure between now and 2153 there will be computers with multiple cores, etc. that will allow multiple CPU-hungry apps to run well simultaneously.
Sure...the dedicated device will probably always offer the best performance...or else there wouldn't be a market for it. But saying computers aren't up the the task or that it wouldn't work well with the computer concept is bullcrap, IMO.
User interfaces have nothing to do with anything...computers OSs will eventually move to resolution independent GUIs and monitors will become larger...and you'll be able to see and read things on the screen clearly from across the room.
You won't necessarily need a keyboard. OS X has speech recognition now...and Kickaha has been part of a project that allows some very user-to-computer interaction using you fingers.
Sailings also offers a way to turn your cell phone into remote to control things like iTunes, DVD Player and *gasp* a TV viewing app.
You don't always need to use a keyboard and mouse to get a rich computer experience. The computer has all the input devices you want. That's the point of the computer...it's a general purpose tool.
The convergence of TV and computers is not a false dream. It will happen. It's just a matter of who's going to start the convergence.
There's no reason to believe the computer won't handle all the TV needs, all the phone needs, all the home security needs, all the gaming needs, etc. in the future.
The only thing that stops the convergence is the capitalist society that is ready to pay money for separate devices.
If I had my way, everyone I know would be using iChat and instead of phoning people, I'd have AV chats with them. But, unfortunately, I have to pay tons of money to a monopolistic company called Bell Canada, a company that undoubtedly hates the idea of iChat and VoIP.
How can Apple parlay an acquisition of Tivo into something profitable when Tivo is having problems profiting? By taking Tivo and building upon it. If Tivo wasn?t totally useless without the monthly or lifetime fees it wouldn?t have to sell at a loss to. This is the first thing Apple would fix. After the acquisition Apple would keep things similar for a year or so while they revamped the Tivo system. The UI would remain relatively the same but instead of using Linux to run the Tivo Apple would replace it with a new Quicktime capable of running Set Top Box (STB). This opens up a whole new world for Tivo. Now ?any? file that plays in Quicktime now plays on the Tivo. Just that easy the Tivo now supports iLife. Songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store now play along with your Garageband tunes. iPhoto files are supported and of course even your own iMovie creations. PC files would work of course because of Quicktime. So now we have rid the Tivo of its most glaring weakness, obsolescence. But how would Apple handle the subscriptions? . Mac
. Mac is Apple?s answer to dealing with the guide data. Currently Apple charges Mac customers $99 a year to subscribe. This gets them a mac.com email address, web space and other sync features. Apple would create .Mac for Tivo. This would give them the guide data and even some website space and if they are Mac users they would get the Mac specific features available to that platform. This would be $120 year or the Lifetime amount of $250 would still apply with no web space.
In order for this to work, Apple would have to relese ilife for windows, and maybe even a limited .mac pkg (.mac minus virex(mac only thing, win/stb has no need,) address book(with remote, why bother), and backup(lest the MPAA changes its ways...)), otherwise, 90% of the users could not use 90% of the features.
So...ummm...does this mean we'll never get DVR on computers ever?
Don't be silly.
It's transparently clear from my argument that we won't see DVR on computers while DVR is resource intensive relative to the capabilities of a personal computer. As soon as it isn't, well, then we can look at it again.
Of course, that assumes that video won't get richer and more computationally intensive to take advantage of ever-faster hardware. MP3 is old and fairly primitive. What happens when we have the audio equivalent of H.264 with 7.1 surround? Or (and this is something I'd love) music released as multitrack, complete with MIDI sequencing, so that you could do things with it that made 16-band EQ look like a silly hack.
Quote:
DVR doesn't need to be something that's available to G3 or even G4 users. It could be something only installable on Dual G5 computers.
Because that state of affairs is completely acceptable to gamers right now, isn't it? Besides, the G5 is a pro machine. Those are the last people who are going to be using their workstations as DVRs. Since you're so hung up on "vision," we're talking about getting a cheap consumer technology to consumers, right? So until it's feasible on consumer hardware, there's no point doing it, right? It's not going to kill anyone to use the DVR that their cable company is more than happy to supply them in the meantime. Hell, you've recommended that yourself.
I don't agree with anything you've said...Not one.
Ergonomics have nothing to do with anything. What you said about ergonomics is just a bunch of nonsense.
Computers don't need to be personal devices...they can be as social as TVs...and TVs can be as personal as computers. People can play games together on the same computer just like someone can decide to watch a show that someone else doesn't want to watch.
There are always exceptions. Im not trying to make some rule. Just pointing out why _most_ people dont find the experience satisfying.
Quote:
In the future there will always be software that pushes the
limits of hardware...the problems you and Kickaha talk about
It is important that the OS make sure that everyone one who is using a computer ( recording tv, using software ) get a fair experience. Currently it is very easy to run software which needs 100% cpu. That makes it hard to share the system without impacting on the user experience ( bad software interactivity, show not getting recorded ).
Quote:
Sure...the dedicated device will probably always offer the best performance...or else there wouldn't be a market for it. But saying computers aren't up the the task or that it wouldn't work well with the computer concept is bullcrap, IMO.
