These ratings can still make sense if you consider the OS that you are upgrading from. OS X 10.3 had already raised the bar so high Mac users look at 10.4 and say it's only 4/5.
You also have to remember that Mac users are used to regular OS updates. Ho hum, another update.
Windows users, having waited so long since XP, look at Vista and say 5/5.
There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.
I'm also wondering if there's a point where recording companies ask so much of Apple, satellite radio, internet broadcasters, and ring-tone distributors that they join up in backing a new recording company that signs artists primarily for digital distribution and broadcast.
Artists are signing directly with iTunes bypassing the record companies.
This has to scare the crap out of the RIAA and record companies.
The technology is there for artist to record and distribute without needing a record company. So when Brofman says we'll cut iTunes off at the knees it is a hollow threat, as Apple can deal directly with the artists.
If I could subscribe to a show's cast and have each episode downloaded automatically when it was released, then this would be a service worth paying for - even if it were not quite fast enough for a live stream.
My point was that by using a seven year old spare machine, with a low end processor, with an inexpensive video card, I was able to output video to a standard definition TV and sound to a stereo receiver.
The target market for a similar "set top" device is huge.
Further more I was able to output a HiDef signal when I upgraded my TV.
A Mac Mini class machine, optimized for video playback, priced intially under $1000 would sell, especially if coupled with a "iMovie" video store. Tivo like functionality would be a plus.
If the price point was $500 it would be a runaway hit.
Call it a video iPod if you want.
This would be a very large surprise for three reasons. Firstly, Apple would be making a drastic change in their business strategy,...
Apple's strategy is to sell Apple's hardware devices that play content from Apple's content store. This is exactly the same strategy.
... secondly they'd be targetting a very small market (ie, a Mac Mini is mandatory) when Jobs has said that he's going for the large one,...
Your point that a Mac Mini is mandatory is spurious, as an Apple branded device was manadatory when the iTunes Music Store went live (iPod or Mac), it should be expected that an Apple device will be needed to play content from the Apple video store.
... and thirdly, it allows Apple's competitors to snatch the portable video market from underneath them and allow them to eat iPod share.
Big assumption, that there is a portable video market and that it is large enough to warrent going after. I don't see it, but I've been wrong before.
Personally, I think the first company out of the gate with an on demand "Netflix" type service service will clean up. An "iMovie" video store and an Apple $500-$1000 Mac Mini/video iPod class device would do that nicely.
Fianlly an aside to your aside...
But as an aside, besides Steve Jobs saying that this is the year of HD, he is currently not doing too much with his company RIGHT NOW to reflect that.
And your access to Apple's development labs lets you know this? Tell me, what is Apple doing right now with respect to a consumer level video device? What partners is Apple lining up to support HD? What new pro, enthusisat, and entry products will be announced in the future that are under development RIGHT NOW?
Your method requires not only a Mac, but a relatively new Mac, a high definition TV, and a short enough distance between the two to hook up a rather expensive cable.
Any bets on how many target users actually have a setup like that? It's not practical
I'd bet at least one, me.
And, oh by the way, Apple is in the business of selling Macs. So requiring a Mac, from Apple's perspective, isn't necessarily a bad thing. And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video.
And if by relatively new you mean seven years old then we agree on that.
I have my formerly beige, now black, PowerMac G3, purchased in 1998, with an under US$100 ad in video board (I don't recall the model, ATI something) commected to my hi def TV via DVI. Works fine.
It used to be connected to my standard def TV via RCA cables. That worked OK too.
The sound out goes to my receiver. And I mainly use this setup to run iTunes, having ripped all my CDs and some of my vinyl.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is developing an "iMovie" video store, but I expect that it will be to download movies to a Mac Mini like video server more than a moblie video device.
While I don't plug my iPod into a stereo at work, I do plug it into external speakers. The difference is that I can listen to music and work. I would find it very hard to watch video and work.
On the other hand, I do take DVDs to friends and they bring them to my place, so having my movie collection portable does have some appeal.
OSX?... "upgrades" are too frequent and expensive.
So then don't upgrade. You haven't from W2K. Is W2K even supported by MS anymore? (I'm ignoring the expensive myth, as it has been beaten to death. If you want cheap go ahead and buy cheap.)
Linux? - Too expensive to implement.
W2K - Cheap to buy. Cheap to implement. Works well.
Curious, Linux is cheaper to buy (can't get much better than free). And Linux certainly works well (although in fairness we don't know what you business is). And Linux is as cheap to implement as W2K, unless of course you were already a Windows shop when you started the analysis. Then this was a momentum thing.
In the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available). Thus Macs made no dent in the Windows market.
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware or similar.
Thus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will still run. And they will be curious about OS X or tired of Windows malware.
And that's the possible threat to both Windows and Linux. These users will see how OS Xi compares to Windows XP/Longhorn and Linux, and choose OS Xi.
