If I was running Apple, I would just begin a scheme to tag certain brands 'OSX certified'. Maybe 2 lines of Asus motherboards, all the PCIe Nvidia and ATI graphics cards, and only the newest creative audio cards. I guess Athlon and Intel processors, and maybe a TV tuner or two.
I would declare ALL weird little expansion cards 'unsupported', handing off all support responsibility to the third-party hardware manufacturers. The OS would sell like hotcakes, and you would get bags of money from all your second-party hardware partners too since users would be forced to upgrade.
To answer your question - the movie industry has mandated 2k and 4k because it basically slows down the adoption of digital projectors. Really, most cinema projectors are not focused to better than 1k, and most movie-goers have eyes that do not resolve to better than 1k at that distance, in the dark. So 1k would be a big improvement on most cinemas' projectors. I spoke with the head of interactive cinema for the BBC, and this was basically his complaint.
Why do they want to slow down adoption of digital projection? First, they make a lot of money from selling replacement film canisters. Second, they make a lot of money from selling redundant film canisters for popular films at launch, like 'Star Wars'. Third, they are worried about piracy from high quality digital sources. And fourth, they want the digital migration to happen at a time when they are able to own every part of it. That is why there is a requirement for 4k.
And when you can cheaply and easily produce projectors which run at 4k, they will start mandating a requirement for 8k.
Plus, the Variety interview with Stringer just made speculations regarding the PS3 delay. *If* you read the article carefully.
Just because two posts bear the same overall conclusion doesn't mean they are duplicates, unless you are an idiot.
In fact, whenever I see a post entitled 'Dupe!' I just assume the poster is an idiot.
> Nonsense. They can just up and change major components like this on a whim.
Well, they will struggle to change them after the PS3 is released. By which I mean, it would be commercially impossible for compatibility reasons.
If blu-ray fails, it is not too late to change the spec to HD-DVD before the system launch, just because the standards are so similar. It wouldn't affect developers much, if at all.
> Nonsense. The PS3 isn't a home multimedia center. Even if nobody buys a single Blu-ray movie, you'll still see tons of blu-ray PS3 games.
I think Sony's pricing strategy entirely depends on the movie player being worth something to customers. The success of PS3 is more crucial than the success of Blu-Ray to sony. If Blu-ray fails, they can still sell HD-DVD players and movies. If PS3 fails, they'll have sunk a lot more money in it.
You mention the Dreamcast, which failed enormously compared to the PS2, which did wedge in the DVD standard, but was also wedged in itself by its DVD support. If you think you can just as easily sell a PS3 for as much as US$700 without it supporting video playback, I think history shows you are wrong.
I think Sony's Playstation team is deliberately holding up the PS3 launch because they aren't at all sure Blu-ray will win. PS3 will certainly die if it has a completely unwanted component that makes up for a third of its cost.
A lot of you are saying 'forget the job, spend all your remaining time with your families.'
Do so many of you just work for the money? In my experience, nerds tend to seek out jobs they find interesting and compelling, so that it matters to them whether or not their work gets finished. I see absolutely nothing wrong with going to work until the day you die, if it is important to you. Of course, don't neglect your family (if you have one) but don't just burn all your colleagues (if you have them) either.
Honestly, if you could just dump your career tomorrow to go to hang out with your family, maybe it means you have a great family, but more likely it means you should find a new job. If you're a nerd, you're smart, you'll figure it out.
I hate Linux. I hate its guts. But if IBM and Dell would start selling computers ONLY with Linux, and put their weight behind developing it, that is all it would take to make me switch.
Slashdot Mirror
I would declare ALL weird little expansion cards 'unsupported', handing off all support responsibility to the third-party hardware manufacturers. The OS would sell like hotcakes, and you would get bags of money from all your second-party hardware partners too since users would be forced to upgrade.
This story is quite ironic... if you are a Cyberman.
To answer your question - the movie industry has mandated 2k and 4k because it basically slows down the adoption of digital projectors. Really, most cinema projectors are not focused to better than 1k, and most movie-goers have eyes that do not resolve to better than 1k at that distance, in the dark. So 1k would be a big improvement on most cinemas' projectors. I spoke with the head of interactive cinema for the BBC, and this was basically his complaint. Why do they want to slow down adoption of digital projection? First, they make a lot of money from selling replacement film canisters. Second, they make a lot of money from selling redundant film canisters for popular films at launch, like 'Star Wars'. Third, they are worried about piracy from high quality digital sources. And fourth, they want the digital migration to happen at a time when they are able to own every part of it. That is why there is a requirement for 4k. And when you can cheaply and easily produce projectors which run at 4k, they will start mandating a requirement for 8k.
They could have skipped that and teamed up with some researchers doing work on *wings*.
Plus, the Variety interview with Stringer just made speculations regarding the PS3 delay. *If* you read the article carefully. Just because two posts bear the same overall conclusion doesn't mean they are duplicates, unless you are an idiot. In fact, whenever I see a post entitled 'Dupe!' I just assume the poster is an idiot.
> Nonsense. They can just up and change major components like this on a whim. Well, they will struggle to change them after the PS3 is released. By which I mean, it would be commercially impossible for compatibility reasons. If blu-ray fails, it is not too late to change the spec to HD-DVD before the system launch, just because the standards are so similar. It wouldn't affect developers much, if at all. > Nonsense. The PS3 isn't a home multimedia center. Even if nobody buys a single Blu-ray movie, you'll still see tons of blu-ray PS3 games. I think Sony's pricing strategy entirely depends on the movie player being worth something to customers. The success of PS3 is more crucial than the success of Blu-Ray to sony. If Blu-ray fails, they can still sell HD-DVD players and movies. If PS3 fails, they'll have sunk a lot more money in it. You mention the Dreamcast, which failed enormously compared to the PS2, which did wedge in the DVD standard, but was also wedged in itself by its DVD support. If you think you can just as easily sell a PS3 for as much as US$700 without it supporting video playback, I think history shows you are wrong.
I think Sony's Playstation team is deliberately holding up the PS3 launch because they aren't at all sure Blu-ray will win. PS3 will certainly die if it has a completely unwanted component that makes up for a third of its cost.
A lot of you are saying 'forget the job, spend all your remaining time with your families.' Do so many of you just work for the money? In my experience, nerds tend to seek out jobs they find interesting and compelling, so that it matters to them whether or not their work gets finished. I see absolutely nothing wrong with going to work until the day you die, if it is important to you. Of course, don't neglect your family (if you have one) but don't just burn all your colleagues (if you have them) either. Honestly, if you could just dump your career tomorrow to go to hang out with your family, maybe it means you have a great family, but more likely it means you should find a new job. If you're a nerd, you're smart, you'll figure it out.
I hate Linux. I hate its guts. But if IBM and Dell would start selling computers ONLY with Linux, and put their weight behind developing it, that is all it would take to make me switch.