Macworld Rumor Round-Up

seamuskrat writes to mention that LoopRumors has a round-up of many of the different Mac rumors making the rounds for the next Macworld. Among the front runners are the ITV, iPhone, and Mobile OSX. From the article: "In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device."

Comments

iTV

[TodMinuit]

If they open up the protocols for this, thus allowing other devices to be compatible and streaming software to be created, say goodbye to over-the-air, cable, and satellite TV.

Knowing Apple, that isn't going to happen. A shame.

Re:iTV

[Baricom]

Just opening it up to video podcasts in your iTunes library would be a significant opportunity for new media providers.

Re:iTV

[Babbster]

There are already open protocols for what you describe, as well as devices that will do what this Apple product is reported to do (even my modded Xbox has no trouble streaming NTSC/480p TV). Yet, over-the-air, satellite and cable TV have gone nowhere. Okay, it's not so odd because as much as broadband Internet adoption is increasing it doesn't have nearly the level of penetration of those three methods of delivering televised content. Even amongst those who do have broadband, they're unlikely (at best) to have the bandwidth necessary to, for example, instantly change between two live HDTV streams (or, in most cases, even receive one), nor would most be able to have simultaneous, different, high-quality live streams going to two or more TVs - OTA, cable and satellite can do all of those things. In my case, with DishNetwork, I've got hundreds of channels slamming into my dish constantly, requiring just a click to switch instantly between them. OTA, satellite and cable transmission have advantages that the Internet (as it is today, at least) just can't match.

In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.

Re:iTV

[Cadallin]

hmmm, The entire idea of Video Podcasts just isn't as compelling to me. Largely because it is MUCH easier and cheaper to do high quality audio, than it is to do video. I mean, hell, the mainstream industry companies have a hard enough time finding talent that can act and not be offensive to the eye. How are people on ultra-tight budgets supposed to do so?

Re:iTV

[R3d M3rcury]

I have a feeling this won't happen, unfortunately.

Take Airport Express. Apple has encrypted all the music that goes from your Mac to the Airport Express so that evil people can't intercept it and steal music, thus making it impossible for anyone other than Apple to take advantage of the audio capabilities of Airport Express in their applications.

It'll work the same here. Some people who have signed the appropriate paperwork may be able to get access to it (eg, El Gato) but I doubt Apple will allow just anybody to work with it.

Re:iTV

[Utopia]

I don't that will happen.
Microsoft Media Center with MCE extenders provides exactly what iTV will provide but adds full HD support.
Xbox 360 is already an extender.

Microsoft licences the tech to others.
So there are several manufactures who build extenders other than Microsoft.
However I haven't seen anything to indicate that it will kill cable/sat or OTA.

Re:iTV

[anagama]

Take Airport Express. Apple has encrypted all the music that goes from your Mac to the Airport Express ... thus making it impossible for anyone other than Apple to take advantage of the audio capabilities of Airport Express in their applications.

I understand how it would be nice to stream other content to an airport express, but I wonder if it isn't simply companies being unmotivated to support the APE. There is for example airfoil which will stream non-itunes to the APE. Perhaps it's a trick though, like redirecting a stream through iTunes somehow and thus avoiding the issue of directly communicating the APE?

Re:iTV

[Baricom]

I agree in principle, but the problem is that iTV is going to hook up to a TV, so I'd imagine that any video content is going to fit better on that medium than purely audio content. If audio was its target functionality, Apple should have added an integrated display.

I actually think the next hurdle to be crossed is going to be live distribution. CNN and Fox News trade on the idea of immediate access to information; other people are also fascinated by the potential of live webcasts as a means of staying connected. Adding streaming to iTV, combined with an efficient and accessible delivery system, would send Apple's mindshare through the roof.

Re:iTV

[TodMinuit]

Not everyone has HDTV, nor does first-out Internet TV need to be high-quality. Just look at YouTube as an example. Even so, you are completely correct the bandwidth on the user-side simply isn't there -- yet. Most people have DSL, probably provided by the the phone company. Do you not think that the phone would love to put the cable companies out of business? Fiber-to-the-door is coming, slowly but surely.

Second, although there are devices and protocol that can do what is needed, none of the providers of them have the kind of backing and connections that Apple has. With an established, positive relationship with media companies, Apple could (and has) help push true Internet-delivered TV.

In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.

Probably true, but I can dream of having literally every episode of every TV show just a remote click away, and still complaining that nothing is on TV. (You heard it here first!)

Re:iTV

[TodMinuit]

I'm saying what we need -- nay, what consumers need to demand -- are the HTTP and HTML, the Apache and Firefox for Internet TV.

Re:iTV

[soft_guy]

I disagree. ZeFrank's The Show is excellent. Podstarrunner is excellent. It is possible for people to create good content without a huge budget.

Re:iTV

[JavaLord]

I mean, hell, the mainstream industry companies have a hard enough time finding talent that can act and not be offensive to the eye. How are people on ultra-tight budgets supposed to do so?

They aren't. What they can do is focus on niche markets with their low budgets that the big guys can't hit.

Re:iTV

[metamatic]

Actually, knowing Apple they'll just use a trivial variant of a standard protocol, but fail to document it--like how AirTunes uses a variant of RTSP.

Re:iTV

[stewbacca]

In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.

Not until the Buggles release a YouTube video about it.

Re:iTV

[Magus255]

Yeah it would be great if they opened it.. to bad it will never happen, but at least its not microsoft.

Re:iTV

[arpoodle]

iirc, no 3rd party is currently making extenders, and outside the US the ONLY extender that was ever available was the X-Box 360. MS has missed a trick with the media center and it's extender functionality could have been fantastic. As it is, it's a1/2 solution. Should Apple pick this up, and build a complete solution that 'works', I reckon it could pound MS MCE into the dust.

a

Re:iTV

[Utopia]

You are mistaken.
See http://search.live.com/results.aspx?q=%22media%20c enter%20extender%22&scope=products&FORM=BPRE

XBox 360 is the only Vista compatible extender.
But several manufactures have announced MCE extenders for Vista at CES.

Re:iTV

[arpoodle]

no.. it is you who are mistaken.

Noone mentioned anything about Vista.

I'm running XP MCE 2005, which has had extenders available from Linksys among others, however all those non x-box extenders weren't avaailable outside the US.

http://www.laptopmag.com/Review/Linksys-Media-Exte nder-WMCE54AG.htm

a

ITV?

[able1234au]

Isnt there a british TV Channel called ITV? If so, that might be why he wont call it iTV.

Re:ITV?

[wo1verin3]

It won't be called iTV because it's too similar to Elgato's EyeTV product.

Re:ITV?

[Stephen Samuel]

yeah. ITV in Britain, and CITV in Canada (which pushes itself as ITV).

SUN Microsystems got bit by this sort of thing when they labeled their online directory service Yellow Pages. British telecom's lawyers got all over it, and SUN ended up renaming it NIS, but they never bothered to renaim the scripts which continue to these days with names like YP, YPCAT, YPWHICH, /var/YP/ ....

And, of course, Apple also got into trouble with Apple Records back in the '70s ... and then again when they released the I-POD (they had promised Apple records that they wouldn't go into music distribution).

As such I can see them being really itchy about releasing a TV oriented product who'se name would start dead in the sights of ITV's tradmark lawyers in both Canada and Britain (not to mention any number of other venues).

Re:ITV?

[RotateLeftByte]

CITV is also used in the UK for "Childrens ITV"
ITV has several channels not ITV-1 which was the original second channel in the UK. ITV-2, ITV-3 & ITV-4 are all available on Cable, Satellite and Freeview (Broadcast Digital TV)

Apple will certainly be in the sights of the ITV Lawyers if they want to call their product "iTV".

Re:ITV?

[nuggetman]

It won't be called iTV because it's too similar to Elgato's EyeTV product.


It won't be called iTV because Steve Jobs said it wouldn't, and he's the guy who gets to make that decision (being CEO and all).

Re:ITV?

[adnonsense]

There's a Thai channel called ITV too (warning: site does not render well with Mozilla-based browsers).

Re:ITV?

