I think ultimately what we need for IPTV is for the internet to become everyone's video collection, everyone's DVR timeshifter. The technology is ripe for that.
There are many shows that are so voluminous that the only practical way to consume them is with an all-in-one jukebox with a beefy search engine behind it (think google video indexing closed captioning).
Think of these long-running shows:
The Simpsons Married with Children Bonanza Gunsmoke Doctor Who Cheers
Imagine also being able to dig into old news shows, like every episode of 60 Minutes, 20/20, or Nightline.
Imagine being able to watch any old airing of the Tonight Show back to the earliest B&W days based on a search for a celebrity guest. For instance, you could line up all of Tom Hanks' appearances and watch his fro shrink and his hairline recede.
DVD is fine, but it is just not practical to reserve the shelfspace to own it all. And DVDs do little to help you get from "gee, I wish I could see the episode where Ricardo Montalban guested on Gunsmoke" to it actually playing on the screen. You have to go figure out the episode number online, then find the right disc, pop it in, wait through the ads, navigate through the menus, and go. The convenience at the macro level is not there, just as maintaining a large audio CD collection is a drag.
So much of our content viewing habits these days is a result of search results. That's the whole idea of web surfing. So the ideal video viewing experience, to me, is to sit down casually and just improvise search terms until you come up with interesting enough results. You won't know what you want to watch until you see what comes up. Or you have the preference engine (ala Amazon) do it for you.
Instead of using the web to index information about media, it could index the media directly and let you jump right into it.
For instance, let's say you typed in a particular line or phrase like "Do'h" and every instance where Homer says "Do'h" pops up with the timecode right in there. You might even be able to set up in/out playlists for custom highlights reels.
Really, this stuff is all doable technically. Google video is a good proof of concept. It's purely a matter of working out the DRM and the business side of things.
That's why things like Windows XP Media Center exist, you know, front-ends or dashboards that hide the underlying windows UI in favor of something more immediate that you can control with one hand.
One thing nobody has mentioned is HD. Obviously the current iPods can't do it, >> but it won't be long. Apple is playing this smart, leveraging the popularity of the iPod and iTunes to establish the relationships with content producers that will get them on board.
Did the iPod come out at a time when it was only able to play back low-bitrate MP3s? No. They waited until the technology was ready.
So why should Apple release a video product before the hardware is ready to accomodate it, especially if they are going to charge people to own inferior quality video (which I'm sure iTunes wont' let you upgrade later)?
>> Hollywood can can portray these scientists as silly, just as they were portrayed in so many B Movies from the 1950s.
What matters in life, from an animalistic perspective (which is the lowest-common-denominator in our society, especially in high-scool), is one's ability to attract a mate and generate offspring (i.e. get laid). Since we now have studies that have identified mental differences in geeks (Asperger's syndrome) which is responsible for them having difficulty in interpersonal communication, it's reasonable for Hollywood seek to make fun of scientists, since they are on the losing end of the mating game, so to speak.
The iPod Photo has two 80mhz ARM chips in it. That's not enough to decode fullres MPEG4 in realtime. Heck, today's xScale PDAs can barely do that at around 500mhz. It would need a faster CPU and/or a dedicated custom decoder chip.
Just beause it can do a slideshow that looks like a video doesn't mean it's a viable video player.
If people don't like looking at a screen, then why do people buy portable game machines?
Re:Still not sure it's a good idea
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I seriously doubt current iPods have the muscle to do truly high quality video playback. That takes Pentium III class hardware or some very dedicated custom chips.
Maybe 320x200 MPEG4 "simple profile" but nothing you download off the net.
I am not using a portable video device until it is a) cheap and b) has at least a PSP-res or VGA screen, and c) is able to play back pirated DIVX/XVID movies as-is from the net.
Nothing really passes all three criteria right now.
He said that for marketing reasons. I don't think he was being sincere.
I don't think he realized what the running time was going to have to be on these movies until he had to force them to a certain length to please the studio.
Remember that the studio originally just wanted one or two movies, not three. So he had to push just to get them to their current theatrical length.
It's for small government if it has anything to do with helping the disadvantaged. They have to get dragged kicking and screaming into it (tsunami, katrina aid, for instance, privatizing social security).
