Slashdot Mirror


Special Apple Event Scheduled for September 12

davidmcg writes "Macworld are reporting that Apple is hosting a special media event on Tuesday, September 12th 2006 in San Francisco, CA at 10AM Pacific. The event will also be simulcast to a location in London where journalists have also been invited. The invitation to the media was entitled It's Showtime — suggesting Movie-related announcements. Rumors sites had originally expected iMac updates during the event, but Apple surprised everyone with iMac and Mac mini updates last week. This leaves iPods, a Movie Store and the possibility of a new streaming Media device for the Tuesday event."

113 comments

  1. Who Cares About the Store... by nugx · · Score: 1

    ...give me the hardware. 16:9 touchscreen ipod would be mighty sweet...

  2. Well duh. by popeyethesailor · · Score: 2, Funny

    This leaves iPods, a Movie Store and the possibility of a new streaming Media device for the Tuesday event."
    Oh wow. I thought it was a new musical with Steve Jobs as the lead with a consort of white furry bunnies.

    1. Re:Well duh. by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 1

      I was going for the "Apple unveils plans to dominate the universe in a giant Apple space station which suspiciously resembles a Death Star" theory.

    2. Re:Well duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean they plan to merge with the Flaming Lips?

    3. Re:Well duh. by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      But they said 'it's showtime'. That must mean that it's a musical song-and-dance affair where Apple Computer unveils plans to dominate the universe in a giant Apple space station which suspiciously resembles a Death Star.

    4. Re:Well duh. by Bruce+McBruce · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe by "Showtime" they refer to destroying Mars as a display of the iStar's power.

    5. Re:Well duh. by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend Pluto: it's as if hundreds of astronomers crying out were suddenly silenced.

    6. Re:Well duh. by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

      With Steve Jobs on the Disney board, what is the likelihood of him destroying Pluto?

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    7. Re:Well duh. by ksheff · · Score: 1

      If he lands a spot on GM's board, it will probably be Mercury.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    8. Re:Well duh. by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

      Nope. It's going to be a new musical with Steve Jobs as the lead with a consort of OMG!!! Ponies!!!!

    9. Re:Well duh. by PHPfanboy · · Score: 1

      nah, he'll try to take down NepTunes for trademark infringement.

      --
      29 mpg. YMMV.
    10. Re:Well duh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      With Steve Jobs on the Disney board, what is the likelihood of him destroying Pluto?

      He might. I hear he's already fucking goofy.

  3. OMFG!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another Apple event???

    What could it be???

    A different colour iPod?
    A slightly larger iPod?
    A slightly smaller iPod?

    Or maybe even another bunch 'think different' performance specs from Steve??? I hear those Intel chips got some 'really big SPEC scores'!

    1. Re:OMFG!!! by Phase+Shifter · · Score: 1
      What could it be??? A different colour iPod? A slightly larger iPod? A slightly smaller iPod?
      It will be the iNuke, of course.
    2. Re:OMFG!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? No iPod Flea?

  4. Widescreen movies by zoeblade · · Score: 2, Insightful

    16:9 touchscreen ipod would be mighty sweet

    I love the way no one is even considering the possibility of 4:3 ratio film downloads, even though the 5G iPod's screen is small enough as it is without films taking up even less of the 320x240 resolution if they're going to remain backwards compatible with it. Sure, a widescreen iPod plus film downloads that you'll need to upgrade to the 6G in order to watch on the go seem likely, but it still amazes me how quickly people will refuse to put up with something like pan and scan, the format everyone watched films in at home until only a few years ago in most people's cases.

    It's like there's an unwritten agreement that we'll never speak of VHS ever again, like it was an embarrassing mistake that it ever took off in the first place.

    1. Re:Widescreen movies by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's like there's an unwritten agreement that we'll never speak of VHS ever again, like it was an embarrassing mistake that it ever took off in the first place.

      It was the tubes, no, not the ones the internet uses, the ones which people used to watch pictures on. If you make it wider you have to make it deeper so you may as well make it higher and then you have a square screen again.

    2. Re:Widescreen movies by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      that just made me think of the wide-screen version of a video someone accidentally released. Instead of taking the original film, they pan-and-scanned the pan and scan, giving a doubly cropped wide screen!

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:Widescreen movies by TomHandy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, a lot of people "put up with" pan and scan for a variety of reasons; in some cases they didn't have much choice (only "full screen" versions of certain movies were easily available). In other cases, a lot of consumers were convinced that "pan and scan" was better because they didn't like those "black bars" at the bottom and top of their screen.

      I think the success of wide screen has at least something to do with consumers becoming a bit more savvy about buying movies....... I think that more consumers have gotten used to the idea of the black bars (one reason why I think television has become more willing to show "widescreen" TV shows even on standard def broadcasts), and they also seem to have more of a realization that "pan and scan" was not as good, causing a lot of the original film to be unseen.

      You mentioned VHS, but it's not like the whole "widescreen vs. full screen" issue stopped with VHS and the advent of DVD. Even today you can still find some movies releases in both Full Screen and Widescreen versions. But I think you'll find that the "full screen" versions of some movies are more likely to end up in the "bargain bin" sooner, as more people are rejecting it.

      Conceivably some people will put up with "pan and scan" if they have older devices like the Zen Vision M or 5G iPod.

      But I think that anyone actually concerned about watching full length movies on the go is more likely to buy a Zen Vision W or a new widescreen video iPod.

      -Zadillo

    4. Re:Widescreen movies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that more consumers have gotten used to the idea of the black bars (one reason why I think television has become more willing to show "widescreen" TV shows even on standard def broadcasts),

      Almost all of those "letterboxed" TV shows are SD versions of their HD broadcasts (which are 16:9). A few channels crop their HD broadcasts to make the SD version, but that involves extra effort. In the end it's easier for them to make one version (16:9) and broadcast it to everyone in both HD and SD.

    5. Re:Widescreen movies by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      How are they displaying the 1.85 stuff? I've certainly seen plenty of 4:3 stuff displayed "fathead" style on widescreen TVs in stores, but I don't think I've ever seen them screw up the 1.85 stuff (it's essentially 16:9).

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    6. Re:Widescreen movies by Yvan256 · · Score: 1
      I love the way no one is even considering the possibility of 4:3 ratio film downloads [...] but it still amazes me how quickly people will refuse to put up with something like pan and scan, the format everyone watched films in at home until only a few years ago in most people's cases.
      Almost all movies are shot in widescreen. In order to display them in 4:3, you have to remove content. Look at the ending of The Fifth Element for a clear-cut indication that you really don't want to remove content. (Hint: you don't see two moons on the 4:3 version - you lose the whole punchline of the movie - i.e. the whole story happened once before).

      Studios that are trying to sell me a 4:3 version of their movies ("The Forbin Project" comes to mind) is the same as if a music studio would try to sell mono versions of their songs.