True. But in the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available).
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware of similar.
Vhus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will still run.
And that's the threat to both Windows and Linux. These users will see how OS Xi compares to Windows XP/Longhorn and Linux, and choose OS Xi.
Except for TV, any Mac with iLife... and there was an Mac with a TV tuner built in...
Pocket PC
Newton again...
XBox
Pippin...
To mention nothing of Palm, ReplayTV/Tivo, Nintendo, and so on. Not one of these "innovations" from MS is truly innovative. Perhaps the only innovative item above is the Newton, and Alan Kay had the idea with his Dynabook first.
Copying is usually how progress happens. Even the most innovative product is build upon prior ideas.
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
That's What I Thought
on
Mapping the Mind
·
· Score: 3, Informative
My copy of this book is littered with margin notes of exactly the type at the linked site.
Her lack of rigor was was a major disappointment.
It will be the last book authored by Rita Carter that I will ever read.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that he is a MS shill ...
These ratings can still make sense if you consider the OS that you are upgrading from. OS X 10.3 had already raised the bar so high Mac users look at 10.4 and say it's only 4/5.
You also have to remember that Mac users are used to regular OS updates. Ho hum, another update.
Windows users, having waited so long since XP, look at Vista and say 5/5.
SteveM
But the loop will always appear local to the vehicle.
At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.
In the case of an infinite loop, the "short while" also becomes infinite.
SteveM
There's no way a vehicle can move straigth along a road that is a closed loop. At best it could move straigth for a short while, but eventually the road has to curve to be able to close back on itself.
It could if the loop was infinite.
SteveM
Copied from here?
SteveM
I'm also wondering if there's a point where recording companies ask so much of Apple, satellite radio, internet broadcasters, and ring-tone distributors that they join up in backing a new recording company that signs artists primarily for digital distribution and broadcast.
It is already happening in Japan: http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/arts/20051006 TDY14001.htm
Artists are signing directly with iTunes bypassing the record companies.
This has to scare the crap out of the RIAA and record companies.
The technology is there for artist to record and distribute without needing a record company. So when Brofman says we'll cut iTunes off at the knees it is a hollow threat, as Apple can deal directly with the artists.
SteveM
Where do I get one of these video iPods?
Let's not jump the gun to give credit until an ViPod actually exists, K?
And then we can give credit to him and everyone else who's thoughts went something like this:
Audio is to iPod as Video is to ViPod.
SteveM
If I could subscribe to a show's cast and have each episode downloaded automatically when it was released, then this would be a service worth paying for - even if it were not quite fast enough for a live stream.
Dude, it's called Tivo.
Google it. I think you'll be pleasntly surprised.
SteveM
Would this work as a anti-dew coating on a telescope?
It would be nice to rid my set up of dew heaters and the attendant cables and power needs.
SteveM
It isn't Apple that is announcing these tools. It is Intel that is touting them.
Apple has been silent.
I know it is /., but you might want to consider reading the occational article.
SteveM
There are 'planetoids' that are bigger than pluto that are considered simple KBO even though some consider them to be planets.
Really, name one.
You cannot, as this is the first KBO discovered that is larger than Pluto.
SteveM
My point was that by using a seven year old spare machine, with a low end processor, with an inexpensive video card, I was able to output video to a standard definition TV and sound to a stereo receiver.
The target market for a similar "set top" device is huge.
Further more I was able to output a HiDef signal when I upgraded my TV.
A Mac Mini class machine, optimized for video playback, priced intially under $1000 would sell, especially if coupled with a "iMovie" video store. Tivo like functionality would be a plus.
If the price point was $500 it would be a runaway hit.
Call it a video iPod if you want.
This would be a very large surprise for three reasons. Firstly, Apple would be making a drastic change in their business strategy, ...
Apple's strategy is to sell Apple's hardware devices that play content from Apple's content store. This is exactly the same strategy.
Your point that a Mac Mini is mandatory is spurious, as an Apple branded device was manadatory when the iTunes Music Store went live (iPod or Mac), it should be expected that an Apple device will be needed to play content from the Apple video store.
Big assumption, that there is a portable video market and that it is large enough to warrent going after. I don't see it, but I've been wrong before.
Personally, I think the first company out of the gate with an on demand "Netflix" type service service will clean up. An "iMovie" video store and an Apple $500-$1000 Mac Mini/video iPod class device would do that nicely.
Fianlly an aside to your aside ...
But as an aside, besides Steve Jobs saying that this is the year of HD, he is currently not doing too much with his company RIGHT NOW to reflect that.
And your access to Apple's development labs lets you know this? Tell me, what is Apple doing right now with respect to a consumer level video device? What partners is Apple lining up to support HD? What new pro, enthusisat, and entry products will be announced in the future that are under development RIGHT NOW?