You can live without cable and gym memberships. You need a place to live, though.
Re:yawn. wake me up when a $x0Million rocket can .
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
I don't care how disposable the rockets are to get payloads off the earth. Have rockets within rockets.
The only way to have robust interplanetary missions with larger crews is to build your spacecraft piece by piece at the ISS.
You just want the heavy lifter to be able to launch a reasonably large module into orbit. The Space Shuttle really wasn't able to launch comfortably large modules.
Then you could have a spacecraft that is designed to ferry back and forth between the earth or the moon that could be refuelled in orbit. You could send dozens of crew members to help establish colonies.
What incentive is there in making OSS software that "pretty much works right out of the box" when the developers are thinking of enabling a support-based business model?
Is that a recipe for making the best software or does it tempt developers into making software that is so hard to use that you HAVE to pay for support? At which point, doesn't this blow consumers' total cost of ownership out of the water vs. commercial products who DO focus on ease of use?
I see no reason why all of these things couldn't have been the product of common sense derived through many years of simple observation.
For instance, with inbreeding, remember that humans performed genetic engineering many thousands of years ago: domestication of animals via selective breeding.
However, in any generation there are a lot of young people or dumb people likely to make these mistakes and that is what Leviticus is for.
I think we constantly underestimate how sophisticated ancient societies were. Sure, there was a lot of superstition and immorality, but there was also a fair amount of unofficial science then which produced a lot of amazing things considering how little they had to work with.
Slashdot Mirror
I think ultimately what we need for IPTV is for the internet to become everyone's video collection, everyone's DVR timeshifter. The technology is ripe for that.
There are many shows that are so voluminous that the only practical way to consume them is with an all-in-one jukebox with a beefy search engine behind it (think google video indexing closed captioning).
Think of these long-running shows:
The Simpsons
Married with Children
Bonanza
Gunsmoke
Doctor Who
Cheers
Imagine also being able to dig into old news shows, like every episode of 60 Minutes, 20/20, or Nightline.
Imagine being able to watch any old airing of the Tonight Show back to the earliest B&W days based on a search for a celebrity guest. For instance, you could line up all of Tom Hanks' appearances and watch his fro shrink and his hairline recede.
DVD is fine, but it is just not practical to reserve the shelfspace to own it all. And DVDs do little to help you get from "gee, I wish I could see the episode where Ricardo Montalban guested on Gunsmoke" to it actually playing on the screen. You have to go figure out the episode number online, then find the right disc, pop it in, wait through the ads, navigate through the menus, and go. The convenience at the macro level is not there, just as maintaining a large audio CD collection is a drag.
So much of our content viewing habits these days is a result of search results. That's the whole idea of web surfing. So the ideal video viewing experience, to me, is to sit down casually and just improvise search terms until you come up with interesting enough results. You won't know what you want to watch until you see what comes up. Or you have the preference engine (ala Amazon) do it for you.
Instead of using the web to index information about media, it could index the media directly and let you jump right into it.
For instance, let's say you typed in a particular line or phrase like "Do'h" and every instance where Homer says "Do'h" pops up with the timecode right in there. You might even be able to set up in/out playlists for custom highlights reels.
Really, this stuff is all doable technically. Google video is a good proof of concept. It's purely a matter of working out the DRM and the business side of things.
Depends on the show. Some old shows were shot on film and had wonderfully detailed negatives that were well preserved. Perry Mason for instance.
That's why things like Windows XP Media Center exist, you know, front-ends or dashboards that hide the underlying windows UI in favor of something more immediate that you can control with one hand.
I agree that it's a mess, but this has been used as an excuse to do nothing for years. But they are going to have to figure it out one way or another.
Lots of shows are on DVD that were produced before there was any notion of home video. They worked out the rights. Similar deal.
One thing nobody has mentioned is HD. Obviously the current iPods can't do it, >>
but it won't be long. Apple is playing this smart, leveraging the popularity of the iPod and iTunes to establish the relationships with content producers that will get them on board.
Did the iPod come out at a time when it was only able to play back low-bitrate MP3s? No. They waited until the technology was ready.