[DarkJC]

Why is there speculation over whether it will be called iTV or not when he said back when he announced it that it WASN'T going to be called iTV?

Some rumors not listed

[PapayaSF]

I've read 'em in the last year, for whatever they're worth:

1. Leopard may have some built-in P2P functionality, allowing Apple to do BitTorrent-like distribution of movies from the iTunes Store. You could earn credit by being a seed.
2. Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here.

Re:Some rumors not listed

[Anonymous Coward]

Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here.

Wow, no way. There's been work toward language extensions to "hint" to the compiler what can be parallelized - Sun's done some of this work as well - and fancier compilers, for C and for higher-level languages. But it's not an OS thing. The kernel won't just magically make your already-installed copy of Photoshop go four times as fast - Adobe would need to recompile, at the very least. More realistically, they'd have to do a bunch of profiling, add hints around the bottlenecks, possibly reorganize some algorithms and data structures to avoid mutating data structures all processors will be accessing. The best Apple can really do - short of an incredibly complicated JIT-like machine code translation thing that would be a Herculean effort to produce - is give the vendors better tools.

Re:Some rumors not listed

[JoshJ]

Well, one obvious thing that can be done is to put each app on a core if it's a single-core app. There's no reason for your browser, word processor, e-mail, and spreadsheet all to be running on the first core even if they're all single-core apps. This alone would at least help out with multitasking.

Re:Some rumors not listed

[null-und-eins]

This already happens and is called scheduling. (It is in no way OS X specific - all modern OSs take advantage of multiple cores.) Processes are distributed over cores (CPUs). A process is not tied to a specific core but can use one core during a time slice and another one later.

Re:Some rumors not listed

[carbona]

Although it seems unlikely given the continued state of RIAA paranoia and greed over digital music distribution, I would hope built-in P2P in Leopard would also allow for lossless encoded music on the iTMS. If so, I would definitely consider buying from it.

Re:Some rumors not listed

[JavaLord]

Leopard may have some built-in P2P functionality, allowing Apple to do BitTorrent-like distribution of movies from the iTunes Store. You could earn credit by being a seed.

I wonder what the ISP's would think of that. I know comcast has something in their ToS about not reselling bandwidth...I wonder if this would qualify?

Re:Some rumors not listed

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here.

Wow, no way... The kernel won't just magically make your already-installed copy of Photoshop go four times as fast - Adobe would need to recompile, at the very least.

Actually, one of the announced features of Leopard is a way to take some existing OpenGL applications and spawn a second "feeder" thread for the graphics card which encompasses some of the functionality of the OpenGL libraries. Theoretically, this means and OpenGL application designed to run in a single thread could obtain up to double the speed on Leopard with a multi-core processor, provided it was CPU bound and exactly half the bottleneck was feeding the GPU. Realistically, this will probably result in some more modest benefits, if any at all for a given application. Still, it is incorrect to assume that the only way an application can benefit from multiple cores is through a recompile, rather than through OS improvements.

Article

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the site is being /.'d. Here you all go.

As promised, LoopRumors is posting a round-up of all the rumors we expect to become a reality at this year's Macworld Expo. Please take into consideration that the following article is purely speculation, and nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says it is. This is our best hypothesis as to what we might expect at Macworld based on the information we've been given. If you have any comments or questions regarding this round-up, or the Macworld keynote, you may address them here. So here's what we have:

iTV:
In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device.

Leopard:
Steve Jobs has been touting Apple's next generation operating system, Leopard, for quite some time. He promised to hold back on unveiling some 'Top Secret' features so Microsoft wouldn't be able to copy them prior to their Vista release. We initially thought Steve might surprise the crowd with an early release of the new OS at Macworld, but that seems to be more unlikely as the time draws near. New information targets a release date of Saturday, March 24th, exactly 6 years to the day of the initial OS X release.

Mobile OS X:
LoopRumors told you first that Apple is developing a mobile, 'lite' version of its OS to be used in smaller devices. It's possible this OS may make its debut at Macworld. Some of Leopard's hidden features may have tie-ins to this mobile OS. One possible 'Top Secret' feature of Leopard may be the ability to sync with the scaled down version of itself.

New Macs:
After all, this is Macworld. We expect Apple to introduce new Macs at the Expo. Signs point to new Mac Pros, with Core 2 Quad processors by Intel. Apple's flagship models have been lagging since there is no native Intel version of Adobe's creative Suite software available yet.

New Displays:
Apple recently discontinued its iSight camera which enables iChat video conferencing for computers without built-in displays. Since updating to Intel processors, all of its computers with the exception of the Mac Pros have included built-in iSight cameras. Information suggests that Apple will include iSight cameras in its new displays which are expected to be unveiled at Macworld. Some reports have expected the new displays to come in sizes up to 50-inches. The new displays are said be even thinner, with a lighter design and have more mobility.

Partnerships:
We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google. Also, we expect more movie studios to make their films available on iTunes. Apple has worked very hard to ensure its iTunes Store stays up-to-date and offers a wide variety of media. Currently, only Disney movies are available for download on iTunes, but we expect that to change in the very near future. This won't happen over night, but the information we gathered suggests Apple will offer new films from other movie studios with the launch of iTV.

One more thing...

iPhone?
Notice the question mark. We are skeptical about this one. So much speculation about an Apple Phone has been made all over the internet and television, that we are going to remain conservative on this one. So-called authorities in the tech business have claimed unabashedly, that Apple will deliver a new iPhone at Macworld. At this point, the possibility of an iPhone at Macworld may be more wishful thinking than actual concrete evidence. We do believe that Apple is developing an iPhone, and there is information to support that. But Apple is

Re:Article

[kripkenstein]

TFA: "We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google."

This comment might be true and accurate. Additionally, it might be true.

Re:Article

[jgardner100]

Mobile OS X: Sigh,they had the Newton OS, a mobile OS designed from the ground up and they dumped it, now they follow the Microsoft lead of squeezing their main OS into a matchbox. I hope this one doesn't pan out.

Site been /.-ed but here's the overview:

[guruevi]

iTV, the $299 TV device showed last time
Leopard, the new OS
New displays, some rumors about that going around
iLife '07, new year, new iLife, new iWorks
video iPod, new full video iPod's? Maybe
Apple Phone, lots of vibe about that
Mac Pro with 8 processors. Intel got the chips, did Apple implement them?

Re:Site been /.-ed but here's the overview:

[figleaf]

iTV, the $299 TV device

Media Center Extenders sell between te range of $199 to $299 so this price seems to be right on target.

"Hidden features"

[Stephen Tennant]

I've cracked the Macworld secret - selective, vowel exclusive acronyms!

Digital Lifestyle Device = DiLDo

Re:"Hidden features"

[zeromorph]

You are talking about this, right?

12" Macbook Pro?

[carbona]

That's what I'm hoping for anyway. Dedicated graphics, matte screen option, and under 4 lbs. would seal the deal so I can finally upgrade my aging 12" Powerbook.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[Kufat]

I hope that if they do release a 12" Macbook Pro, they realize that 1024x768 just doesn't cut it anymore. I'm typing this on a Toshiba laptop with a 1400x1050 12.1" display, which I find to be quite readable at arm's length despite my poor eyesight.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[mrwatanabe]

Agreed. I don't need a laptop to be 15" or 17" in size. I'd prefer it to be small, slim and genuinely portable with enough power to get the job done. /cancels innuendo mode. Please Apple, a 12" Macbook Pro with dedicated graphics card. That would be a great late xmas present for me (even if I did have to pay for it myself).