Its not that computers cant do it some of the time, its that they cant do it well _all_ of the time. I wouldnt buy a VCR that didnt record shows when I pressed record. Thats the experience you face using a computer.
Quote:
User interfaces have nothing to do with anything...computers OSs will eventually move to resolution independent GUIs and monitors will become larger...and you'll be able to see and read things on the screen clearly from across the room.
Computers are quite capable of being programmed to display easy to see interfaces now. But try using word on it. The point is that on a lo res interface you dont want to use hi res software. This is the point of the whole concept of convergence. Your TV _is_ your computer.
Quote:
You won't necessarily need a keyboard. OS X has speech recognition now...and Kickaha has been part of a project that allows some very user-to-computer interaction using you fingers.
But that isnt effective now, and wont be effective next year. Not to mention the interface issues that voice recognition raise ( multiple users, audio from the TV ). Im not saying that the interface issues arent insoluble, just that when you are using your TV you dont want to use the same input system that computers use. Just look at how many other input systems there are for computers right now. At a mass market level there are keyboards, mice and joysticks. Other systems arent used because they arent effective ( in general ). The work kickaha has done is still a low information volume system. It lets you point and click. I can do that with a remote control, just not as elegantly.
Quote:
Sailings also offers a way to turn your cell phone into remote to control things like iTunes, DVD Player and *gasp* a TV viewing app.
Its just a remote control. The mechanism isnt important. It is a pretty smart remote. But try using word with it.
Quote:
You don't always need to use a keyboard and mouse to get a rich computer experience. The computer has all the input devices you want. That's the point of the computer...it's a general purpose tool.
Thats true. But those other devices dont offer rich user _input_ You may have noticed how much PC gamers hate using console controls for FPSs. Because a console controller is relatively sparse compared to a keyboard and mouse. The software has to be designed with that sparsity in mind. Im not saying it cant be done. It is done. Consoles work very well. But try using word with a gamepad.
Quote:
The convergence of TV and computers is not a false dream. It will happen. It's just a matter of who's going to start the convergence.
Why dont you tell that to all the computer companies that have tried. Sony. Gateway. Apple.
Quote:
There's no reason to believe the computer won't handle all the TV needs, all the phone needs, all the home security needs, all the gaming needs, etc. in the future.
Sure, but at a human level how are you going to access that information? I still want to use something that looks like a phone to make phone calls. If it is using VOIP or iChat that doesnt matter to me. But I dont want my computer to be the interface to that system. I want to have a phone handset.
What you want is one uber device. The problem with the uber box is that it just isnt going to be up to it. To make it practical you have to start putting little slave devices at the end of the communication channels. Consider this:
What if you have more than one tv to replace?
How many tv out ports are you going to put on the thing? How many channels is it going to be able to record at once? How is more than one user going to tell it what to watch on which tv?
What will you do? Buy an expansion card for each display you want to hook up? What happens when you want to run 100ft of DVI cable, and its out of spec? Now you've got to buy a video amplifier, not to mention the cable. Sounds expensive to me.
Of course, you could build smart displays instead, which can decompress the video themselves, and have their own input mechanism for telling the uber box what to do. Hey, that sounds like the device proliferation you were just wailing against. It could even have the tuner and recording hardware, just streaming the compressed video to the uber box for storage.
This is exactly what I think will happen. But the smart display wont be a desktop computer. It will be a smart display. The first steps towards this are happening, with tivos being able to communicate between themselves.
The future of entertainment is in communication, not convergence. Im sure that some parallel could be drawn with kitchen utensils. Why dont we have a converged knife/fork/spoon. Because the roles of those devices are different, the roles of the devices never converged, even tho we have the technology to do it. And, if you go to a camping store you will be able to find a converged fork/knife/spoon because the needs of a campers weight and space limits are more important than eating convenience. The same applies to TV. You use it differently.
Media Center PCs are an opportunity to watch this in action. They have everything you want. Give one a go someday.
It's transparently clear from my argument that we won't see DVR on computers while DVR is resource intensive relative to the capabilities of a personal computer. As soon as it isn't, well, then we can look at it again.
Of course, that assumes that video won't get richer and more computationally intensive to take advantage of ever-faster hardware. MP3 is old and fairly primitive. What happens when we have the audio equivalent of H.264 with 7.1 surround? Or (and this is something I'd love) music released as multitrack, complete with MIDI sequencing, so that you could do things with it that made 16-band EQ look like a silly hack.
I do think PVR is fairly resource intensive, still. However iTunes style film and video distribution via H.264 could be great.
HDTV offers enough resolution to move the home computer under the TV, in a couple of years we'll be using 1080P DLP and LCoS sets and they will look great! Prices are dropping rapidly. Something of a home-computer/console renaissance awaits, though it is still far off.
I like your other point. Using AAC, what could be done right now is to use the available centre channel (in phantom to stereo listeners) to carry vocals such that they can be turned on/off with a simple toggle in iTunes. Instant Kareoke! Japan would love it, and I must confess a fondness for the idea myself.