So why should Apple release a video product before the hardware is ready to accomodate it, especially if they are going to charge people to own inferior quality video (which I'm sure iTunes wont' let you upgrade later)?
>>
Hollywood can can portray these scientists as silly, just as they were portrayed in so many B Movies from the 1950s.
What matters in life, from an animalistic perspective (which is the lowest-common-denominator in our society, especially in high-scool), is one's ability to attract a mate and generate offspring (i.e. get laid). Since we now have studies that have identified mental differences in geeks (Asperger's syndrome) which is responsible for them having difficulty in interpersonal communication, it's reasonable for Hollywood seek to make fun of scientists, since they are on the losing end of the mating game, so to speak.
Greenland is pretty big, but it's not as big as it looks in maps because it's distorted due to the map's projection.
If you can't spell arctic then you shouldn't be allowed to comment. Just like GW shouldn't be able to control "nukular" weapons.
My mother would disagree with you. She really likes being able to see my daughter on the webcam.
There are also a lot of people who do sex acts on the webcam.
It has its niche.
Oil that helps create fertilizer, runs farming equipment, and ships produce.
So what--the current version of SQL Server is vintage 2000.
All this and they couldn't make their own operating system for the PC.
Thank Reagan for that. He loosened restrictions on the ratio between commercials and content. So hourlong shows are really more like halfhours shows.
But this is using a higher densite LCD by the looks of it. The old one was 320x200 and this new one is 320x240.
The iPod Photo has two 80mhz ARM chips in it. That's not enough to decode fullres MPEG4 in realtime. Heck, today's xScale PDAs can barely do that at around 500mhz. It would need a faster CPU and/or a dedicated custom decoder chip.
Just beause it can do a slideshow that looks like a video doesn't mean it's a viable video player.
Didn't he say similar things about a headless iMac?
If people don't like looking at a screen, then why do people buy portable game machines?
I seriously doubt current iPods have the muscle to do truly high quality video playback. That takes Pentium III class hardware or some very dedicated custom chips.
Maybe 320x200 MPEG4 "simple profile" but nothing you download off the net.
I am not using a portable video device until it is a) cheap and b) has at least a PSP-res or VGA screen, and c) is able to play back pirated DIVX/XVID movies as-is from the net.
Nothing really passes all three criteria right now.
He said that for marketing reasons. I don't think he was being sincere.
I don't think he realized what the running time was going to have to be on these movies until he had to force them to a certain length to please the studio.
Remember that the studio originally just wanted one or two movies, not three. So he had to push just to get them to their current theatrical length.
Open question:
Does this mean you think the scene in 2001 where Dave Bowman blew himself into the airlock was realistic?
It's for small government if it has anything to do with helping the disadvantaged. They have to get dragged kicking and screaming into it (tsunami, katrina aid, for instance, privatizing social security).
What kind of comparison is that?
You can live without cable and gym memberships. You need a place to live, though.
I don't care how disposable the rockets are to get payloads off the earth. Have rockets within rockets.
The only way to have robust interplanetary missions with larger crews is to build your spacecraft piece by piece at the ISS.
You just want the heavy lifter to be able to launch a reasonably large module into orbit. The Space Shuttle really wasn't able to launch comfortably large modules.
Then you could have a spacecraft that is designed to ferry back and forth between the earth or the moon that could be refuelled in orbit. You could send dozens of crew members to help establish colonies.
What incentive is there in making OSS software that "pretty much works right out of the box" when the developers are thinking of enabling a support-based business model?
Is that a recipe for making the best software or does it tempt developers into making software that is so hard to use that you HAVE to pay for support? At which point, doesn't this blow consumers' total cost of ownership out of the water vs. commercial products who DO focus on ease of use?
I see no reason why all of these things couldn't have been the product of common sense derived through many years of simple observation.
For instance, with inbreeding, remember that humans performed genetic engineering many thousands of years ago: domestication of animals via selective breeding.
However, in any generation there are a lot of young people or dumb people likely to make these mistakes and that is what Leviticus is for.
I think we constantly underestimate how sophisticated ancient societies were. Sure, there was a lot of superstition and immorality, but there was also a fair amount of unofficial science then which produced a lot of amazing things considering how little they had to work with.