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[flewp]

Sorta OT, but I've been wanting a marriage of a Cintiq and a laptop for awhile. I've thought it would be a good product for Apple, what with the marketing writing itself: "The SketchBook". That, and Apple likes to target the artist/graphic design crowd. I have no idea how tablet laptops compare in terms of their resolution (input resolution, not display resolution) and pressure sensitivity (if any), but I'm guessing they're not quite to the level of a Cintiq (or a Graphire or Intuos). I'm sure such a device would be rather expensive, probably in the 4-5k dollar range, but I'd pick one up in a heartbeat to have a digital sketchbook to carry around.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[hritcu]

For me a 13'' MacBook with Firewire 800 and extension capabilities would be enough. I'm typing this from my MacBook and I find its form factor very attractive (as tall as the 12'' PowerBook, only wider). Sure it's not light, and it also has the glossy display I was very scared about at first, but which I find quite nice after some time of getting used. On the other hand, MacBooks are much more affordable compared to the MacBook Pros, so I'm thinking of buying one for every member of my family.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[Pink Tinkletini]

They could be waiting for Leopard's fully resolution-independent UI to announce a high-DPI laptop. This would be the Macworld to do it, I guess.

As a side benefit, this would finally put to rest the silly notion that a Mac's hardware is separable from its software, any more than the mind is separable from the body. It's holistic, I tell ya.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[mrchaotica]

If Apple comes out with that, I'm going to have to kill someone -- after waiting about six months, I broke down and bought a (non-Mac) Thinkpad X60 tablet to replace my iBook (granted, I had to wait for the X60 too, but I was hopeing for a tablet Mac the whole time).

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[drsmithy]

To this day, I remain amazed Apple didn't take the obvious path and differentiate the black MacBook with (at least) a dedicated video card as a replacement for the 12" PB.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any laptop purchase should wait for flash-assisted drives and Blu-Ray DVDs.
If my 12" iBook can only hold out a little longer.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[Sentry21]

For what it's worth, the glossy screen on the Macbooks is far superior to the matte screen available previously. Colours are crisper and more vivid, the screen is brighter, and I've never been in a situation where glare has been in an issue, whether in coffee shops, at work, on the couch at home, in the kitchen, in bed, or outdoors.

People knock the glossy screen, but in real-life use, it's far superior.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[TheoMurpse]

Me too! /AOL

Before I studied in Japan a couple years ago, I bought the smallest cheap laptop I could get. I bought an Averatec 3200 Series that is 12.1" and well under 4 lbs. Now I'm shopping around for a Mac Book, and would really like to have a Mac Book Pro that was smaller than 15". The Mac Books are nice, but I wonder if I could run XGL on it (cannot with my current laptop, as it's 64MB of onboard graphics, similar to the MacBook).

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[drinkypoo]

Do you (or does anyone) know of a tablet with firewire boot? That's the one mac feature I actually care about.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[Incidence]

Tablet PC's already do what you want and at a lower price point as well. Most of them use digitizers from Wacom with input resolution of 512 DPI with the same pressure levels. The Tablet PC's are roughly equal to the last gen Intuos and Cintiq and the same as the current gen Graphire tablets. There are some models of tablet that use touchscreens like PDA's but thats the exeption. I have a tablet pc and I do use it as a sketchbook all the time. The only thing to keep in mind is that most tablets are designed to be light so they are underpowered and can't run programs like Painter, but there are programs written just for tablets. ArtRage is one I've found useful.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[CoughDropAddict]

The first time I tried Aperture on my 15" MacBook pro, I understood why there is no longer a 12" in the "Pro" line. The whole UI is designed around having a wide rectangular display. It would be almost unusable on a 12" PowerBook-sized screen. I haven't used all the other "Pro" apps, but I would bet that they are following suit.

Sure, not everyone who uses a MacBook Pro will use Aperture or other "Pro" apps, but that's who Apple is marketing the "Pro" to.

Re:12" Macbook Pro?

[CmdrPorno]

They could do one under 3 lbs. if they ditched the internal optical drive. I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

Nothing exciting.

[solitu]

All of these products are already available in the market from several manufactures.

Apple is just playing catch-up.

Re:Nothing exciting.

[phantomcircuit]

Who moded that as funny?

seriously....

Re:Nothing exciting.

[stewbacca]

I've never called anyone a troll or labeled anything as flame bait because I hate those terms and think people throw that stuff around too easily. This, however, is flame bait, and you are a troll. Would you care to elaborate, or am I just falling for the bait?

Re:Nothing exciting.

[sarathmenon]

heh, and now you were modded funny too :)

Re:Nothing exciting.

[644bd346996]

I think that what is funny is the similarity to the situation right before Apple launched the ipod. Look how well that turned out.

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257&tid=107

Re:Nothing exciting.

[Llywelyn]

No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.

agreed, completely.

[adam]

let's look at Colbert Report and The Daily Show. These run on one of the smaller cable-only networks (Comedy Central), and many /. readers should be familiar with them. Daily show has a team of 40+ writers (iirc) and Jon Stewart (the "face" of The Daily Show) makes $1.5M+/yr (last I heard). Now, surely by doing a weekly show instead of a daily one, you could probably operate with substantially less writers (maybe three or four, if they are quite good), and maybe the face of your podcast is even going to be as comedically talented as Stewart (which is very doubtful, the guy is a genius). But there are still so many other elements to the production. Assuming you're broadcasting in standard def or below (320x240), you could get away with having simple DV cameras ($3k/each), of which you'll need at *LEAST* two for coverage, and probably would want three. Lighting will mean several thousand watts of very hot incandescent lights, or more expensive fluorescents. Cameramen. Production staff (cue card/teleprompter guy, boom operators, etc). Editing (equipment, trained editor, etc). A set. It gets expensive very quickly.

The bottom line is, shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report have millions of dollars of budget per year, and even their day to day production values are pretty crappy. Comedy Central may run a lot of teaser compositing done by Interspectacular, but for the most part the graphics in the shows we're talking about are pretty low in quality (and this is coming from productions who have millions of dollars to play with.. if they have trouble coming up with slick graphics on a show-to-show basis, imagine the hurdles you will face).

Even if you're lucky and you already own a lot of the equipment and posess many of the skills needed, you will still be several orders of magnitude below anything produced for TV nowadays. The only place where video podcasts may excel is in giving people *SUBSTANCE* that they can't find on tv-- a different opinion or commentary from what you normally hear from broadcast media, access to interviews and coverage of subjects that would never make it on tv (because they are too specialized, or too tabboo or whatever the case). For instance, a Vegan Cooking Podcast may be able to draw many viewers simply because even the most specialized shows (on the cooking channel) don't ever cover vegan foods (let alone regularly devote a timeslot to it).

Video podcasts can definitely outperform traditional broadcast media in some ways, but to even imagine that they will supplant/usurp regaulr television is naive. (I know one post mentioned "goodbye to regular tv" and another mentioned this would be a "good opportunity" for new media.. so I want to make it clear I am not combining those posts inside my head.. re: post #2, this could indeed be a good opporunity for new media.. but even under the best circumstances, it won't even draw a fraction of a percent of users away from watching American Idol [which is what i am trying to say by agreeing with my parent post])

However, let me temper my analysis by saying that obviously some videos on YouTube, with low production values, have garnered hundreds of thousands or even (in a few cases) millions of views. It would be unlikely that all but a handful of video podcasts could regularly do this themselves (other than LonelyGirl15 and a few select others, most of these videographers don't have repeat success), but some might see this type of success.. which, when measured against the daily viewing of even reruns of Alton Brown or MythBusters, may not shatter any records, but it's still pretty impressive.

As someone who has done a lot of independent videography.. (spending one to two years shooting and traveling just to put together a film wit

Re:agreed, completely.

[Cadallin]

To put it another way, unless you're going into porn, a DV camera and a pretty girl just ain't gonna cut it. Realistically, even good writing (and that's pretty rare anyway) isn't going to save Video Casting.

Podcasting is where its at for amateur media, in my opinion. Anybody with a Mic and a dream can compete quality wise with Talk Radio (I exaggerate, but not that much, as little as $1000-$2000 will get you equipment that, at least from a listener's perspective is as good or better than Broadcast, and at a certain point, more depends on what you're willing to spend on Bandwidth, than the gear you're using). Audio just gives a much better bang for the buck at this point. Anybody attempting, for example the niche Vegan cooking show you describe, would be better served by making it an Audio, rather than a Video, production.

Re:agreed, completely.

[slashbart]

I saw your 'too taboo' link to the Loose Change documentary. This compelling low budget documentary is probably very far of the mark, and I'd like to point people also to the following links

• Randi.org
• Popular Mechanics
• blog

Re:agreed, completely.