I can think of a lot of songs that I already own, that I would pay to own again in a switchable vocals kareoke format. Could be good for record companies, could be good for Apple.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever..
You are overreacting and taking the reductionistic stance that a single potential contrived conflict ruins the entire concept. And continued on in your following posts as well.
If you think blind recording would take 60% of a CPU that would not already choke on FCP you are creating such a constrained set of circumstances that nothing would work, and is basically out of touch with reality. Unless there is a desire to re-encode on reception-which would be pretty silly, the stream doesn't even need to hit the CPU, just go straight to disk. With DMA you can circumvent the CPU's involvement almost entirely. Playback could work similarly if the decoding is done on the GPU.
You're making some rather sweeping assumptions there about the video stream, aren't you?
So suddenly the DVR is only for those with an incoming MPEG-2 satellite connection? No cable? No recording off a VCR output? Wow, that's pretty... useless.
You're damned right there would need to be encoding of the stream coming in. To do any less would be idiotic.
Quote:
Your stance that real-time threads are everywhere is pretty baseless.
I'm sorry, please point to where I said the threads are 'everywhere'. I merely stated, in my response to you, that making broad claims that real-time threads categorically and utterly 'eliminated' the problem was naive, ignorant, and outright wrong.
Clear enough?
Quote:
RT threads are used mainly in a/v playback or mission critical controllers. We don't seem to have any conflict here so far-how many mission critical systems would be allowed to also be DVRs, not any on the up and up. FCP advertises it can operate at real-time speeds without hardware, not that it is programmed with real-time threads. Actually FCP processing couldn't use realtime threads except in very narrow circumstances as during pre-rendering there is no programmatic guarantee of processing requirements, which is one of the opening arguments programming a real time thread (implicitly) needs. QT playback probably does have RT threads, but there we are back into the human issue i address below, not into a horrible screeching clash of the threads.
Bumping an engineering problem to the UI level is the MS way, not the Apple way. Could you? Sure. Will Apple? Hell no. What was the assertion I made again? That Apple wouldn't produce a DVR iApp for the masses until the user experience could be made to be as flawless as possible. Precedent? iChatAV, for starters.
iDVR would be aimed at... ta-da. Consumers. Consumers buy... ta-da. Consumer boxes. Apple consumer boxes are... ta-da. iMacs.
Can the iMac, even the G5, handle the above iDVR (WITH encoding of a video stream), and normal operation of user needs of someone logged in? Reliably? Without kludges that dump the engineering problem off on the consumer?
If not, then we won't see iDVR. Period.
When the consumer box can handle this, then it may show up. Until then, no.
Quote:
Who ever said anything about increasing capabilities. I thought someone with a doctorate could read better.
Ah, the sidestepping personal attack. Excellent timing.
Let's try this with small words for you: If the requests of any threads, even real-time ones, exceeds the capabilities of the CPU, you're screwed. Period. Waving your hands and saying that real-time threads 'eliminate' this problem is idiotic. They do not make the problem go away. They can not make the CPU suddenly have greater capabilities than it shipped with. They are not magic fairy dust. They do not 'eliminate' the problem, as you blindly asserted.
Got it?
Quote:
2 part answer. A Recording menu-ling and a dialog box that comes up when the OS thinks there is the potential for too much CPU cycle competition. The user is given the appropriate choice like quit recording, accept reduced performance, or go find your Brother as he is the Administrator and has used higher priority privileges. My wording is clunky, but the idea gets across.
Sure. For Windows XP. Seriously, the day something like this ships in an Apple product is the day that they really are truly over that shark.
Kickaha and Amorph couldn't moderate themselves out of a paper bag. Abdicate responsibility and succumb to idiocy. Two years of letting a member make personal attacks against others, then stepping aside when someone won't put up with it. Not only that but go ahead and shut down my posting priviledges but not the one making the attacks. Not even the common decency to abide by their warning (afer three days of absorbing personal attacks with no mods in sight), just shut my posting down and then say it might happen later if a certian line is crossed. Bullshit flag is flying, I won't abide by lying and coddling of liars who go off-site, create accounts differing in a single letter from my handle with the express purpose to decieve and then claim here that I did it. Everyone be warned, kim kap sol is a lying, deceitful poster.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
I don't even have a TV. So that 100 instantly becomes at least 1100 if I want a decent DVR experience.
This thread is pathetic. I don't even feel like participating in it anymore.
You sound exactly like one of the limited markets that I have already identified. There are people who will find the compromises of convergence acceptable, because they are secondary considerations next to others, like finance, or available space, or ideology.
Ive been there. Ive used my computer as a TV. At the time it was good. But when the situation changed and those special considerations no longer applied, I bought a TV.
Apple arent going to produce a product for that market, it isnt big enough. The product isnt going to be successful in a wider market ( which we are discussing ), so they arent going to create a product at all. Smaller companies who can make a profit from small markets can and do make convergence devices. Get an El Gato, or, I believe that tivo can be hacked so you can watch content over a network. If you have a PCI slot get anyone of a multitude of tv capture cards. You can get cable boxes with firewire out, and watch that. But the mere existence of these products doesnt indicate that there is a big market. And what is there isnt a driving force in the industry ( as opposed to high end gamers ).