    7. Re:Widescreen movies by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      I love the way no one is even considering the possibility of 4:3 ratio film downloads, even though the 5G iPod's screen is small enough as it is without films taking up even less of the 320x240 resolution if they're going to remain backwards compatible with it.

      Its too bad that there is no 'software' way of dealing with pan and scan. One could see a method whereby the videos are encoded in anamorphic format, like widescreen DVDs. That way you could have true widescreen output when hooked to a TV, but 'pan and scan' software in the iPod that would 'move' the virtual frame when cued to do so. Of course this would require fairly hefty processing on the iPod's part; in the end a widescreen iPod is probably best.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    8. Re:Widescreen movies by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1
      Studios that are trying to sell me a 4:3 version of their movies ("The Forbin Project" comes to mind) is the same as if a music studio would try to sell mono versions of their songs.

      And just because a DVD is widescreen doesn't mean it isn't also pan-and-scanned. For example, the movie Head Office was filmed at 2.35:1, but the DVD release was 1.78:1.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Widescreen movies by Don853 · · Score: 1

      Whoa. Would have made that movie make marginally more sense. Thanks.

    10. Re:Widescreen movies by hixie · · Score: 1

      If you're watching a movie in 16:9, then you're still experiencing pan-and-scan. Movies are mostly shot in 2.39:1 or 1.85:1, which are both far wider than the so-called "widescreen" 16:9 ratio.

    11. Re:Widescreen movies by dangitman · · Score: 1
      It's like there's an unwritten agreement that we'll never speak of VHS ever again, like it was an embarrassing mistake that it ever took off in the first place.

      That's about how I feel (not the never speaking about it part, though). Video has been an embarassment, VHS in particular. Film is much better. Before video came along, students and amateur film-makers would use 16mm film, which is a beautiful medium. High Definition video still can't beat 16mm film, after all these decades. But because of video, people put up with crap media.

      How many video formats are going to be made obsolete in a short span of time, when we had a perfectly good format available the whole time, that is still superior? Use a film camera from the 60s or 70s. Works beautifully. Now try using a video camera from the 80s, or even 90s. Junk.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    12. Re:Widescreen movies by dtfarmer · · Score: 1

      I don't think I've ever seen them screw up the 1.85 stuff (it's essentially 16:9)

      I have. They don't set the DVD player to know it's hooked up to a widescreen display, so the DVD player does down-conversion and adds in the black bars on the top and bottom creating a 4:3 image and then sending it to a widescreen display. Some screens can detect this and "auto" switch to a zoom mode, but they may not be in the right "mode" to do it (not setup correctly.)

    13. Re:Widescreen movies by camperslo · · Score: 1

      I'd always wished that DVDs and players had handled letterbox mode differently. Instead of using fewer lines of vertical resolution, all available lines (480?) could have been used for the smaller area, capturing more detail. On current players that would have caused the image to be stretched vertically (no black area), but they could have been designed to see a "letterbox flag" bit to know to reduce the height/resolution for an existing analog television, or better yet provide all of those lines and give the television a signal telling it to reduce the height to get the letterbox effect while retaining the same number of scan lines.
      The result would have been better detail (and brightness) in letterbox mode.

      (Okay, it is really wierd idea, but I'm one of those rare people that was willing modify my television to add D.C. restoration, or even have D.C. video coupling, so the black scenes really would fade to black).

      More on topic with the Apple Event, I hope Apple offers all video in a higher quality format. Considering that the new 24" iMac supports full 1080i resolution, I think it is likely. A better video iPod to share content with it makes sense too.

    14. Re:Widescreen movies by Golias · · Score: 1

      Almost all movies are shot in widescreen. In order to display them in 4:3, you have to remove content.

      It's not quite as simple as that.

      Actually, a great deal of movies are shot to fit both formats. Most, in fact.

      In a movie theater, the projectionist is expected to "mat" the top and bottom off to fit the image to whatever shape the screen is.

      On TV, an editor "crops" the sides off, but leaves in more of the top and bottom.

      Any good movie director knows that both things will be done to the movie before anybody sees it, and makes sure that all the really important visual information is kept within the middle of the screen as much as possible. The only exeptions are "event" movies which they didn't really want you watching at home anyway, such as "2001".

      For a good example of stuff that a projectionist is supposed to mat out, take a look at an old VHS recording of Star Wars. If you watch the top of the screen, you will see boom mics falling into the shot on occasion. That's because you are looking at a part of the image which theater-goers never saw.

      The standard which most knowledgable film critics are pushing the movie industry to move towards is not "16:9", but "OAR" ("Original Aspect Ratio"). In other words, whatever ratio the creators of the movie meant the movie to be seen in, that's what should be sold on the DVD. If that's 4:3, then so be it.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  5. streaming media device by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

    is this expected to be a "wireless monitor" or an airtunes-style limited app stream?

    if the latter then hopefully there'll be an Airfoil equivalent, but I hope it turns out to be wireless monitor and speakers. /dream

    1. Re:streaming media device by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      if the latter then hopefully there'll be an Airfoil equivalent, but I hope it turns out to be wireless monitor and speakers. /dream

      What is the value in a wireless monitor? Unless you're referencing a monitor that has touch screen and can be carried around the house. Because a monitor on a desk less than 3 feet from the workstation doesn't need to be wireless. That's just stupid. Same with speakers - absolutely no point in wireless speakers.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    2. Re:streaming media device by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the point is I only have 1 computer - a laptop I take with me to work and home every day.

      at home I have wireless:
      keyboard
      mouse
      internet
      speakers
      phone (sync + remote)

      why NOT have everything wireless if it can be?
      my laptop is only 3 feet from the monitor because it HAS to be to use the monitor.

      and if it makes my computer easier to use and I'm willing to pay for it who the fuck are you to stand in the way of progress?

    3. Re:streaming media device by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 1
      my laptop is only 3 feet from the monitor because it HAS to be to use the monitor.
      My laptop is directly connected to the monitor and I can just close a lid and bring it along with me. What kind of shitty laptop did you buy that doesn't include a display?
    4. Re:streaming media device by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

      plus they still need power and that is way wireless keyboards and moues are mostly pointless as well.

    5. Re:streaming media device by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      okay so either you're trolling and forgot to click post as AC, or you're just plain retarded and don't understand that when I take my laptop home I plug it into a much larger monitor to watch films on.

      so which is it; troll or retard?

    6. Re:streaming media device by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Funny
      the point is I only have 1 computer - a laptop I take with me to work and home every day. at home I have wireless keyboard, mouse, internet, speakers, [and] phone (sync + remote). why NOT have everything wireless if it can be? my laptop is only 3 feet from the monitor because it HAS to be to use the monitor.