[Professor_UNIX]

Assuming you're broadcasting in standard def or below (320x240), you could get away with having simple DV cameras ($3k/each)

$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old. A $3k video camera better fluff your dick between shots for that kind of money.

Re:agreed, completely.

[SirWinston]

> Audio just gives a much better bang for the buck at this point

Not for long. Can we really expect podcast-type audio-only content to stay as popular as it currently is, now that YouTube and other online video options are competing with them for our time? No. Portable video devices are phasing out portable audio-only devices in all but the value segment. Mainstream media companies are now also competing for our Internet A/V time with "webisodes." Audio-only net content (excluding music) will be getting a dwindling portion of the viewership/listenership pie as net video content and devices to access it multiply.

> Anybody attempting, for example the niche Vegan cooking show you
> describe, would be better served by making it an Audio, rather
> than a Video, production.

Today--maybe. 6 to 12 months from now--no, because video content continues to increase as does the ease of accessing it (iTV will be a quantum leap in this regard, too). Audio-only won't be able to compete for our limited time in the very near future with all the YouTube(esque) phenoms and increasing webisode content.

Re:agreed, completely.

[Orange Crush]

$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old. A $3k video camera better fluff your dick between shots for that kind of money.

If you want it to look decent in a studio environment, then yes, you need a pro-sumer grade video camera. Usually the differences lie in better optics & control over focus and exposure settings, multiple CCDs for better color definition (especially important when you have bright studio lights if you want decent color balance/gamut). There are a *lot* more factors to a camera's video quality than just resolution.

Re:agreed, completely.

[Andy Somnifac]

$3K for the camera is still a bit much. If I were looking to do a video cast I'd be looking at the Canon GL2 for $1700 (after a manufacturer's rebate). The porn industry loves them, with good reason. They're small, easy to use, excellent quality, and inexpensive for what you're getting.

For only a bit more than $3000 you could be doing HD with an XH-A1. And I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that make other possible choices, but Canon is what I'm familiar with.

Re:agreed, completely.

[UglyTool]

$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old.

Try this.

I guarantee your $300 camera is not of this quality and, while it might look good to you, does not come remotely close to what is considered broadcast quality. Quality still comes at a premium.

Re:agreed, completely.

[aplusjimages]

I don't think my boss at work is going to let me watch a video cast, but he don't mind if I listen to a podcast. "Oh boy."

Re:agreed, completely.

[pascalpp]

you're missing the point. have a look at youtube. there is a huge mass of content-producers out there that don't know the first thing about video production or even writing. they just turn on their webcam and go. and there is a huge audience for this content. video podcasts are just like youtube channels, but with the ease of use that is pretty much unique to itunes.

Re:agreed, completely.

[bigpat]

Video podcasts can definitely outperform traditional broadcast media in some ways, but to even imagine that they will supplant/usurp regaulr television is naive.

Ah but you are missing the point. Podcasts are a distribution mechanism for video content, not a separate form of content. Podcasts could indeed supplant regular television as a broadcast medium, just as the Internet has supplanted television and newspapers for a lot of our entertainment already. The big players will just move to the new medium, as they have been doing. So it isn't that the lone podcasters can match the superior technical skills and equipment of the big media companies, it is that they don't need to in order for video podcasts to become more popular. People like to download videos, and bigger players will either move or evolve into this online space, just as they have in other traditional media areas that have moved online. The biggest difference is that now instead of the only 5 content distributors that you had with broadcast licenses and cable monopolies you will have a top 5 out of millions, the only thing to stop this is if the ISP monopolies are allowed to begin to discriminate against Internet traffic that competes with their content.

Re:agreed, completely.

[7Prime]

NO, $3000 is VERY low. Sony GL2s cost about $2000, and they're basically crap. One thing that is basically a neccessity if you're going to look semi professional, is WEIGHT, because ligheter cameras are just going to jiggle like crazy every time you do a simple pan on a tripod, or even just standuing still. I work as a videographer and producer in a very small local network station (50 odd so employees, one of the smallest NBC affiliates in the country). We use JVCs that cost in the neighborhood of $7000-$9000, and they START to look semi-professional, but even then, they leave much to be desired. Add to that a $500+ harddrive unit, and $100+ batteries, a $300 tripod, and you're getting somewhere. $3000 is good for home movies, but I wouldn't want to broadcast that the public.

Audio, on the other hand (my degree is in audio design, actually), is pretty cheap to get good. For one thing, even most stations either don't have the time or the knowhow to do really high-quality audio, and most of it has to be done on the fly. If you do pre-recorded sound, with a little effort in EQing and proper compression, you can make an SM58 ($100) sound not too far off from a professional live radio broadcast. We're a lot more accustomed to low-quality audio than video (unless you watch a lot of pr0n). And "professional" mics don't start a $3000, like someone said... many mics used in studio recordings start at just over $250. The Shure SM7 is one of the most widely used broadcast mics, and we're talking $350. B&H has a package deal that coems with a gooseneck mic boom, pop filter, and XLR cable for $500, and you're SET.

Re:agreed, completely.

[meta-monkey]

But the chance of that content replacing regular TV broadcasts is zero.

Re:agreed, completely.

[Andy Somnifac]

"$3000 is good for home movies, but I wouldn't want to broadcast that the public."

Then you should let those news programs that use Canon (not Sony) GL2s for ENG work. I work regularly with people in ENG, and documentarians, that use the GL2 in their workflow and produce very professional results.

And the comment that $3000 is a bit high was meant to apply to just the camera itself. Of course there is much more involved, just like in any other field, but we are talking about video casting, and not attempting to produce the next primetime hit.

Re:agreed, completely.

[dastardly_villain]

Yeah, but we're talking an entry level at $1500, not $3K. I have a Sony HDR-HC1 HDV camcorder and along with a bit of tweaking Final cut it really kicks and you can't tell the difference between any other prosumer cam until you get in the $10K range and even then it's close.

To expand on that, I work at a multi-million dollar film studio. We use two $80,000 Sony HD cameras for some of our work, and two $4,000 Sony HVR-Z1U's for the rest (there are other cameras but I'm using these as an example). It really takes a good eye to tell the difference and some professionals have been surprised at the quality of the Z1U. It can't replace the big cams, but it's not completely out of it's league and works as a great portable supplement.

Just like in audio, if the end user (the general audience of viewers) can't tell the difference in quality of true HD and HDV or Film and Digital (to use a different example) standards drop overtime. Meanwhile production costs drop as technology improves.

Re:agreed, completely.

[Mister Whirly]

Yep. Considering the only video on YouTube that doesn't look like utter crap is professionally shot and probably violating copyright laws, you are correct. I still don't know how Google thinks they will make any money off this...

Re:agreed, completely.

[Wdomburg]

People's expectation for video quality on the web is sufficiently lower than even SD broadcast since it's largely bandwidth constrained. When the bar is set for 320x240, you don't need studio level production to satisfy the audience.

I'd expect that for certain types of video, you could easily get away with a high end consumer camera. There's several on the market that have many of the features you listed; e.g. the PV-GS500 has multiple CCDs, focus ring, manual exposure settings and reasonable optics for a street price of around $700. No doubt it would be completely unsuitable for broadcast work, but for amatuer web video?

Re:agreed, completely.

[Cadallin]

There are lots of reasons why Audio Content will remain compelling for the near future. I can drive and listen to a podcast (or radio) show. Lots of employers, as noted in another reply, won't complain about employees listening to music or talk radio, but watching the equivalent of TV? hah! I also absolutely disagree with your final point. Video talent (and the Talent is important, again, unless you're doing porn, a pretty girl and a DV cam is not adequate for compelling video content.) will be getting more expensive in the future due to higher demand, it will not be getting cheaper.