Heres my final comment. The products that are going to be successful will be PC hardware, in a stylish box. They will be running custom software ( Windows Media Center, Linux with custom software, BeOS ) and their users wont know or care that what they have is a computer. It will just be a DVR. There will be good ones and bad ones ( just like mobile phones ), and the good ones will enhance and expand the sphere of TV entertainment. The bad ones will just be DVRs. In the future we may the uber box, but it is hard to get people to upgrade in big jump when you can get the same effect with individual devices. Even then, interfaces to the uber box are likely to be very task specific.
Comments
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So...ummm...does this mean we'll never get DVR on computers ever?
I mean, just 8 years ago, encoding MP3s made everything else on my computer so slow I could barely do anything while it was happening. Heck!!! PLAYING an MP3 was a something that would bog down the whole system.
Really...I don't understand your lack of vision.
And I don't understand your lack of comprehension.
Where did I ever say that we'd never get DVRs on computers? Please point me to it, because I sure as hell don't recall saying that. Don't make crap up out of thin air.
Well *duh* we'll get it when the hardware is capable. Don't be dense. The fact is, that right now, it isn't for the majority of Mac users. And Apple simply doesn't add things to the OS, at the consumer level, that the vast majority of their new machines can't handle. See iChat above.
DVR doesn't need to be something that's available to G3 or even G4 users. It could be something only installable on Dual G5 computers. I'm sure they can handle it with CPU cycles to spare for other apps...today! But saying it doesn't belong on computers and only dedicated devices should handle this kind of stuff is rather ridiculous.
Again, I didn't say that.
What I said was that *RIGHT NOW*, the hardware isn't up to the task, *EVEN WITH REAL TIME THREADS*. RT threads don't make the problem go away. That was the only point I was making, you've managed to make up this other crap though. Good derail.
Can you imagine the *BITCHING* that would happen if Apple produced a DVR product in Tiger, and then said "Oops, sorry, only Dual G5 owners can use it!" Oh. My. God. The screaming would be insane.
We'll see it when the full line, including the iMac, can handle the load. Until then, it's not going to happen.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So you agree that DVR can potentially be added to top end computers?
That wasn't so bad was it? TV and TV recording has a place with computers. I'm glad you agree.
Oh please.
And the PowerMacs today (which are the likely computers that *would* be running FCP) could handle FCP and DVR.
If two 2.5GHz CPUs can't handle encoding and FCP at the same time...I'd be surprised.
Of course, if we're talking super high image quality encoding, there would be some problems.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.
And the PowerMacs today (which are the likely computers that *would* be running FCP) could handle FCP and DVR.
If two 2.5GHz CPUs can't handle encoding and FCP at the same time...I'd be surprised.
Of course, if we're talking super high image quality encoding, there would be some problems.
Thank you. Sheesh. And those problems of quality are precisely the types of things that Apple^h^h^h^h^hJobs finds unacceptable. When the hardware is sufficient such that the user doesn't have to think about "Oh, is it okay if I run this now, or should I check to see if there's an iDVR run scheduled?", only then is there a possibility of it becoming an iApp.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Thank you. Sheesh. And those problems of quality are precisely the types of things that Apple^h^h^h^h^hJobs finds unacceptable. When the hardware is sufficient such that the user doesn't have to think about "Oh, is it okay if I run this now, or should I check to see if there's an iDVR run scheduled?", only then is there a possibility of it becoming an iApp.
Ok, ok...
But DVR aside...TV is feasible on current hardware yet it's being downplayed because it's a passive experience. That I don't get.
I sometimes listen to music passively. Just launch iTunes to listen to music. Why couldn't I do the same for TV?
I got my computer in my bedroom...I watch DVDs from my bed at night. Why should I not be allowed to watch TV from bed?
Like I said...when computers are cheap enough, they could potentially populate many rooms of the house and act as a TV or sound system, or photo frame when it's not being used. So why should Apple get a head start and bring TV to computers.
I wish I still had my 7100/66 AV...them were the days. My family had the computer in the kitchen and we could all watch TV from there.
I even remember recording clips of Yoda on that computer because I thought he was hilarious when Luke first meets him. This stuff was possible 10 years ago on certain Apple computers, out-of-the-box. 10 years later, no traces of this.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The iMacs released around the time Tiger is released will most likely be able to handle the load. I don't see why this stuff couldn't be done in the very, very, very near future.
Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).
The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).
I see the the following issues:
a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.
b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.
In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.
What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.
User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.
You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).
The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?
The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.
"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."
TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.
What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok, ok...
But DVR aside...TV is feasible on current hardware yet it's being downplayed because it's a passive experience. That I don't get.
Others may be using that argument (say, Jobs). I'm not.
I sometimes listen to music passively. Just launch iTunes to listen to music. Why couldn't I do the same for TV?
I got my computer in my bedroom...I watch DVDs from my bed at night. Why should I not be allowed to watch TV from bed?
Because we all know you'd cue up the Playboy channel, and no one wants to be responsible for *that*...