      So you just plonk it down on the desk and it knows to associate with the nearby peripherals? That reminds me of this bit from one of my favorite authors, Douglas Adams (RIP):

      "How... does it work?" he said, trying to make it sound like a casual enquiry.

      "Well, it's really terribly simple," said Reg, "it works any way you want it to. You see, the computer that runs it is a rather advanced one. In fact it is more powerful than the sum total of all the computers on this planet including - and this is the tricky part - including itself. Never really understood that bit myself, to be honest with you. But over ninety-five per cent of that power is used in simply understanding what it is you want it to do. I simply plonk my abacus down there and it understands the way I use it. I think I must have been brought up to use an abacus when I was a... well, a child, I suppose.

      "Richard, for instance, would probably want to use his own personal computer. If you put it down there, where the abacus is the machine's computer would simple take charge of it and offer you lots of nice user-friendly time-travel applications complete with pull-down menus and desk accessories if you like. Except that you point to 1066 on the screen and you've got the Battle of Hastings going on outside your door, er, if that's the sort of thing you're interested in."
      But of course there the logic is in the computer controlling the desk, not in the laptop.

      It also reminds me of Apple's PowerBook Duo and its DuoDock.
      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    7. Re:streaming media device by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      the point is I only have 1 computer - a laptop I take with me to work and home every day.

      at home I have wireless:
      keyboard
      mouse
      internet
      speakers
      phone (sync + remote)

      why NOT have everything wireless if it can be?
      my laptop is only 3 feet from the monitor because it HAS to be to use the monitor.

      and if it makes my computer easier to use and I'm willing to pay for it who the fuck are you to stand in the way of progress?


      Wow, what's with the negative attituide? I just think it's stupid to want a wireless monitor and you're all blowing up at me. I also think it's stupid to have a wireless keyboard and speakers.

      Things that could honestly take advantage of being wireless are those that tend to move around and don't need to be plugged in for power or have their batteries recharged or replaced frequently. Good candidates are mice and phones. Beyond that there's no outstanding reason to eliminate wires. More likely the user needs to better organize their workspace.

      Why not have everything wireless? Waste of resources. RF saturation. Time better spent developing other technologies.
      Who the fuck am I? Just a guy who disagrees with you. Get used to it.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    8. Re:streaming media device by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      Things that could honestly take advantage of being wireless are those that tend to move around and don't need to be plugged in for power or have their batteries recharged or replaced frequently.

      You are thinking the wrong way around. The monitor is not wireless, the computer is a wireless peripheral that connects to the monitor. Imagine a 5' screen on the wall which anyone who walks into the room can use (as long as it is not already in use). You could use it to display films, presentations, etc. from your laptop without having to connect up any wires. You could also use it to display films stored on the computer in your office.

      Good candidates are mice and phones. I used a wireless keyboard and mouse for a bit and was surprised to find that the keyboard was more useful than the mouse. A mouse tends to live on a the mouse pad. The keyboard can be taken to the other side of the room and used to skip to the next track while listening to music, or to control a movie being played.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    9. Re:streaming media device by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Imagine a 5' screen on the wall which anyone who walks into the room can use (as long as it is not already in use). You could use it to display films, presentations, etc. from your laptop without having to connect up any wires.

      But after the initial connection the wire is not in the way - nothing is trying to move around. Also, a device like that would most likely have a stationary computer attached to it (or it attached to ...) that could be controled remotely. In our presentation center we have floor jacks for bring-in laptops, but we also have a dedicated presentation machine for the room. It has a wireless keyboard and mouse so that they may be passed around the large table.

      The keyboard can be taken to the other side of the room and used to skip to the next track while listening to music, or to control a movie being played.

      You can do the same thing with a mouse ;)

      I think the 'use of wireless' is the discrepancy. I use wireless as a replacement for the wire that tethers me or my devices together, allowing them to move freely (or to avoid running wires throught the building). The use of wireless in other posts on this thread is to avoid the task of physically connecting and disconnecting devices when needed. And that's just lazy! Heh heh (:

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    10. Re:streaming media device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. media center by raffe · · Score: 1

    Please give us a good media center application. I want to connect a mac to my tv and record tv shows, play my dvds and everything else from itunes.

    PLEASE, blow away windows media center and mythtv!

    1. Re:media center by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Please give us a good media center application. I want to connect a mac to my tv and record tv shows, play my dvds and everything else from itunes.

      PLEASE, blow away windows media center and mythtv!


      Beyond blowing away WinMCE and MythTV I'd like to see them blow away TiVo.

      (:

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    2. Re:media center by tacocat · · Score: 1

      If this is the direction they go into then they are probably risking over-diversification.

      Historically, Apple has made a mighty fine user-centric computer and have even set that standard of what a Graphical User Interface means. They have done well in terms of GUI design since the early Mac up to today with a consistent and well behaved interface.

      I personally do not believe there is any real merit in trying to consolidate everything into one box. When I say everything I mean: computer, game console, visual media center, audio media center, all things that are audo-visual in nature beyond a book. The problem that you will ultimately experience is that this one unit for all services becomes a choke point in your house, unless you only have one room. It is very common in my multi-user domestic facility to have a stereo on in one room, a television on in another (with computer) and a third location that is computer only (needs more concentration).

      In order to service these needs you would have to purchase three of these consolidated units and only be able to utilize 25% of the systems capabilities at any given time. It's a waste of resources and money.

      The only useful applicatin for something like this is a single person dwelling where they can only use a small portion of the things that they have at their disposal anyways.

      But imagine the pain involved in having to upgrade your stereo because you game console has a new product release and you can't get games for the old unit anymore...

    3. Re:media center by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      1 computer should be able to service radio, tv, and serve as a computer simultaneously these days. That's what multi-core/CPU is all about. So you're back down to 1 box.

      The only issue is the connectivity to the various locations you wish to have output to, and whatever input controls from those locations.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    4. Re:media center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Beyond blowing away WinMCE and MythTV I'd like to see them blow away TiVo."

      Actually, there's rumor (not necessarily strong, mind you) that this announcement will include Tivo. With the Series 3 set to debut any day now, the rumor is that Tuesday, Tivo will announce the S3, and Apple will announce that they've actually got the love of updated integration with Tivo (since the Mac version of Tivo Desktop has historically lagged behind). I think the theory is the ability to download movies from iTMS, then stream them to your S3 HD Tivo connected to your TV (and maybe the S2's).

      Apple doesn't have to write a new app, TiVo gets to have another selling point for their S3's, as well as trying to win back the disgruntled Mac users.

      Probably fanciful, but that's one of the theories, anyway.

    5. Re:media center by powerlord · · Score: 1
      I personally do not believe there is any real merit in trying to consolidate everything into one box. When I say everything I mean: computer, game console, visual media center, audio media center, all things that are audo-visual in nature beyond a book. The problem that you will ultimately experience is that this one unit for all services becomes a choke point in your house, unless you only have one room. It is very common in my multi-user domestic facility to have a stereo on in one room, a television on in another (with computer) and a third location that is computer only (needs more concentration).