High quality video production is EXPENSIVE, and that that is not changing. Cameras ain't even the beginning of the costs associated with video production. Expensive Lighting systems, Sets, Costuming, and a good number of behind the scenes personnel, and more, are all absolutely necessary for even watchable production values. Why would I watch poorly produced, acted, and edited video, starring people with bad to no make-up, utterly failing to cover up their offensive-to-man-and-god ugly faces? Consider this: Would any number of Talk radio personalities be ANYWHERE near as popular if the listeners were subjected to their ugly mugs all the time? Would people still enjoy listening to Rush Limbough rant if they had to stare at his pock marked visage the whole time? Hell no!

I can be amused listening to some pasty skinned geek rant on some topic or another, providing his voice is at least vaguely listenable ( and that's much easier to correct in post processing than an Ass ugly face), but if I'm expected to look at them? Yeah right!

Re:agreed, completely.

[gobbo]

GL2s cost about $2000, and they're basically crap

The Canon GL-2 is a bit tinny feeling, yes. But that light weight makes it a good field camera when you have to drag it around by foot, and since it's so inexpensive you can spend more on a nice tripod head and mic kit. Plus, it has a 20x zoom and many other nice little prosumer features that make it a bargain MiniDV camera. While most documentarians would prefer sony's prosumer offerings like vintage PD-170's because they're rugged, the GL-2 holds its own. It is NOT a shoulder-mount camera, so yes it will shake when hand-held. It's a worthwhile trade-off for field work, and cheapo studio work.

The National Film Board of Canada is one of the world's best producers of documentaries, going right back to the origins of the craft. Their best-selling doc ever, Being Caribou, was shot entirely on a GL-2, because it was the best camera for the job, and survived.

Pro shooters have to get used to these tiny cameras, and the different techniques for getting a stable image out of them. Hint: get the right tripod, or put your elbows on something stable.

Re:agreed, completely.

[tigersha]

The same gos for still photography vs videography. Someone who is vaguely talented can shoot art-class pics with a cheap camera that he picked up at EBay. Even a total amateur with an instamatic can shoot okish stuff. No way with video. Not even close.

The dream of hordes of amateur filmmakers doing the sam as hordes of amateur photographers ain't gonna hapen. The extra costs, infrastructure and compromises involved in shooting 30 photos per second and adding audio to boot is simply an order of magnitude more difficult.

Re:agreed, completely.

[Anarchitect_in_oz]

The ISP only have any pull due to bandwidth.
And the broadcasters have the means to break the ISP monopolies.
Well at least in Australia they do, what with the government giving the existing players enough spectrum with the move to digital to push at least 2 channels and a chunk of other data. Which would be more than enough bandwidth to push all the content they want to.
Sell, lend or give the viewers a company set top box and treat all the shows as Pushed not Pulled Podcasts.
Hey add a trusted-torrent over a wi-fi mesh between set-top boxes. Traditional media holds firm without being held by the bandwidth balls.

Blu-Ray Drives

[nathanh]

Say no more.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives

[MojoStan]

Subject: Blu-Ray Drives

Say no more.

If you say Blu-Ray drives, then more should be said:

• updated Cinema Displays with HDCP-enabled DVI ports
• updated graphics cards (with HDCP support) in Mac Pros
• HDMI port added to Blu-Ray MacBook Pro
• updated DVD Player app (maybe renamed)

Re:Blu-Ray Drives

[zeromorph]

Know what I mean? Nudge nudge. Say no more.

I wouldn't expect something like this now, squire! Not even in the new MacPros, even less in the MacBooks, or iMacs.

Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

I bet she does, I bet she does!

Re:Blu-Ray Drives

[MojoStan]

"HDMI port added to Blu-Ray MacBook Pro"

Why would you need that? I'm expecting a small DVI-VGAesque connector which is white which is DVI-HDMI, for maybe $5. It'll probably sell extremely well to non-mac users too.

I also wondered why HDMI (instead of DVI w/HDCP) when I read about the first Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks. In case you didn't know, Sony's Blu-Ray notebooks and Toshiba's HD-DVD notebooks have HDMI ports instead of DVI ports. HDMI has already become the standard high-quality video output port (replacing DVI) on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks.

I suspect it's because they think many users will want to connect their Blu-Ray notebook to high-definition home theater systems, and one cable (HDMI) is much more convenient than two cables (DVI and digital audio). Since HD televisions far outnumber set top Blu-Ray players, a Blu-Ray notebook would probably get a lot of use as a portable Blu-Ray movie player for all those digital televisions that lack a Blu-Ray player.

Also, HDMI-to-DVI converters should be cheap for those that want to connect to their Cinema Displays. In fact, Sony includes HDMI-to-DVI converters with their Blu-Ray notebooks.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives

[theurge14]

I'm still not sure why we need the DVD Player app now that we have Front Row. It's a bit annoying to have to close the DVD Player app when I put a DVD in and then go into Front Row with the remote.

I suppose I could change the default behavior, but I'm lazy... and it's supposed to be Mac-easy, dammit. :)

Re:Full text of article

[spathi-wa]

redundant? give me a break. TFA is slashdotted. mod parent up.

new software not new hardware

[cvos]

I predict there will be an as yet unknown piece of software announced by the man in the black turtleneck. It seems Apple generally announces new hardware in the early summer and fall. Don't expect the ipod picoshizzle. By 'unknown' this excludes the iphone, itv, upgraded 'book, monitors/TV's.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[goodcow]

What the hell are you talking about? $1200 gets you a high-spec 17-inch iMac.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[wootest]

I agree with you, but if the grandparent wants expansion slots I'm afraid he's right. There's some demand for an iMac with more expansion capabilities for those that don't need Xeon-level performance and has been for quite some time. I have to say I'm pining for this model less and less with the iMac getting more and more technically competent with what it's got, but it'd still be a worthwhile addition to the lineup.

RE: Mobile OS X

[soft_guy]

There was a rumor in 1997-8 about Apple developing a mobile version of MacOS to replace the Newton.

I still don't think this is going to happen.

Re: Mobile OS X

[spiderbitendeath]

Apple had a mobile MacOS for a pen based computer along time ago. They dumped working on it because it'd compete with the Newton. Then Steve Jobs returned and dumped Newton. Now there are rumors of a mobile MacOS, again.

Re: Mobile OS X

[soft_guy]

Apple had a mobile MacOS for a pen based computer along time ago. They dumped working on it because it'd compete with the Newton. Then Steve Jobs returned and dumped Newton. Now there are rumors of a mobile MacOS, again. Was it that it would compete with the Newton, or just that the Newton was designed from the ground up to use pen input while MacOS isn't?

The one I was specifically referring to was the Allegro-Lite rumors which Apple came straight out and denied on the Newton developer conference call in 1997.

Disagreed, completely.

[savage1r]

Yeah, I have a few questions about the statements you make here. $3k for a DV camera? I don't think so, and I also don't think the daily show is using DV cameras either. You can pick up a great Canon GL1 for $1.5 and I'm pretty sure the daily show is using betacam or an equivalent which is probably pushing the $20k range. I also think they're using 4 if not 5 of them including one on a crane. The daily show has no need for boom operators (maybe 1 max for backup), I know for a fact they use wireless mics. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure standard Def maxes out at 640x480 and betacam and DV will cover that very well. The editing equipment would probably be minimal for a show like this, maybe 4-5 avids max and I would *HOPE* they had at least 1 trained editor, lord knows I've seen what happens when you have *untrained* editors, it's not a pretty sight. I really don't see how The Daily Show and Colbert Report's graphics are THAT bad, I'd say they have MARGINALLY less quality than network news braodcast and their graphics(for story bits) are often well done and if not, it's on purpose. The fact that it's taken you 2 years to make a 1 hour film is a little dicey. Is that shooting time or complete pre-production, production, post-production? That either covers alot of travel or is just one of those "labor of love" productions that you have to space out because of money and time constraints. Otherwise, I don't know, I've shot 1 hour shorts in 2 weekends and 2 of them are going to be hitting the film festivals pretty soon. I guess it depends exactly what the situation is. All in all though, I'd say your analysis of the Daily/Colbert report is a tad off, but hey, I could be wrong.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[Beefslaya]

On a personal note:

I purchased a MacBook (black) and maxed out the RAM at 2GB (Crucial), all for a mere $1750 dollars.
Also a Mac Mini Core Duo and maxed out that RAM, for about $850

Both of them kick the crap out of my desktop (P4 HT 3.0E Ghz) which I haven't booted in a month.