Like I said...when computers are cheap enough, they could potentially populate many rooms of the house and act as a TV or sound system, or photo frame when it's not being used. So why should Apple get a head start and bring TV to computers.
I wish I still had my 7100/66 AV...them were the days. My family had the computer in the kitchen and we could all watch TV from there.
I even remember recording clips of Yoda on that computer because I thought he was hilarious when Luke first meets him. This stuff was possible 10 years ago on certain Apple computers, out-of-the-box. 10 years later, no traces of this.
Well for one thing, I bet those clips were low quality postage stamp sized frames, weren't they?
As for adding such a feature, you can now, with something like ElGato's products.
Originally posted by mmmpie
Step back and look at the big picture. The issues of hardware will reduce over time. While recording video may become less of a load ( but I dont think so ) there will always be user interactive software that wants as much cpu as it can get ( Doom 3, FCP, Motion ).
The real issues are human issues, not technological issues. Over time the technology will be refined so that all this is possible. But the experience of that technology will determine whether or not it is successful ( iPod ).
I see the the following issues:
a) ergonomics. There are exceptions, but the ergonomics of computers and tvs dont overlap. This means that they need to have different interfaces to each other.
b) social groups. Computers are personal devices ( how many are in your home ). TVs are often much more social devices. My wife and I share a tv, we dont share computers.
In the future we will get computers that are fast enough to record everyones tv shows, and play everyones games, and let someone do video editing, all at the same time. But that isnt coming this year, or next year. There are hard issues to solve with data distribution ( you dont all want to share one monitor doing that stuff ), and machine performance.
What can we do now?
We can have dedicated devices. People seem more than happy to have a tivo and a computer. Why do you feel the need to put them in one box? Doing so _now_ will reduce the quality of experience for both devices ( just see the huge market for them ). The real issue people have is inter operation between those devices. I might like to schedule tivo recording from my computer, or watch movies from my computer on my tivo. Operating like that is feasible, _now_.
User interfaces also need to be very different between the devices. Computers have hi res screens that you sit close to. Small text is clear and readable. TVs are lo res and you sit a long way away from them. Small text is blurry and illegible. The TV interface is ergonomically required to be big and easy to see.
You interact with a computer with a keyboard and mouse. A relatively rich experience. It is possible to input a lot of material quite quickly. Tell me you want to sit on your sofa with a keyboard an mouse. I dont. The ergonomics of TV watching force you to use a very spare input mechanism ( remote control ). Attempts to increase the input complexity on TVs pretty much spectacularly fail. Most people want simpler input systems ( fewer buttons ). It has to be easy to pick up and put down. They dont want to have to put it in their lap, or use two hands ( cant eat and control tv then ).
The two worlds are opposites. They both use common hardware, and with commoditisation that hardware is becoming very cheap. You can buy a tivo for $99. How much would it cost to have a Mac that can do the same job?
The idea of convergence, that the computer would take the place of the TV, is a false dream of technologists.
"Convergence refers to the situation in which several services are approaching each other in nature."
TV and computing will not comverge ( in the near future - 10yrs ). TV will take advantage of computing technology. It already does, plenty of people play video games on their TV. But that isnt convergence.
What role can Apple play in this?
The concept of a media hub is an obvious possibility. Taking the tivo and making it part of, and aware of, the home network.
Home networking will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Broadband will drive a change in how these devices operate.
Consoles will drive a change ( see the phantom - games download over broadband ).
There is certainly computer software that could run well on a tv, ichat is a great example. Video conferencing seems a much more natural match to TV than a computer ( in the social way I use it ). But I think that is because computers need a much richer conferencing experience than just chat alone ( collaboration ).
There will always be a small market for converged devices ( TV and computer in one box ). People who live alone are obvious examples. I dont see Apple chasing that market when they aren going after the much larger low end consumer market.
No. no. no and NO!
I don't agree with anything you've said...Not one.
Ergonomics have nothing to do with anything. What you said about ergonomics is just a bunch of nonsense.
Computers don't need to be personal devices...they can be as social as TVs...and TVs can be as personal as computers. People can play games together on the same computer just like someone can decide to watch a show that someone else doesn't want to watch.
In the future there will always be software that pushes the limits of hardware...the problems you and Kickaha talk about have never been new and will continue to exist in the year 2153. So whether DVR comes now or in 10 years...there will always be a program that *could* use up all of the CPU and not share enough CPU with the DVR app or even MP3 encoding app. Of course the OS won't allow that but there will always be apps that don't run at full speed...that's the nature of things.
Of course, my year 2153 example is a joke...I'm sure by that time the whole computer experience will be different...and I'm sure between now and 2153 there will be computers with multiple cores, etc. that will allow multiple CPU-hungry apps to run well simultaneously.
Sure...the dedicated device will probably always offer the best performance...or else there wouldn't be a market for it. But saying computers aren't up the the task or that it wouldn't work well with the computer concept is bullcrap, IMO.
User interfaces have nothing to do with anything...computers OSs will eventually move to resolution independent GUIs and monitors will become larger...and you'll be able to see and read things on the screen clearly from across the room.