      In order to service these needs you would have to purchase three of these consolidated units and only be able to utilize 25% of the systems capabilities at any given time. It's a waste of resources and money.

      The only useful applicatin for something like this is a single person dwelling where they can only use a small portion of the things that they have at their disposal anyways.


      There are lots of places where "one room" IS all you have.

      - Kids at college (or teen+ who only have their own room to play with ... if even that).
      - Highly built out urban centers. Take Manhattan, Tokyo or London. In each case (and lots more), a ridiculous number of people live in a studio or one bedroom apartment (bedroom, living room, kitchen, bathroom). An even larger number live in two or more bedrooms with room-mates, turning an apartment into a 'dorm room' essentially, in order to pay the ridiculously inflated rents those spaces demand.

      In either of these cases (that cover quite a few people), space is at a premium, and the idea of consolidating a few gadgets into the space you have (at a price you can afford), is REALLY attractive, especially if the product looks good and has some "cool" cachet.

      I'd imagine that trying to compete with traditional "game consoles" might be a stupid option, but competing with Stereo/VCR/MediaCenter PCs is a pretty good option.
      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    6. Re:media center by byolinux · · Score: 1

      Why would you want to blow away MythTV?

    7. Re:media center by booch · · Score: 1

      Take a look at EyeTV. It's a pretty decent PVR program. I've got their EyeTV 500 hardware to receive HDTV (ATSC), but I've got an EyeTV Hybrid on order, which will do analog and digital. Add the EyeTV in full-screen mode to Front Row, and you've got a pretty competitive media center. I got rid of my DVD player, stereo, and TV, and replaced them all with a Mac mini with the EyeTV and a RadioShark.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    8. Re:media center by mhollis · · Score: 1

      tacocat (527354) wrote:

      I personally do not believe there is any real merit in trying to consolidate everything into one box. When I say everything I mean: computer, game console, visual media center, audio media center, all things that are audo-visual in nature beyond a book. The problem that you will ultimately experience is that this one unit for all services becomes a choke point in your house, unless you only have one room. It is very common in my multi-user domestic facility to have a stereo on in one room, a television on in another (with computer) and a third location that is computer only (needs more concentration).

      I like your points. There seems to be this struggle between having intelligence in every device and some monolithic intelligence being the central repository of one's household's data and control.

      Where a "media computer" really works is as a central server. I can share my iTunes music library (to the extent the DRM allows) with everyone in my home by using Apple's AirPort Express in locations where I would like to have audio distributed. This uses my Apple computer as a central server, if you will, for music (or media) distributed to "dumb" devices throughout my home.

      Where a central server is not used is where one has a TiVo with their television, a stereo with an iPod dock, a computer, and a game console, where each device contains its own CPU and its own operating system and user interface and the user has to learn each device seperately.

      Where Jobs may be going is in a direction where one learns a simple interface (Macintosh) and one is able, through the use of a central repository for data and control, to use that interface for many purposes. Jobs obviously believes that there is value in his design for User Interface and this will sell Apple's products. Apple's ability to innovate with industrial design should make the product enjoyable to have anywhere in one's home, assuming Jobs intends to project the Apple logo into the living room.

      Where you get into a choke-point is where Apple seems to not do too well, which is in the area of gaming. Apple's Macintosh computers suffer from few games as compared to their Windoze competitors. One of the selling points for Apple's new Macs is that it can boot into Windoze XP as well as Apple's OS X, which sounds to me like a capitulation in that area.

      But in the distributed processing model, you simply hook your X-Box 360 or your Nintendo up to your Apple high-definition monitor and you're good to go, using a KVM switch to switch the monitor from one input to another.

      Bill Gates once stated that the television viewer is more passive than a computer user. The two are seperate pursuits. Apple seems to be disagreeing with Gates' statement in releasing larger and larger monitors for Macintosh computers and begging the concept that they might be used in the living room for entertainment as well.

      From my standpoint, I like the large monitors. I work professionally in television post-production and large monitors are the kind of thing that really warms up an agency client who can see them even from the back couch of an edit facility. But the main monitor these days tends to be a projection monitor or a really huge LCD or plasma display. But the client tends to want to look over an editor's shoulder and "feel like they are a part of the action." In my opinion as an editor, the large monitor allows me a larger pallette of tools on-screen so that I can easily access any desired effect. Frankly, having someone nursemaid my work is not really necessary for someone with my experience in making good television or film.

      But that has nothing to do with the living room, which is where Jobs seems to be headed, according to the rumors.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    9. Re:media center by Clockwurk · · Score: 1

      Not going to happen. Apple's version of a media center is using frontrow to play movies and TV you buy off iTMS.

  7. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a news website. Precisely how is dredging up something that happened five years ago newsworthy?

  8. Re:9/11 by TomHandy · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's true, people might have forgotten it was the anniversary of 9/11 if they didn't see it on Slashdot.

  9. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, you're right. Every story today should be about what happened 5 years ago. Nothing else should be reported.

  10. guess I'm just a skeptic by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

    But it seems to me that I just don't feel the Apple hype. Most of the time, there is something equal or better out than the Apple product for a lower price. Still, I guess it's nice to see new [takes on old things] on the market, like we will see, but I just don't expect anything world shattering.

    --
    34486853790
    Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    1. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      out of curiosity: what is better than the current 5G 60GB iPod for a cheaper price?

      n.b. must support mac.

    2. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      Cowon IAudio X5 is comparable at 60GB. There are several advantages (open audio formats including flac, better screen quality, better audio output, simple hard drive interface with no special software needed, tougher build, USB host, battery life). And several disadvantages (can't look at photos while listening to music, except the background, the only video format is uses is hard to make except via their software, and it does not show off the better screen quality). All and all, most reviewers I've seen rated it as "on par with an iPod Video" in terms of quality, fixing any of the errors I mentioned would put it ahead, according to them. by "n.b. must support mac", I take it you mean that for that result, a notbook must support MacOS? Sorry, none do, but with FreeBSD, Linux, or IMO even Windows, I don't need MacOS.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    3. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by zoeblade · · Score: 1

      What is better than the current 5G 60GB iPod for a cheaper price?

      "Better" is a vague term. I hear that some products have more features, or support free (as in liberated) formats, but that they are harder to use and look less elegant. Either way, they're probably made by teenagers working 60 hour weeks plus overtime. So by "better," could you please clarify if you mean easier, better looking, more featureful, more liberated, or more ethical?

    4. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      for me better is all about the user experience. I don't believe there is anyone creating anything even remotely close to iPod + iTunes + iTMS, and some of the players put out there with better hardware specs than iPods treat their users horrifically (the one suggested by the other replier can't autosync and can't browse by artist, album, or genre!).

      every aspect of Apple product design is an order of magnitude greater than their nearest competitor. and every great new product Apple releases makes the integrated experience even stronger. so I don't expect to even consider moving away from iPod in the near future but am still curious what "the best of the rest" is.