SteveM
Your method requires not only a Mac, but a relatively new Mac, a high definition TV, and a short enough distance between the two to hook up a rather expensive cable. Any bets on how many target users actually have a setup like that? It's not practical
I'd bet at least one, me.
And, oh by the way, Apple is in the business of selling Macs. So requiring a Mac, from Apple's perspective, isn't necessarily a bad thing. And Apple is a big time proponent of hi def video.
And if by relatively new you mean seven years old then we agree on that.
I have my formerly beige, now black, PowerMac G3, purchased in 1998, with an under US$100 ad in video board (I don't recall the model, ATI something) commected to my hi def TV via DVI. Works fine.
It used to be connected to my standard def TV via RCA cables. That worked OK too.
The sound out goes to my receiver. And I mainly use this setup to run iTunes, having ripped all my CDs and some of my vinyl.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is developing an "iMovie" video store, but I expect that it will be to download movies to a Mac Mini like video server more than a moblie video device.
While I don't plug my iPod into a stereo at work, I do plug it into external speakers. The difference is that I can listen to music and work. I would find it very hard to watch video and work.
On the other hand, I do take DVDs to friends and they bring them to my place, so having my movie collection portable does have some appeal.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
SteveM
Mr. Jobs, like President Bush, is a strong leader ...
Bush a leader ...
I suppose you were going for a +5 Funny.
SteveM
But no, it's an opinion that can be seen as "SCO supportive" and must be modded into oblivion. :-p
No, it was a post that was just stupid. And deserved to be modded down.
SteveM
OSX? ... "upgrades" are too frequent and expensive.
So then don't upgrade. You haven't from W2K. Is W2K even supported by MS anymore? (I'm ignoring the expensive myth, as it has been beaten to death. If you want cheap go ahead and buy cheap.)
Linux? - Too expensive to implement.
W2K - Cheap to buy. Cheap to implement. Works well.
Curious, Linux is cheaper to buy (can't get much better than free). And Linux certainly works well (although in fairness we don't know what you business is). And Linux is as cheap to implement as W2K, unless of course you were already a Windows shop when you started the analysis. Then this was a momentum thing.
OS/2! Why didn't you mention VMX or System 360?
So I call bullshit.
SteveM
I'm Not Dead Yet!
SteveM
In the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available). Thus Macs made no dent in the Windows market.
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware or similar.
Thus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will still run. And they will be curious about OS X or tired of Windows malware.
And that's the possible threat to both Windows and Linux. These users will see how OS Xi compares to Windows XP/Longhorn and Linux, and choose OS Xi.
At least that's one possible scenario.
SteveM
You'll still have to buy a Mac.
True. But in the past, buying a Mac meant not being able to run Windows (at native speed, emulaters were and are available).
But with Apple/Intel boxen, you can buy a Mac and very likely be able to run Windows. Either natively or at almost native speeds via Virtual PC or VMware of similar.
Vhus when it comes time to buy or replace a Windows/Linux Intel PC, many people who would not have chosen a PPC Mac will choose a x86 Mac, as their Windows and-or Linux software will still run.
And that's the threat to both Windows and Linux. These users will see how OS Xi compares to Windows XP/Longhorn and Linux, and choose OS Xi.
At least that's one possible scenario.
SteveM
Me thinks. SteveM
TabletPC
Newton ...
Media Center PC
Except for TV, any Mac with iLife ... and there was an Mac with a TV tuner built in ...
Pocket PC
Newton again ...
XBox
Pippin ...
To mention nothing of Palm, ReplayTV/Tivo, Nintendo, and so on. Not one of these "innovations" from MS is truly innovative. Perhaps the only innovative item above is the Newton, and Alan Kay had the idea with his Dynabook first.
Copying is usually how progress happens. Even the most innovative product is build upon prior ideas.
SteveM
Furthermore, several high-end photographers are extolling the virtues of stand-alone raw processors as an addition to their photoshop workflow.
Unfortunately, no standalone raw processors can support Nikon's encrypted format
I'm not saying that it's morally acceptable for Nikon to lock part of their RAW format, I'm just saying that the impact of this upon the pro photo world is far less significant then it would appear.
Only if what you are saying is that having only one raw converter, Nikon's, is not significant.
This is truely significant. What Nikon is saying is that Nikon owns the file and that the photographer does not.
SteveM
My copy of this book is littered with margin notes of exactly the type at the linked site.
Her lack of rigor was was a major disappointment.
It will be the last book authored by Rita Carter that I will ever read.
SteveM
July 23, 2004
SteveM
They did not include a firewire cable. There is still a firewire connector.
This was a cost savings move and nothing more.
And it makes the front page of /.
Why do I come here anymore?
SteveM
.This will all come together when we have UMA phones.
If only UMA can come together, see here
SteveM