You won't necessarily need a keyboard. OS X has speech recognition now...and Kickaha has been part of a project that allows some very user-to-computer interaction using you fingers.
Sailings also offers a way to turn your cell phone into remote to control things like iTunes, DVD Player and *gasp* a TV viewing app.
You don't always need to use a keyboard and mouse to get a rich computer experience. The computer has all the input devices you want. That's the point of the computer...it's a general purpose tool.
The convergence of TV and computers is not a false dream. It will happen. It's just a matter of who's going to start the convergence.
There's no reason to believe the computer won't handle all the TV needs, all the phone needs, all the home security needs, all the gaming needs, etc. in the future.
The only thing that stops the convergence is the capitalist society that is ready to pay money for separate devices.
If I had my way, everyone I know would be using iChat and instead of phoning people, I'd have AV chats with them. But, unfortunately, I have to pay tons of money to a monopolistic company called Bell Canada, a company that undoubtedly hates the idea of iChat and VoIP.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Apple to the rescue
How can Apple parlay an acquisition of Tivo into something profitable when Tivo is having problems profiting? By taking Tivo and building upon it. If Tivo wasn?t totally useless without the monthly or lifetime fees it wouldn?t have to sell at a loss to. This is the first thing Apple would fix. After the acquisition Apple would keep things similar for a year or so while they revamped the Tivo system. The UI would remain relatively the same but instead of using Linux to run the Tivo Apple would replace it with a new Quicktime capable of running Set Top Box (STB). This opens up a whole new world for Tivo. Now ?any? file that plays in Quicktime now plays on the Tivo. Just that easy the Tivo now supports iLife. Songs purchased from the iTunes Music Store now play along with your Garageband tunes. iPhoto files are supported and of course even your own iMovie creations. PC files would work of course because of Quicktime. So now we have rid the Tivo of its most glaring weakness, obsolescence. But how would Apple handle the subscriptions? . Mac
. Mac is Apple?s answer to dealing with the guide data. Currently Apple charges Mac customers $99 a year to subscribe. This gets them a mac.com email address, web space and other sync features. Apple would create .Mac for Tivo. This would give them the guide data and even some website space and if they are Mac users they would get the Mac specific features available to that platform. This would be $120 year or the Lifetime amount of $250 would still apply with no web space.
In order for this to work, Apple would have to relese ilife for windows, and maybe even a limited .mac pkg (.mac minus virex(mac only thing, win/stb has no need,) address book(with remote, why bother), and backup(lest the MPAA changes its ways...)), otherwise, 90% of the users could not use 90% of the features.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So...ummm...does this mean we'll never get DVR on computers ever?
Don't be silly.
It's transparently clear from my argument that we won't see DVR on computers while DVR is resource intensive relative to the capabilities of a personal computer. As soon as it isn't, well, then we can look at it again.
Of course, that assumes that video won't get richer and more computationally intensive to take advantage of ever-faster hardware. MP3 is old and fairly primitive. What happens when we have the audio equivalent of H.264 with 7.1 surround? Or (and this is something I'd love) music released as multitrack, complete with MIDI sequencing, so that you could do things with it that made 16-band EQ look like a silly hack.
DVR doesn't need to be something that's available to G3 or even G4 users. It could be something only installable on Dual G5 computers.
Because that state of affairs is completely acceptable to gamers right now, isn't it? Besides, the G5 is a pro machine. Those are the last people who are going to be using their workstations as DVRs. Since you're so hung up on "vision," we're talking about getting a cheap consumer technology to consumers, right? So until it's feasible on consumer hardware, there's no point doing it, right? It's not going to kill anyone to use the DVR that their cable company is more than happy to supply them in the meantime. Hell, you've recommended that yourself.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
No. no. no and NO!
I don't agree with anything you've said...Not one.
Ergonomics have nothing to do with anything. What you said about ergonomics is just a bunch of nonsense.
Computers don't need to be personal devices...they can be as social as TVs...and TVs can be as personal as computers. People can play games together on the same computer just like someone can decide to watch a show that someone else doesn't want to watch.
There are always exceptions. Im not trying to make some rule. Just pointing out why _most_ people dont find the experience satisfying.
In the future there will always be software that pushes the
limits of hardware...the problems you and Kickaha talk about
It is important that the OS make sure that everyone one who is using a computer ( recording tv, using software ) get a fair experience. Currently it is very easy to run software which needs 100% cpu. That makes it hard to share the system without impacting on the user experience ( bad software interactivity, show not getting recorded ).
Sure...the dedicated device will probably always offer the best performance...or else there wouldn't be a market for it. But saying computers aren't up the the task or that it wouldn't work well with the computer concept is bullcrap, IMO.
Its not that computers cant do it some of the time, its that they cant do it well _all_ of the time. I wouldnt buy a VCR that didnt record shows when I pressed record. Thats the experience you face using a computer.
User interfaces have nothing to do with anything...computers OSs will eventually move to resolution independent GUIs and monitors will become larger...and you'll be able to see and read things on the screen clearly from across the room.