I'm not a fan of the 400 dollar rebated notebook from Compaq.

I guess it depends on your preferences. I was able to effectively eliminate the Windows based PC's in my life for Under the 3 grand you speak of.

Maybe you should change your supplier?

iTv vs ITV

[mattpointblank]

Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product

I imagine this is because there is a popular UK television channel called ITV, and Apple have saw what troubles Gmail had in the UK over name copyrights (and most Brits haven't even heard of the "UK gmail").

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[david.emery]

I dunno about this one. I've been pricing alternatives to replace my dead "token PC". By the time I start with a base machine and put stuff into it to make it usable, I'm easily at the price of a Mac Mini. And if I needed a monitor, adding a -good- monitor to the configuration would get me to an iMac.

Any more the prices for Macs are equivalent to -similarly equipped, quality- hardware. That's not to say you can't go to Fly-by-nite Computers and get a clone box thrown together for a lot less. The last 3 'token PCs' in my home network have all failed in less than 2 years, while I routinely get 4-6 years from each Mac I've owned.

          dave

Missing iWork and iLife

[larkost]

I don't know how they missed the idea of new versions of iLife and iWork coming out, those are almost givens.

Re:Missing iWork and iLife

[metamatic]

Hopefully iWork will include Numbers, the spreadsheet; and iMovie HD will be upgraded to deal with AVCHD (yet another unnecessary non-standard video container format).

Re:OS X 10.5

[Thalagyrt]

My guess would be 10.4.10. ;-)

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[schiefaw]

considering you need to spend nearly $3000 on an imac before it's a comparable config to a normal PC

Huh? In order to spend $3k on an iMac, I had to really crank it up.

• # 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
• # 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
• # 750GB Serial ATA Drive
• # NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
• # SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
• # Apple USB Modem
• # Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
• # 24-inch widescreen LCD
• # AirPort Extreme
• # Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

I would never actually buy RAM from Apple, as they charge an arm and a leg for it. I would think that if you need this much of a machine, you would get a Mac Pro and buy additional components off the shelf.

Looprumors suspended

[qazwart]

Clicked on the link and found out that Looprumors website has been suspended. So, do you think the cause was the lack of non-payment or a little legal letter to their ISP?

If it was the latter, does that mean they were hot on the trail of something?

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[TheGreek]

There's some demand for an iMac with more expansion capabilities for those that don't need Xeon-level performance and has been for quite some time.

Yes, there's "some demand."

There isn't, however, "enough demand to make it worthwhile and profitable."

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[Joe The Dragon]

With the I-mac you are getting laptop parts.

Apple's "innovation"

[wan-fu]

Generally people bash on MS for 'innovating' by copying Microsoft's products. Isn't iTV just a clone of Windows Media Center? If not, how so? If so, is this one of the first instances of Apple copying Microsoft? Not trying to start a flamewar/troll here; just curious. Thanks.

Re:Apple's "innovation"

[Tibor the Hun]

well, iTV is as much of a clone of WMC as, say Yugo is a clone of a CaseIH tractor. They both have 4 wheels, one steering wheel, one engine, exhaust and cooling system. Really, is there any difference?

Re:Apple's "innovation"

[stewbacca]

Considering iTV isn't available, it is all speculation. I've never seen WMC in action either, but I'm just going to go out on a limb and guess the Apple implementation will be usable, stable, an elegant. I base this solely on 20 years of Apple-MS comparisons. Apple could get it wrong though; they aren't impervious to mistakes.

As for Apple copying Microsoft, there is always the right-mouse button functionality and adding an eject button for disks. Those are about the only two I can think of, and I've been using both since, well, Win95.

Re:Apple's "innovation"

[arpoodle]

I've been using Windows MediaCenter for a couple of years, and it is, for the most part, a great piece of kit.

I've configured mine with a 5.1 surround system, two digital TV tuners that are HD compatible and 500Gb storage. It runs off a pretty complete remote, as well as having a wireless keyboard and gyroscopic mouse. It acts like a Tivo, or SKY + box, allowing me to watch, record, pause TV and record live TV using Keywords as well as based on time or series. I've got 13,000 music tracks, and several sets of holiday photos and some mpg/avis all stored on there. It also plays DVDs. It can be 'extended' to offer all this functionality using an X-box 360, but this is the only way.

being windows, it DOES, from time to time, lose the TV guide listings, it DOES need rebooting every couple of weeks and there are other minor annoyances. Having bought my first mac this summer (a macbook) I very quickly could see why so many people were switching to macs. I truly believe if Apple could produce a machine as slick as the macbook with all the functionality as I have above , they'd be onto a winner, especially if they could offer a more elegant 'extender' solution.

I'd pre-order mine now, if I could.

a

Re:Apple's "innovation"

[stewbacca]

Interesting response...very rational too! Let's (we Mac users) hope that iTv allows for most of this functionality you state, but with the typical Apple elegance and ease-of-use. I'm not sure how you've configured your WMC, but it sounds like it is quite the monster, and probably far beyond what the average user will want to do. Maybe iTv will be some sort of plug-and-play hub that does all of that with just a few wires and a few settings from your Mac.

predictions?

[onefourfive]

a quick glance at past predictions for MacWorld illustrates that virtually NO ONE gets this rumor stuff right. between MacWorld predictions, mergers and acquisitions that never materialize, and the perennial articles about how Linux is soon to become the Next Big Thing for desktops, we are left with just a few quasi-interesting articles about cows, Mars robot software upgrades, and gaming devices. /. says it reports 'STUFF THAT MATTERS'. does a report on an possible branding lawsuit (with ITV) really deserve a post? or are your contributors just all cracked up on latte and thinking maybe they have ideas that matter?

Re:Full text of article

[geoffspear]

Informative? Give me a break. Full text was already posted by a non-karma-whoring AC. Mod parent (and grandparent) down.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[theurge14]

No, you really don't. Take the time to compare an $1100 17" iMac (which I own) to a similar priced Dell or HP and you'll find they're comparable.

Re:Silly rumor?

[Moofie]

Well golly. Your unsubstantiated anecdote completely overshadows my 10+ years of good hardware from Apple. Thank you so much for setting me straight!

New iPod

[unvjarhead]

What about those new 100GB iPod. http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/05/toshiba-announc es-100gb-1-8-inch-hdd-apple-swoons/

My only wish

[Piroca]

I just wish that Apple fixes the stupid font rendering on OS X. An option to disable anti-aliasing for *all* fonts and use font hinting (as in OS 9 and Windows without cleartype) would suffice. I'd prefer that to ANY "improvements" coming in leopard anytime.

That would make a much better 2007 for me.

Re:My only wish

[stewbacca]

Are you kidding me? Have you SEEN font rendering in Win XP as compared to OS X, for example? Just boot up an Intel Mac in XP mode and tell me you prefer aliased fonts over the elegant implementation of fonts in OS X? And please don't give me the argument that all my pc friends do, that such "fancy" graphic options "slow your computer down." Someone forgot to tell my 800 MHz G4 tower that.

Seriously though, what exactly do you like about jaggy fonts? For me, this small feature alone is one of the HUGE difference makers for me to choose OS X over anything else (along with about 1,000 other 'little' details, but that's an argument for a different day). I am a linguist (German and Arabic) so fonts and special characters are very important to me, and Mac OS X is far ahead of other flavors in this regard. I have worked with typography for nearly 20 years and the Mac OS (whatever flavor) has always implemented the industry standards for font rendering, whether printed or displayed. No other computer system can say that, as they've all been playing catch up for the past 25 years.

Re:My only wish

[Piroca]

I just want the option to have fonts rendered the way I prefer. And I'm not the only one to ask for that. It just happens Apple is heavy-handed about this and don't give options to some of its users because they think they know what is best for everyone.

Now, if you have some serious eyesight problems you may prefer to disregard a lot of work that typists do on font hinting so that fonts look right on the screen and prefer a stupid approach that anti-alias everything, including vertical and horizontal lines. That's ok for me, you can stare at whatever you want, but please just don't get in the way of sane people that want to have an usable computer.