    5. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

      the only video format is uses is hard to make except via their software, and it does not show off the better screen quality

      I think the question was "What is better than the current 5G 60GB iPod for a cheaper price?" not "What product costs the same as a 5G 60GB iPod but sucks?"

      What is the point of the "better screen quality," looking at album art? If the video format is screwy and proprietary and doesn't look better on the screen than non-proprietary formats do on the iPod, what is the point of your argument?

    6. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe there is anyone creating anything even remotely close to iPod + iTunes + iTMS

      I own an iPod (and a Mac), and I still don't use the piece of crap that is iTunes. It's simply such an awful player, I'm surprised that so many people use it and are happy with it.

    7. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by jimstapleton · · Score: 1

      (1) $50 less is not the same price (2) having seen both, the X5 still looks better (3) technically the format isn't proprietary, just most software doesn't let you set the frame rate to be what the X5 likes. (4) I gave a lot of other reasons, try to read them, maybe you'll get it. It doesn't suck, it just is much better at some things, and much worse at others. They are about on par, and for my uses, the X5 is better for me.

      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    8. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by bla · · Score: 1
      by "n.b. must support mac", I take it you mean that for that result, a notbook must support MacOS? Sorry, none do, but with FreeBSD, Linux, or IMO even Windows, I don't need MacOS.

      no, he probably means Nota Bene, which means he wants information about a digital music player that supports mac.

    9. Re:guess I'm just a skeptic by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      So as an iPod-carrying Mac user, what player do you use? Audion? I'm sincerely curious, as iTunes is the best thing I've found on the MacOS (I like the party shuffle mode, among other things). iTMS on the other hand... xP

  11. Re:9/11 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny
    This is a news website. Precisely how is dredging up something that happened five years ago newsworthy?

    A question many people frequently ask the editors...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  12. iTunes 7 by Jacob+Moogberg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd say that iTunes 7 is also a given:
    - last year, iTunes 5 then iTunes 6 (iTunes 5.1 in all but name) were released within a month, mostly to make iTunes release version coincide with the business year. iTunes 6 = 2005-06. iTunes 7 = 2006-2007
    - update of some core components to include the movie store
    - need to address the competition, particularly WMP, whose ergonomy is improving with v. 11, especially concerning visual interface and the use of artwork.

    iTunes is still well thought as a MP3 player but Apple needs to put some more buzz and hype into it as it hasn't much evolved for the last two or three years. It's the piece of Apple music strategy that has been the least covered by rumor sites for the last few months but it's determining none the less.

    1. Re:iTunes 7 by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      I think we'll see two changes with iTunes 7.0:

      1. It will be easier to configure and use.

      2. It will be designed to work with Apple's true video iPod player (aka vPod), as some have suggested for its name).

    2. Re:iTunes 7 by Seltsam · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice if they dumped QuickTime non-Pro and put all non-Pro QuickTime functions in iTunes.

    3. Re:iTunes 7 by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It'd be nice if they dumped QuickTime non-Pro and put all non-Pro QuickTime functions in iTunes.

      No, that would really suck.

      I don't want to open up iTunes just to watch a movie I downloaded/purchased from the web.
    4. Re:iTunes 7 by nuggetman · · Score: 1
      2. It will be designed to work with Apple's true video iPod player (aka vPod), as some have suggested for its name).

      Now that's just stupid. If Apple was going to call it a vPod, then the original iPod would have been called an mPod or tPod. The i is from the branding they use for most all their consumer products - iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iMac - and the Pod is a name that, as we are seeing, was intended to allow future expansion beyond music (remember everyone asking about the 1G why it was called iPod and not iMusic or iWalkman or something to that effect).
      --
      ...and that's all there is to it.
    5. Re:iTunes 7 by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Oh god please no. In the 80's everything had 2000 appended to make it sound futuristic. In the early 90's everything hip was X-this and X-That. Then came the e-craze. And then Apple started with iEverything. Please no v. When are we going to stop? When the alphabet is run through? And then? Cyrillic?? Arabic?? Kanji?

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
  13. Mahatma Gandi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you mean the aniversary of Mahatma Gandi's first successful protest?

    1. Re:Mahatma Gandi by zoeblade · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Do you mean the aniversary of Mahatma Gandi's first successful protest?

      Perhaps they're referring to the Chilean coup of 1973? The one where thousands of people died. The one in which the U.S. role "remains a controversial matter."

  14. Re:9/11 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 5, Funny

    what happened on the 9th of november?

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  15. Re:9/11 by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

    If you must know, there is a nice list here. Among many other things, in German history that was the night of Kristallnacht.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  16. Wireless monitor? by Steve+Cowan · · Score: 1

    I don't have much use for a wireless monitor either, but they sure are popular. This site has dozens of them, all at different price points.

  17. About ready to quit reading Slashdot... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    I think I'm about ready to quit reading Slashdot. Most of the "articles" posted here over the past six months just seem to be warmed over press releases. An announcement about a future announcement is about as low as it gets; regular readers like me are looking for meat, not hype.

    1. Re:About ready to quit reading Slashdot... by argent · · Score: 3, Funny

      You don't read slashdot for the comments?

      I'll bet you read the articles in Playboy too!

  18. yeah, but .... by brokeninside · · Score: 1
    Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do away with the cd player, dvd player, and vcr (used mostly as a poor man's TiVO) sitting in my entertainment center and just have one box that connects to my primary workstation?

    Throwing in a game console would probably be a stretch, but Apple doesn't seem to have any designs on entering into the game console market. Consolidation of everything A/V outside of that makes quite a bit sense provided that the hardware support is there. And in the past couple of years inexpensive CPU cores and hard drives have finally gotten to the point where they can do that.

    1. Re:yeah, but .... by JonTurner · · Score: 1

      >>Wouldn't it be nice to be able to do away with the cd player, dvd player, and vcr (used mostly as a poor man's TiVO) sitting in my entertainment center and just have one box that connects to my primary workstation?

      Yes, until the moment comes when 1) you want to surf the web/hack some code/write a paper and 2) your wife/kids/friends/etc. want to watch a movie or listen to music.
      (Here's a little tip from a married guy... #2 wins, every time).

      Besides, I'm not sure that a fragile laptop is appropriate for a living room environment where it might come in contact with children. Here, the idea of a 'disposable' $49 component is preferrable.

    2. Re:yeah, but .... by tacocat · · Score: 1

      I think you understand the point I'm trying to make here. While there may be cases for someone to want a highly consolidated system (dorms, studios) these might be only cases where something like this can be effective. As a minor point, I can't imagine someone trying to use a laptop for their TV when they have guests over.