Computers are quite capable of being programmed to display easy to see interfaces now. But try using word on it. The point is that on a lo res interface you dont want to use hi res software. This is the point of the whole concept of convergence. Your TV _is_ your computer.
You won't necessarily need a keyboard. OS X has speech recognition now...and Kickaha has been part of a project that allows some very user-to-computer interaction using you fingers.
But that isnt effective now, and wont be effective next year. Not to mention the interface issues that voice recognition raise ( multiple users, audio from the TV ). Im not saying that the interface issues arent insoluble, just that when you are using your TV you dont want to use the same input system that computers use. Just look at how many other input systems there are for computers right now. At a mass market level there are keyboards, mice and joysticks. Other systems arent used because they arent effective ( in general ). The work kickaha has done is still a low information volume system. It lets you point and click. I can do that with a remote control, just not as elegantly.
Sailings also offers a way to turn your cell phone into remote to control things like iTunes, DVD Player and *gasp* a TV viewing app.
Its just a remote control. The mechanism isnt important. It is a pretty smart remote. But try using word with it.
You don't always need to use a keyboard and mouse to get a rich computer experience. The computer has all the input devices you want. That's the point of the computer...it's a general purpose tool.
Thats true. But those other devices dont offer rich user _input_ You may have noticed how much PC gamers hate using console controls for FPSs. Because a console controller is relatively sparse compared to a keyboard and mouse. The software has to be designed with that sparsity in mind. Im not saying it cant be done. It is done. Consoles work very well. But try using word with a gamepad.
The convergence of TV and computers is not a false dream. It will happen. It's just a matter of who's going to start the convergence.
Why dont you tell that to all the computer companies that have tried. Sony. Gateway. Apple.
There's no reason to believe the computer won't handle all the TV needs, all the phone needs, all the home security needs, all the gaming needs, etc. in the future.
Sure, but at a human level how are you going to access that information? I still want to use something that looks like a phone to make phone calls. If it is using VOIP or iChat that doesnt matter to me. But I dont want my computer to be the interface to that system. I want to have a phone handset.
What you want is one uber device. The problem with the uber box is that it just isnt going to be up to it. To make it practical you have to start putting little slave devices at the end of the communication channels. Consider this:
What if you have more than one tv to replace?
How many tv out ports are you going to put on the thing? How many channels is it going to be able to record at once? How is more than one user going to tell it what to watch on which tv?
What will you do? Buy an expansion card for each display you want to hook up? What happens when you want to run 100ft of DVI cable, and its out of spec? Now you've got to buy a video amplifier, not to mention the cable. Sounds expensive to me.
Of course, you could build smart displays instead, which can decompress the video themselves, and have their own input mechanism for telling the uber box what to do. Hey, that sounds like the device proliferation you were just wailing against. It could even have the tuner and recording hardware, just streaming the compressed video to the uber box for storage.
This is exactly what I think will happen. But the smart display wont be a desktop computer. It will be a smart display. The first steps towards this are happening, with tivos being able to communicate between themselves.
The future of entertainment is in communication, not convergence. Im sure that some parallel could be drawn with kitchen utensils. Why dont we have a converged knife/fork/spoon. Because the roles of those devices are different, the roles of the devices never converged, even tho we have the technology to do it. And, if you go to a camping store you will be able to find a converged fork/knife/spoon because the needs of a campers weight and space limits are more important than eating convenience. The same applies to TV. You use it differently.
Media Center PCs are an opportunity to watch this in action. They have everything you want. Give one a go someday.
Originally posted by Amorph
Don't be silly.
It's transparently clear from my argument that we won't see DVR on computers while DVR is resource intensive relative to the capabilities of a personal computer. As soon as it isn't, well, then we can look at it again.
Of course, that assumes that video won't get richer and more computationally intensive to take advantage of ever-faster hardware. MP3 is old and fairly primitive. What happens when we have the audio equivalent of H.264 with 7.1 surround? Or (and this is something I'd love) music released as multitrack, complete with MIDI sequencing, so that you could do things with it that made 16-band EQ look like a silly hack.
I do think PVR is fairly resource intensive, still. However iTunes style film and video distribution via H.264 could be great.
HDTV offers enough resolution to move the home computer under the TV, in a couple of years we'll be using 1080P DLP and LCoS sets and they will look great! Prices are dropping rapidly. Something of a home-computer/console renaissance awaits, though it is still far off.
I like your other point. Using AAC, what could be done right now is to use the available centre channel (in phantom to stereo listeners) to carry vocals such that they can be turned on/off with a simple toggle in iTunes. Instant Kareoke! Japan would love it, and I must confess a fondness for the idea myself.
I can think of a lot of songs that I already own, that I would pay to own again in a switchable vocals kareoke format. Could be good for record companies, could be good for Apple.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever..
Originally posted by AirSluf
You are overreacting and taking the reductionistic stance that a single potential contrived conflict ruins the entire concept. And continued on in your following posts as well.