Re:My only wish

[Yvan256]

I'm running OS X 10.4.8 right now. My ViewSonic VP171s monitor is connected via DVI, and my Mac mini is set to the VP171s native resolution, which is 1280x1024. There is absolutely no anti-aliasing on vertical or horizontal lines in any character on the screen, whatever font or background color they are.

Either you're using a crappy VGA cable, the refresh rate is wrong for your monitor and it's screwing the analog signal or you're simply using the wrong resolution for your LCD monitor, in which case it's your own fault and it's the LCD display doing the "anti-aliasing", not OS X.

Re:My only wish

[Piroca]

I use either the built in display in my brand-new macbook, or an external apple cinema display through DVI. Both show crappy fonts. Just compare with System 9 or Windows.

Re:Silly rumor?

[argent]

Wow, your argument from authority completely demolishes my 25+ years of mediocre hardware from Apple... starting with the kludgy but easily expanded Apple ][+, and including members of just about every era from the original 128k Macintosh to a Macbook Pro... not to mention the many powerbooks and other Macs I've had the responsibility for supporting as a network administrator over the past 20 years.

In general, Apple computers have had comparable performance to PCs costing 50-70% of their price. Yes, they have a bunch of cheap (for Apple) ports like Firewire that cost more when you buy them as add-ons on PCs, but you have to go to the top of the Mac line these days to find things like expansion slots that are standard on even the shonkiest PCs - an (ahem) apples to apples comparison doesn't make Apples look good at all.

The Macintosh keyboards have been generally poor and the last really good one (the Extended II) was killed by Jobs... and after briefly using the standard keyboard on my iMac I've used nothing but PC USB keyboards since.

The single button mouse and the passive-aggressive tricks they're using to avoid shipping a two-button mouse and trackpad are embarassing and awkward. This is particularly problematic on laptops... which suffer also from flat keyboards with negligable travel and a poor response curve. They really need to look at Thinkpads and borrow some ideas from there.

I file this under the heading of "the cost of software that sucks less", but I don't pretend it isn't there.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[Beefslaya]

The User was complaining about the cost of purchasing a new system (Apple). You are right about comparing architectures, I wasn't doing that. I was stating that cost to cost of upgrading was more economical with the Mac's, and can be done for less then what they were whining about. ($3000)

I will venture to say that building a system comparable to the Mac with the same capable hardware, plus the cost of Software to do the equal (Including iLife suite) is going to cost much more then purchasing a Mac.

(Provided you don't skimp on important items like system board, generic RAM, Open Source Software replacements (because, although economical and useful, they still don't provide the same satisfaction as supported pay-for-software/OS.))

Re:Silly rumor?

[Moofie]

I'll take my argument from authority (which, frankly, I don't see, as I simply stated my opinion) trumps your proof by assertion.

I have had good experience with Apple hardware is a factual statement. You have had bad experiences with Apple hardware is an equally factual statement.

"Apple computers have had comparable performance to PCs costing 50-70% of their price"

I'm not chasing you down this rathole. Apple machines are priced more competitively than ever, and when you compare them against other manufacturers, they look pretty darn good.

Is your white-box PC cheaper? Maybe. Depends on which corners you're gonna cut.

"expansion slots that are standard on even the shonkiest PCs"

And are empty on most of those PCs. What are you going to put in the expansion slot? A better video card? OK, if that's what you're into. Most computer users don't care.

Is it suitable for your needs? Maybe not. But that doesn't make it bad.

So you like big clunky keyboards. Cool. They still work just fine, don't they? What's your argument here?

"The single button mouse and the passive-aggressive tricks"

Oh, come on. Get over it. I shouldn't have to explain to you how ridiculously easy it is to get a multi-button mouse on a Mac. It's been true for as long as I've had one.

one rumor.....

[bigsam411]

Is that the article would get slashdotted to oblivion

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[wootest]

Exactly.

Don't think Apple hasn't gotten their eye on this, though. Their market share is growing. If the growth turns out to be proportional to the rest of the PC industry (which admittedly it probably isn't), more and more people are demanding this. I do think that the product will eventually come into existance - or everyone will simply adapt to having an iMac. We know all-in-ones aren't the sacks of crap they used to be a few years ago.

Good points... but..

[Trojan35]

I agree with most of what you're saying. The problem is that there *is* room for good video podcast content. You simply need to focus on what you do well and skip all the other stuff. It relies on creative talent though. If the actors/writers aren't talented, the show would stink with a $10bn budget.

Like all small ventures, it needs to focus on what it can do that larger productions can't. A video podcast can: address more controversial issues, use humor/language that is not FCC approved, be distributed freely in any form, and release on its own schedule.

If it does what you suggest as a minimum and get 3 cameras and try to compete on production value, it will fail. 1 Camera. 1 or 2 Anchors. No graphics, just talented actors and writers.

Re:Silly rumor?

[drinkypoo]

Oh, come on. Get over it. I shouldn't have to explain to you how ridiculously easy it is to get a multi-button mouse on a Mac. It's been true for as long as I've had one.

I like how you gloss over the issues with laptops. I will not buy any laptop, at least not new, with less than three mouse buttons.

Re:Silly rumor?

[argent]

I'll take my argument from authority (which, frankly, I don't see, as I simply stated my opinion)

Your "10+ years of experience" is an argument from authority. Just like my "25+ years of experience" is.

trumps your proof by assertion.

You can't trump me, I played in suit. My argument from authority has 15 years seniority over your argument from authority. :)

I'm not chasing you down this rathole.

You just did:

What are you going to put in the expansion slot? A better video card?

That's the #1 most common upgrade on a PC, and it's particularly important when the built-in video is a bottom-of-the-line chipset like the GMA950 in the Mac mini and the low end iMac.

Most computer users don't care.

The ones who keep their computers more than a couple of years (as Mac users tend to) are almost certain to find themselves wanting to. As a system administrator the two main "off-the-job" questions about PCs I've had from PC users over the past decade have been about internet connections and video cards.

Is it suitable for your needs? Maybe not. But that doesn't make it bad.

I didn't say it was bad, I said it was a feature that Apple doesn't provide, like the built-in firewire and superdrive are features the typical PC doesn't provide. When you compare the price of a Mac and a PC, the only way to get them to match are to load the PC up with everything the Mac has, BUT ignore everything the resulting PC has that's extra-cost or unavailable on the Mac.

The bottom line is that when you look at the core capabilities of the Mac and the PC, there's a premium of around 40% for getting a Mac. The software makes this 'Mac Tax' worth it, but it takes deliberate blindness to pretend it's not there.

So you like big clunky keyboards.

The Mac Fanatic fallback... when you can't argue the facts, try and argue about style. Unfortunately for this play, there's a lot of fine PC keyboards that are neither "big and klunky" nor poorly designed.

My favorite keyboard is actually a beautiful compact PC keyboard that's so old it's got an AT connector. I use it on my Mac with an AT-PS2 adaptor and a PS2-USB adaptor. The key feel is unbeatable.

For my Macbook Pro I carry a Logitech bluetooth keyboard that's exactly the same width as the laptop, and fits on top when I open it up like it was made for it. I need to... the Macbook's keyboard is physically painful to use more than half an hour at a time.

I shouldn't have to explain to you how ridiculously easy it is to get a multi-button mouse on a Mac.

How do I get a multi-button trackpad on a laptop with only one button?

(don't even start on the two-finger tap nonsense... tried that, it doesn't work worth a damn)

Re: Mobile OS X

[spiderbitendeath]

The one I heard about was being developed about the time of the original Messagepad. The developer was pulled from the project and put on the NewtonOS instead. I'll see if I can find the link to the article I heard about it in.

Re:Silly rumor?

[Moofie]

Um, OK. I've never had a problem, but whatever floats your boat.

Me? I hate all laptop pointing devices, so I use a mouse. Works beautifully.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[codemachine]

It'd really just need to have one slot for upgradeable video. Maybe a way to get at the CPU as well, though this is less likely. The rest of the upgrades can be done via USB or Firewire devices for the most part.