      But more significantly, if you look at a home (spouse & kids) you are presenting a picture where each person effectively has their own TV, TiVO, Game Console, Computer, Stereo. That's really NOT cost effective for a household. Even in a highly built up metropolis. For singles, this might make sense -- and they have the disposable income to do it. But it's not effective for anyone else.

  19. standing in the way of progress: telcos by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful
    and if it makes my computer easier to use and I'm willing to pay for it who the fuck are you to stand in the way of progress?
    I guess that depends if they happen to be an executive at a telco. I've noticed that far fewer Macintosh owners use bluetooth to sync their address book to their phone than one might think. The reason? For certain phone companies including at least Verizon and Quest, the vendors offer almost no bluetooth enabled phones to start with, special models of the same perfectly good phone with the bluetooth hobbled to worthlessness by custom firmware.

    The executives at the telcos are holding up progress because they want to be the only company to sell $1.99 ring tones to their customers and they all have fantasies about setting up their own iTunes style online stores, too. The telcos are standing in the way of progress for, literally, hundreds of millions of people (2 Billion served).
    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  20. Letdown of the week by onlyjoking · · Score: 1

    Well big deal. Letdown of the week last week was the absence of Conroe chips in the "new"" iMacs. Huge screens running on laptop chips is not what I call great technology.

    1. Re:Letdown of the week by laffer1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In case you haven't noticed, iMacs are consumer systems. They also have a small form factor and have had heat issues in the past. A laptop chip is exactly what is needed. If you want power, buy a Mac Pro. Apple doesn't fill the in between market like dell tries to do. You either buy a workstation or a light, friendly desktop.

      I'm seriously considering a new iMac now that they are 64bit. That was my holdup to the mac intel switch. I need something I can test emt64 based stuff on. And no, i don't just plan to run OSX on it.

      I'm sick of the expensive power bills associated with running a bunch of systems. At any given time I have 2-6 computers running here. It adds up.

      An iMac is no gamer rig, its just a desktop for your mom to surf on. I tend to use Macs for everyday tasks like watching video, iTunes, email, surfing and basic programming tasks. Its similar to people who complain about MacBooks not performing well. They are lowend. They are not gamer rigs. Now if you buy a Macbook Pro and it overheats playing WoW you have a reason to bitch.

      I wish people would stop anticipating apple announcements so much. Its always a letdown if you wish for the moon. I do believe apple needs to do something innovative with the iPod and iTunes. Its time. If they blow this one, I suspect a larger move to other players. I might even consider it.

    2. Re:Letdown of the week by fo0bar · · Score: 1
      I'm seriously considering a new iMac now that they are 64bit.

      iMacs were available in G5 models. It was the minis that were G4-only.
    3. Re:Letdown of the week by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I want a system I can test AMD64/EMT64 compatible software. A G5 doesn't cut it there. Besides, Apple never got around to using the G5 to its full potential. When Apple announced the Intel switch, my first thought was that they could go 64bit from the beginning and take advantage of the platform. Instead, they used the core chips and caused an additional transition to happen to customers.

  21. ??? Think of the children! by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Apple made the right decision updating the iMac to a 64-bit processor and using the low power version of the same 64-bit dual core chip family in the product. How many tons of coal will be saved over the lifetime of the first million of those iMacs sold, compared to the same system were it to use the desktop chip, whose primary technology advantage from the home user's perspective would have been that it runs hotter and slurps more electrons.

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  22. That's Back to the Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    that just made me think of the wide-screen version of a video someone accidentally released. Instead of taking the original film, they pan-and-scanned the pan and scan, giving a doubly cropped wide screen!

    You're thinking of Back to the Future. I hope it was just part I but I never looked into it enough to see if it was all three movies.

    They didn't double pan and scan. They took the pan and scan and then cut off the top of bottom. I think we all understand what you were trying to say but you said it completely wrong.

    Perhaps though I was wrong about what went wrong because this site goes into detail about what went wrong and even mentions a few other movies to which the same/similar error occured
    A Hard Day's Night, Fear And Loathing, Chasing Amy, Abba, Alien 3, Clerks and Reservoir Dogs.
  23. Re:9/11 by dunkelfalke · · Score: 0, Redundant

    very good reply.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  24. Wireless speakers? by camt · · Score: 1

    I've never understood the wireless speakers thing. I mean - you still have to plug them in, right? How is having a big power cord sticking out the back (and possibly an AC Adapter brick) more agreeable than simply running some speaker cable? Also, ideal speaker placement may be compromised if you don't happen to have an outlet nearby.

    1. Re:Wireless speakers? by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 1

      the Apple airport express with airtunes is a wireless hub with a audio port. you plug speakers into it and they can then be accessed by anyone on the network (wireless or LAN, optional password). the speakers are normal speakers not wireless ones; wireless is handled by the airport.

      think of your speaker amplifier with all the inputs and outputs. instead of having an input from your laptop that you plug and unplug every time you move your laptop you just have the wire go the airport and your laptop automatically connects just like it does to your wireless internet, keyboard etc.

      so the point is that the computer playing the music doesn't need to be in the same room as the speakers (useful if you don't want your laptop open next to the speakers at a party with alcohol) let alone connected by wire. also, if you have multiple sets of speakers on a network you can redirect audio to different rooms from a single source.

  25. Don't knock mono by mapinguari · · Score: 1

    For a lot of music produced in the '60's, the mono mix was the original, which had all of the effort put into it. Stereo mixes were afterthoughts, with gimmicks like putting the vocals on one side and most of the instruments on the other. A few CD re-reissues have included both mixes (often only a few bonus tracks, and not the entire album), but there's still a lot of lost content out there as most were made without thought from the stereo masters. Ironically, while there are some mono tracks available on iTunes, their download format is still stereo, even though AAC supports mono.

  26. Suggest a new mod, - 5 Missing the Obvious by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    Because the poster clearly doesn't see the need to eliminate all the plugging and unplugging of cables. A mere 90% is sufficient.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:Suggest a new mod, - 5 Missing the Obvious by ksheff · · Score: 1

      that's why docking stations were created.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  27. Only "most of the time"? by argent · · Score: 1

    Most of the time, there is something equal or better out than the Apple product for a lower price.

    Hardware-wise, pretty much all of the time.

    Software-wise? Apple's been the leader pretty much since Jaguar came out.

    Apple's a software company. Their hardware is an expensive "dongle" for their software.

  28. Watch me get these predictions wrong. by argent · · Score: 1

    1. It will be easier to configure and use.

    How could it get any easier?

    Nah, it'll have more integration with the iTunes Music Store.

    It'll integrate some kind of Dashboard-like visualizer based plugin mechanism for controls that'll work better on Mac OS than Windows.