If you think blind recording would take 60% of a CPU that would not already choke on FCP you are creating such a constrained set of circumstances that nothing would work, and is basically out of touch with reality. Unless there is a desire to re-encode on reception-which would be pretty silly, the stream doesn't even need to hit the CPU, just go straight to disk. With DMA you can circumvent the CPU's involvement almost entirely. Playback could work similarly if the decoding is done on the GPU.
You're making some rather sweeping assumptions there about the video stream, aren't you?
So suddenly the DVR is only for those with an incoming MPEG-2 satellite connection? No cable? No recording off a VCR output? Wow, that's pretty... useless.
You're damned right there would need to be encoding of the stream coming in. To do any less would be idiotic.
Your stance that real-time threads are everywhere is pretty baseless.
I'm sorry, please point to where I said the threads are 'everywhere'. I merely stated, in my response to you, that making broad claims that real-time threads categorically and utterly 'eliminated' the problem was naive, ignorant, and outright wrong.
Clear enough?
RT threads are used mainly in a/v playback or mission critical controllers. We don't seem to have any conflict here so far-how many mission critical systems would be allowed to also be DVRs, not any on the up and up. FCP advertises it can operate at real-time speeds without hardware, not that it is programmed with real-time threads. Actually FCP processing couldn't use realtime threads except in very narrow circumstances as during pre-rendering there is no programmatic guarantee of processing requirements, which is one of the opening arguments programming a real time thread (implicitly) needs. QT playback probably does have RT threads, but there we are back into the human issue i address below, not into a horrible screeching clash of the threads.
Bumping an engineering problem to the UI level is the MS way, not the Apple way. Could you? Sure. Will Apple? Hell no. What was the assertion I made again? That Apple wouldn't produce a DVR iApp for the masses until the user experience could be made to be as flawless as possible. Precedent? iChatAV, for starters.
iDVR would be aimed at... ta-da. Consumers. Consumers buy... ta-da. Consumer boxes. Apple consumer boxes are... ta-da. iMacs.
Can the iMac, even the G5, handle the above iDVR (WITH encoding of a video stream), and normal operation of user needs of someone logged in? Reliably? Without kludges that dump the engineering problem off on the consumer?
If not, then we won't see iDVR. Period.
When the consumer box can handle this, then it may show up. Until then, no.
Who ever said anything about increasing capabilities. I thought someone with a doctorate could read better.
Ah, the sidestepping personal attack. Excellent timing.
Let's try this with small words for you: If the requests of any threads, even real-time ones, exceeds the capabilities of the CPU, you're screwed. Period. Waving your hands and saying that real-time threads 'eliminate' this problem is idiotic. They do not make the problem go away. They can not make the CPU suddenly have greater capabilities than it shipped with. They are not magic fairy dust. They do not 'eliminate' the problem, as you blindly asserted.
Got it?
2 part answer. A Recording menu-ling and a dialog box that comes up when the OS thinks there is the potential for too much CPU cycle competition. The user is given the appropriate choice like quit recording, accept reduced performance, or go find your Brother as he is the Administrator and has used higher priority privileges. My wording is clunky, but the idea gets across.
Sure. For Windows XP. Seriously, the day something like this ships in an Apple product is the day that they really are truly over that shark.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
And that buying a dedicated DVR device is a waste of money if the computer *could* run a DVR app and FCP simultaneously and acceptably?
The DVR's cost like $100 now. Go buy the damn DVR. Sheesh.
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The DVR's cost like $100 now. Go buy the damn DVR. Sheesh.
Why? When the Mac could handle it?
I don't even have a TV. So that 100 instantly becomes at least 1100 if I want a decent DVR experience.
This thread is pathetic. I don't even feel like participating in it anymore.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Why? When the Mac could handle it?
I don't even have a TV. So that 100 instantly becomes at least 1100 if I want a decent DVR experience.
This thread is pathetic. I don't even feel like participating in it anymore.
You sound exactly like one of the limited markets that I have already identified. There are people who will find the compromises of convergence acceptable, because they are secondary considerations next to others, like finance, or available space, or ideology.
Ive been there. Ive used my computer as a TV. At the time it was good. But when the situation changed and those special considerations no longer applied, I bought a TV.
Apple arent going to produce a product for that market, it isnt big enough. The product isnt going to be successful in a wider market ( which we are discussing ), so they arent going to create a product at all. Smaller companies who can make a profit from small markets can and do make convergence devices. Get an El Gato, or, I believe that tivo can be hacked so you can watch content over a network. If you have a PCI slot get anyone of a multitude of tv capture cards. You can get cable boxes with firewire out, and watch that. But the mere existence of these products doesnt indicate that there is a big market. And what is there isnt a driving force in the industry ( as opposed to high end gamers ).
Heres my final comment. The products that are going to be successful will be PC hardware, in a stylish box. They will be running custom software ( Windows Media Center, Linux with custom software, BeOS ) and their users wont know or care that what they have is a computer. It will just be a DVR. There will be good ones and bad ones ( just like mobile phones ), and the good ones will enhance and expand the sphere of TV entertainment. The bad ones will just be DVRs. In the future we may the uber box, but it is hard to get people to upgrade in big jump when you can get the same effect with individual devices. Even then, interfaces to the uber box are likely to be very task specific.