Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Apple Businesses Technology

Macworld Rumor Round-Up 179

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the wild-rumors-and-speculation dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Macworld Rumor Round-Up

Comments Filter:
  • iTV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TodMinuit (1026042) <<todminuit> <at> <gmail.com>> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @02:51AM (#17429446)
    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.
  • ITV? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by able1234au (995975) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @02:54AM (#17429464)
    Isnt there a british TV Channel called ITV? If so, that might be why he wont call it iTV.
  • Re:iTV (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb@gmail.cLISPom minus language> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:29AM (#17429584) Homepage
    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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cadallin (863437) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:29AM (#17429588)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R3d M3rcury (871886) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:48AM (#17429664) Journal
    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.
  • by adam (1231) * on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:49AM (#17429868)
    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 [interspectacular.com], 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 [google.com] 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 [youtube.com], 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 [youtube.com] 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:Blu-Ray Drives (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MojoStan (776183) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @06:06AM (#17430102)
    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)
  • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @07:11AM (#17430334)

    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).

  • by Orange Crush (934731) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @09:50AM (#17430984)
    $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:iTV (Score:3, Insightful)

    by JavaLord (680960) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @10:57AM (#17431504) Journal
    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.
  • by TheGreek (2403) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @11:47AM (#17431870)
    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."
  • predictions? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by onefourfive (950209) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @01:50PM (#17433332)
    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?
  • by Trojan35 (910785) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:44PM (#17434688)
    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.

There is no distinction between any AI program and some existent game.

Working...