    It'll have "video podcast" support and a way to let you drop your own files into the podcast tab to automatically share and stream them via .mac as podcasts posted to the iTMS.

    And a new DRM scheme to allow people to put restrictions on their Podcasts and vidcasts.

    1. Re:Watch me get these predictions wrong. by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, one of the things iTunes 7.0 may allow is paid subscription-based podcast downloads. The Rush Limbaugh radio show web sites allows this, and an integrated version will allow podcast downloads from the likes of ESPN Insider podcast archive.

  29. point by point by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    (I hate doing this, seriously)

    Why do I care if it supports FLAC? Apple provides a compressor and decompressor for ALAC, and you can freely convert between lossless formats without fear.

    Better audio output? Prove it.

    I don't need a simple hard drive interface, it'd be tougher for it to be simpler than iTunes, and I already like Apple's menu organizational structure (the one they paid Creative $100M for), so I don't feel the need to rearrange my menus by rearranging my files.

    What does the Cowon do with USB host? Hard-drive based iPods have USB host. But the only thing Apple uses it for is to suck pictures off your digital camera over USB. Does Cowon do something cooler with it? I have to imagine there are cooler things that Apple doesn't bother with.

    The Cowon X5 is rated at 14 hours. The 30G Apple 5G ipod is rated at 14 hours. The 60G Apple 5G iPod is rated at 20 hours. There's an X5L which has much longer battery life, but it's a lot thicker, being 50% thicker than the 60G 5g iPod, and that doesn't even include the screen which appears to protrude another 2mm.

    http://reviews.cnet.com/Cowon_iAudio_X5_20GB/4505- 6490_7-31383684.html

    Now to some more subjective comments.

    Is the better screen quality you are referring to the 262,144 colors? With a good dither scheme in place, you'll never see the difference between 65,536 colors and 262,144. And without a good dither scheme, both will look poor on color and greyscale ramps. I just don't see this as an issue personally. What will be easy to notice is that the screen on the 5G iPod is 320x240 and the screen on the Cowon X5 is 160x128. The iPod has almost 4x the pixels. I thought watching video was annoying staring at a 320x240 screen, 160x128 would really be annoying.

    It doesn't appear the X5 charges off of USB like the 5G iPod does it? I guess that's what the dock is for. This would annoy me highly on the go, as I use my laptop as a charger and AC adapter for my iPod when I go on vacation. It wouldn't be as bothersome in regular use as once you go through the slight extra trouble of hooking up the dock, it works fine from then on as long as you can get home to it each night.

    The X5 looks pretty stylish. However, I think I'd be a tad embarassed when people saw my device said "color sound" on it. That can be solved by keeping it in my pocket though. One thing that can't be solved is that I am left handed and the Cowon is inherently right handed with the placement of that tiny joystick.

    The display remote is simultaneously pretty fancy and also large enough that I'd probaly never use it. It's about 1/4 the size of the main unit. That means I'd never clip it to my shirt, and if I'm going to bring it in and out of my pocket, I might as well bring the whole thing in and out. A college student who keeps his player in his backpack would probably feel differently though. Oh, I see it costs extra. That's fine, since I wouldn't use it, I wouldn't buy it. No harm, no foul.

    It does not appear to be an inherently tougher build. It might be more scratch resistant on the front though, I can't tell from the pics.

    It's nice Cowon sells things like a port breakout at very reasonable prices. A lot cheaper than iPod accessories.

    http://onlinestore.cowonamerica.com/index.asp?Page Action=VIEWPROD&ProdID=48

    I think your advantage list falls short of what it promises. This doesn't look like a bad player though.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re:point by point by jimstapleton · · Score: 1
      Why do I care if it supports FLAC? Apple provides a compressor and decompressor for ALAC, and you can freely convert between lossless formats without fear.
      Yeah, true enough, but last I checked, due to DRM issues, it's hard to get from ALAC to other formats, Could be wrong.
      Better audio output? Prove it. You have to listen to the both to hear it. Several articles I googled (pretty sure it was on the CNET article as you linked) stated that the audio output quality was better.
      I don't need a simple hard drive interface, it'd be tougher for it to be simpler than iTunes, and I already like Apple's menu organizational structure (the one they paid Creative $100M for), so I don't feel the need to rearrange my menus by rearranging my files.
      I guess it's a personal preference. I don't like booting up any extra software to copy over my music. I just plug it in, and toss the files over. No mus/fuss. They are already organized, as that's how I encoded/saved them.

      The Cowon only uses it's USB host for cameras and such, yes. Basically like the IPod, it's for accessing USB mass sotrage devices, didn't realize the iPod had that.

      If I remember correctly, doesn't the CNet article state that the iAudio X5 meets and/or beats it's reported battery life, but the iPod does not?

      While the screen resolution is a bit low, due to it's small size (still slightly bigger than the iPod if I remember correctly), it's not that bad. The size is the biggest pain in both cases.

      Yeah, the "COLOR SOUND" moniker is retarded to say the least, I'll grant that. As for left handed, depending on what I'm doing I'll use either hand, and due to it's small size, it's comfortable with both, though I have slightly large hands, and it's more comfortable in my left hand, though I am right handed, it's no bother.

      As for the toughness of the build: I've dropped it on asphalt from 5+ feet at least twice, cement at lower feet a few more times, and it's fell off my desk onto carpet many times. I usually and in a hurry, and dont bother setting it down gently. It has one *tiny* scratch on the front, and the screen is completely unmarred. There are reports of these taking 10+ foot drops, being stepped on such (I may have stepped on mine, don't remember), but the thing has a very durable metal case. Also, the text reader is nice for grocery and book lists (I hadn't mentioned that). All in all, for many people, it's a nicer player than an iPod, and for many people it isn't. That's why I said it was comparable. Though I'm glad I don't have to use iTunes, that app uses more resources on my computer in idle, than winamp (or XMMS in BSD) does playing music. I know, you can use an iPod without iTunes, that's why I didn't put "no need for iTunes" as an advantage, anda gain, that's subjective. Regardless, I wouln't trade my little X5 for a similar sized iPod if you gave me $100 to sweeten the deal.
      --
      34486853790
      Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
    2. Re:point by point by Graff · · Score: 1
      Yeah, true enough, but last I checked, due to DRM issues, it's hard to get from ALAC to other formats, Could be wrong.

      What DRM issues? The only DRM on anything Apple does is on stuff sold from the iTunes Music Store. Stuff from the iTunes Music Store is not sold in ALAC format, it is sold in M4P format which is a DRM-protected AAC.

      You can choose to rip your CDs in ALAC format which losslessly compresses the sound. There is no DRM involved and you can convert it to another format at your own whim. So if some day you want that ALAC music file in FLAC or MP3 format you can just convert it and suffer no quality loss other than the normal loss of whatever final format you are putting the file into.