Or a new Aperture

[SuperKendall]

One thing I think is pretty sure is an update for Aperture. They did a pretty good 1.5 update a few months ago, but Lightroom is due to come out of beta soon and Apple would want to answer with a whole new version of Aperture.

I agree that iLife and iWork will see a makeover, though it seems to me they will launch with Leopard, as they would want to take full advantage of new OS features (especially Time Machine). The same may well be true of Aperture.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[wootest]

USB and Firewire have been a big boon to peripherals, you're right. Fast, reliable and with basically no need for separate drivers thanks to device classes.

I see your upgradable video and I raise you an easily accessible hard drive. Do you think more people need to upgrade their graphics or their hard drive?

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[macs4all]

Um, when have you seen a 750GB LAPTOP drive.

Moron.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[codemachine]

That would be useful, yeah. Though hard drives are easy to add via USB and firewire too. But replacing the old one completely to have less stuff outside the case would be nice. RAM and hard disk are really the most common updates to keep older hardware alive (and video for gamers).

I wonder how hard it is to get at the hard drive in the current iMac?

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[wootest]

Yikes. Looks like fun with tin-foil.

But it's not a troll, or incorrect

[default luser]

The iPod was actually an impressive product for the time, just taking into account the specs. It was almost as small as flash players of the day, with a hundred times the capacity. It had about 10x the transfer rate of any other portable thanks to the Firewire connector and disk storage.

The iPod was great for the time, and as a hardcore PC backer it was EMBARASSING for me to see how slowly the rest of the industry responded.

Today, however, a good chunk of the industry has caught up. The iPod has serious large-market competitors from Creative and Sandisk. The iTV already has to compete with an installed base of almost 10 million Xbox 360s, not to mention the industry push from Intel (VIIV) and AMD (Live) to create "living room" PCs.

Also, now that Apple is Intel's bitch, I think it is bad that Apple is so set on the "Macworld major release schedule." Apple pulled some strings with the Core launch so it coincided with the x86 OS X launch, but I doubt Intel will ever cooridinate like that again for such a small vendor. Intel did not wait for January to release their quad-core, so the quad-core Mac Pro will end up looking more like a "me too" product instead of a market leader.

Apple can still shake things up, but in their current situation they will need to pull off some serious magic. All the "obvious" stuff just isn't that impressive.

Re:But it's not a troll, or incorrect

[stewbacca]

iTV already has to compete with an installed base of almost 10 million Xbox 360s

Why would anyone over the age of 25, that doesn't have children, and already has a mac, need (or even want?) an Xbox 360? Apple isn't playing catch-up to a niche, money-losing Microsoft gaming platform; they are (hopefully) bringing usable pc-to-living-room convergency to millions of people who don't care to geek-out just to watch Lost on their 60" HDTVs. If this sounds a lot like, well, me, then you know me well ;-) My father-in-law had never seen a mac, and always thought they were pieces of junk, but nearly walked out and bought a Mac just because of Front Row. Considering I really have nothing functional in Front Row at the moment, that says a lot about the potential of mac-to-tv technology and the average Joe user.

I don't crack on the Xbox lightly, as my original thesis for my masters degree was titled PC-Xbox Convergency: Unlocking the Hidden Capabilities of the Xbox. At the time (a few months after the original Xbox release) it was a pretty novel concept, but as we know now, it is old news. (It got shot down by an uppity thesis committee as not being a serious topic, so I took my tuition elsewhere!)

Re:But it's not a troll, or incorrect

[default luser]

Why would anyone over the age of 25, that doesn't have children, and already has a mac, need (or even want?) an Xbox 360?

No children, over 25, already owns a mac - that's a relatively tiny market. In fact, I know of only two (including myself). But let's assume I'm wrong, for the moment. Those types are also the kind who have already purchased Tivos, or they're the type who have already toiled away at their 1337 HTPC / MythTV boxes. Typically, they've already filled the niche that Apple has been too lazy to fill for the last 5 years.

Apple has a long uphill battle creating a system as seamless as Tivo.

The other problem is FrontRow eating into the ITV's market: why would people spend $300 on a "dumb" ITV box when they can spend $600 on a much more capable Mac Mini HTPC that also serves as a "dumb" FrontRow box at the touch of a remote? There are some technophobes in your defined market, but a lot of those "childless professionals" are technically inclined, and like flexibility. A number of people have already created a comunnity around this, and there are products like DistantDVD and EyeTV that make the Mac Mini even more fully-featured.

Re:But it's not a troll, or incorrect

[stewbacca]

Apple has a long uphill battle creating a system as seamless as Tivo.

So you haven't seen the rumors of a pending Apple-TiVo marriage I assume? I read on slashdot (I think) that Apple and TiVo have made some undisclosed deal, leading to rumors of an Apple device that is TiVo based. I guess we'll see on Monday, eh?

New ATI-chips at Macworld?

[Gery]

As there was a rumor that ATI (main grapic-chip-supplier of the intel-based Macs) is going to release a new version of their graphic chips, maybe there will be an upgraded version of iMac, Mac Pro and maybe MacBookPro!? The timing would be excellent...

Yours Gery

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[stewbacca]

There is always a few loud complaints about the limitations of the iMac expansion. The fact remains, it fills the niche it is made for, and more people are realizing the shelf-life of their computers usually requires them to just buy a new one every few years instead of sticking to a long lineage of upgrades.

I've stayed away from iMacs until my new Intel iMac. What I learned from my 6 years of ownership of a G4 tower is that I never never needed the expansion capability. The only upgrade I've made is I swapped out the 350MHz chip for an 800MHz chip. Everything else is still in there. I suppose I could have added a second hard drive, or upgraded the video card, but never found the need. Therefore, I snapped up my new iMac without any reservation. I've swapped out the video card on a 2nd gen iMac before, so I suppose it won't be impossible on the new iMacs.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[stewbacca]

I'll take it a step further. Compare the Sony VAIO VGC-LS1 http://pcworld.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php ?masterid=24757962 to my 20" iMac. The Sony costs $1950 and my iMac was $2100. My iMac has a much faster processor (2.33GHz Core 2 Duo), a bigger monitor 20", an arguably better OS (and the ability to run the other OS, if needed), a bigger hard drive (500 GB), a dedicated video card (X1600, 256mb, whereas the Sony has integrated video), just to name a 'few'. I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who wouldn't opt to pay the extra $150 for the cpu upgrade alone, (or the hard drive upgrade). The video card on its own is 'almost' worth $150 to me, considering the DVI output capability. Not that Sony is a bad brand, but I'd pay the extra $150 just knowing I was getting quality Apple hardware (judging by the past 10 years of consumer report type research).

But on the bright side, Sony provides media card reader slots! Woo hoo! Now I'm sure there are better deals from Dell, Compaq et al., however, when people argue that Macs are more expensive than equally configured PCs, this Sony is an equally configued PC (well, actually it is less configured, but that isn't Apple's fault now is it?). It seems that whenever Apple makes a nice product, like the new iMacs, the PC copycat version comes out $100-$200 less, but with lower specs, to preserve the illusion of PCs are cheaper. If I were to have dumb downed my iMac to the specs of this Sony, it would have been around $1500, and still would have a bigger monitor faster cpu and better video card.

I'm frankly sick of these old-ass arguments spewed by dweebs that still live in their mothers' basements waxing poetically about self-built PC towers with 18 expansion bays.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE

[stewbacca]

I would never actually buy RAM from Apple, as they charge an arm and a leg for it.

Actually, the first GHz is pretty competitive, or at least was within $20-$30 of buying stuff online. If you buy one a Mac from an Apple Store, as I did with my MacBook, and you upgrade the ram, they give you the pre-installed ram back, which you can sell on eBay or something to recover some of the cost. My iMac has 2GHz of ram, but I bought it online, so I didn't get any ram back. I think the Apple store would have given me two 500MB sticks back when and put two 1GHZ sticks in.

My only problem now is I don't know if anyone could use 2 sticks of 256MB MacBook ram.