      Here's a bit more info on ALAC.
    3. Re:point by point by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

      Why do I care if it supports FLAC? Apple provides a compressor and decompressor for ALAC, and you can freely convert between lossless formats without fear.

      Yeah, true enough, but last I checked, due to DRM issues, it's hard to get from ALAC to other formats, Could be wrong.

      I don't use DRMed content of any sort. There currently is no DRMed ALAC content at all, although I keep hearing rumors of it. Apple lets you burn DRMed content to CD, and then rerip it. If they let you do that with DRMed ALAC, you'd have a perfect copy. Somehow I don't think they'll let you do that.

      Better audio output? Prove it.

      You have to listen to the both to hear it. Several articles I googled (pretty sure it was on the CNET article as you linked) stated that the audio output quality was better.

      That's a cop out. That's not proof. The CNET article just says the music had almost no perceptible hiss (faint praise, if you ask me), it says nothing about versus any iPod (for any rated spec, actually). And saying a lot of people say it is better on the internet means nothing. People say stuff on the internet, for all kinds of reasons. Some believe things to be true that aren't, some are just lying for reasons I don't understand.

      I've listened to many players, including the iPod, and including Cowons (but not the X5). I can say that the iPod is more than good enough and virtually all the others are also good enough that you won't hear any difference between them in any but the most attentive listening. And you'll notice MP3 (and AAC, etc.) sound like crap long before you notice differences between the players themselves.

      The Cowon only uses it's USB host for cameras and such, yes. Basically like the IPod, it's for accessing USB mass sotrage devices, didn't realize the iPod had that.

      Apple charges extra for the camera connector. About $30. Typical Apple.

      If I remember correctly, doesn't the CNet article state that the iAudio X5 meets and/or beats it's reported battery life, but the iPod does not?

      No, it doesn't compare specs to other devices. The iAudio X5 did 14.4 hours (rated 14), the X5L did 27.2 hours (rated 35). It is not mentioned in there, but I have personal info that the iPod exceeds its rated life under normal test conditions. Not by much, but by 0.4 hours or more. For all 3, this is on a new battery. They all will do worse on older batteries.

      While the screen resolution is a bit low, due to it's small size (still slightly bigger than the iPod if I remember correctly), it's not that bad. The size is the biggest pain in both cases.

      It's not a bit low, it's one quarter what the iPod is. Also, it's 2", the 5G iPod display is 2.5".

      As to toughness, an iPod will easily survive the drops you say as long as the drive is not spinning at the time. Same with the iAudio. Although Apple toughened up the front of the 5G iPod to scratches after the first release, I'm sure both the front of the 5G iPod and the display of the 5G iPod are more prone to scraching than the iAudio. I do not treat my iPod well, it slides around inside my car all the time, and it's been lost down the crack between the seat and the center console countless times. I even put it in my pocket with my change last week. That was pretty stupid, it didn't like that. But it still works well. As to stepping on your player, people ran over the Nano with cars. I never saw a test of the Mini that way, but I have to imagine it would take to being run over better than the Nano.

      I agree, iTunes is a CPU hog at idle. I cannot comprehend why this must be so. Still, it's a heck of a lot better than WinAmp, so I put up with it. I'm not thrilled how it has been modified to satisfy the labels over time (reduced music sharing capabilities, etc.).

      Another thing for the Cowon, the disk transfer rate in the CNET review is listed as 14MB/sec. The 5G iPod cannot match that. It's pretty fast, but I don't think it even tops 10MB/sec.

      --
      http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  30. please be a phone, please be a phone by bunions · · Score: 3, Funny

    Dear Steve Jobs,

    Just make a goddamn phone already, Jesus fucking Christ!!

    Sincerely,

    bunions

    --
    there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
  31. Re:standing in the way of progress: telcos by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Only in the US. Here in the UK, everyone I know with both routinely syncs their Macs and 'phones. Most new 'phones support Bluetooth and SyncML; my last three 'phones have supported Bluetooth, and I don't upgrade very often.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  32. Re:9/11 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Wikipedia, the font of all knowledge, has a longer list.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  33. Powerbooks? by david-bo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about updated Merom based Powerbooks? All major PC brands has announced Merom based laptops. Apple can't lag that much without losing brand value etc.

    Ooh, and I want to order a new Powerbook ASAP!

  34. Widescreen Video iPod by nathanh · · Score: 1

    To complement the movie downloads from iTMS.

  35. The iMac Is Now Ready for full 1080i HDTV by camperslo · · Score: 1

    In offering the iMac in a 24" version it didn't just get a bigger screen. It got more pixels. It is 1920*1200, making it able to natively show 1920*1080 (1080i) HDTV at full detail, something most $4000 plasma televisions don't do. They're almost all only supporting 720p natively (720 pixels tall).

    Perhaps it is no coincidence that El Gato Systems set the second week of September as the ship date for their Eye TV Hybrid which allows recent Macs to watch, record and play NTSC (analog) and HDTV (off air ATSC and IIRC, Clear-QAM Cable). The combination of the Eye-TV Hybrid or the earlier Eye TV 500 (digital only) and an iMac makes a great platform for HDTV. I expect that Steve will demo the two together. I've used an Eye-TV 500 on a 20" iMac. Good program material is stunning even with some detail being lost to scaling down for the 1680 pixel width of the screen. Getting the full detail and PVR functionality on a 24" iMac will be even better.

    A relative near a major US city is getting about 20 digital program channels off-air (free), not counting a bunch of foreign-language and religious offerings. Those in remote areas won't be so lucky. But there are those BT downloads, and perhaps Steve will offer us a few more things from iTMS...

  36. Re:9/11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touché.

  37. "In-between market"? by argent · · Score: 1

    Apple doesn't fill the in between market like dell tries to do. You either buy a workstation or a light, friendly desktop.

    Apple doesn't *sell* a regular desktop.

    What you're calling the "in between" market is most of the market. Look at what people are actually buying at any computer store: all-in-one PCs flunk in the market, every time, and the only reason Apple can sell them at all is because they make it the only option if you want a Mac... and they're losing sales from everyone who doesn't want a Mac quite that badly as a result.

    They need a Mac mini "Pro", and it can't cost much more than the current mini. But it seems like Jobs is having second thoughts on going back on his "no ugly monitors" statement.

  38. 399 = 399 in my book by alcmaeon · · Score: 1

    Don't know about you, but $399.00 for the http://onlinestore.cowonamerica.com/index.asp?Page Action=VIEWCATS&Category=6060 Gig iAudio X5 looks a lot like $399.00 for the http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wo/1.RSLID?mco=CC4D3CBB&nclm=iPod60 Gig iPod

    Maybe where you live the prices are different or they do math wrong.

  39. Apple Store down... by TomMorrisey · · Score: 1

    The Apple Store has been replaced with Apple's usual "We'll be right back" sticky note... that's usually a good sign that we'll be seeing some new products today...