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This discussion has been archived.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@NOspAM.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.
    • by Baricom (763970)
      Just opening it up to video podcasts in your iTunes library would be a significant opportunity for new media providers.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cadallin (863437)
        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: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Baricom (763970)
          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 co
        • 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
          • by Cadallin (863437)
            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, a

            • by SirWinston (54399)
              > 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 gett
              • 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."
              • by Cadallin (863437)
                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
          • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

            by slashbart (316113)
            I saw your 'too taboo' link to the Loose Change [google.com] 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
          • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Orange Crush (934731)

              $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 brigh

              • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                by Andy Somnifac (971725)

                $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 [bhphotovideo.com] 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 [bhphotovideo.com]. And I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that make other possible choices, but Canon is what I'm familiar with.

                • by 7Prime (871679)

                  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-$9

                  • by gobbo (567674)
                    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.

              • by Wdomburg (141264)
                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
          • by bigpat (158134)
            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,
          • by Trojan35 (910785)
            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 fre
          • by tigersha (151319)
            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 mor
        • by soft_guy (534437)
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by JavaLord (680960)
          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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Babbster (107076) <aaronbabb AT gmail DOT com> 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:4, Interesting)

        by TodMinuit (1026042) <todminuit@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:46AM (#17429858)
        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 (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.
      • Re:iTV (Score:4, Interesting)

        by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:19AM (#17429770) Homepage
        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 [rogueamoeba.com] 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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Utopia (149375)
      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.
    • by metamatic (202216)
      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.
  • ITV? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by able1234au (995975)
    Isnt there a british TV Channel called ITV? If so, that might be why he wont call it iTV.
    • by wo1verin3 (473094)
      It won't be called iTV because it's too similar to Elgato's EyeTV [elgato.com] product.
    • Re:ITV? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Stephen Samuel (106962) <samuel@b[ ]een.com ['cgr' in gap]> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:31AM (#17429802) Homepage Journal
      yeah. ITV in Britain, and CITV in Canada (which pushes itself as ITV [www.itv.ca]).

      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: (Score:3, Informative)

        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".
    • There's a Thai channel called ITV [itv.co.th] too (warning: site does not render well with Mozilla-based browsers).
  • by PapayaSF (721268) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:06AM (#17429506) Journal

    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 [slashdot.org].
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:34AM (#17429616)
      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.

      • by JoshJ (1009085)
        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.
        • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

        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

    • by carbona (119666)
      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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by JavaLord (680960)
      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?
  • Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:40AM (#17429632)
    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 (Score:5, Funny)

      by kripkenstein (913150) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @06:03AM (#17430092) Homepage
      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.
    • 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.
  • by guruevi (827432) <evi.smokingcube@be> on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @03:46AM (#17429658) Homepage
    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?
    • by figleaf (672550)
      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.
  • by Stephen Tennant (936097) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:00AM (#17429722) Journal
    I've cracked the Macworld secret - selective, vowel exclusive acronyms!

    Digital Lifestyle Device = DiLDo

  • 12" Macbook Pro? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by carbona (119666) on Tuesday January 02, 2007 @04:02AM (#17429728)
    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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Kufat (563166)
      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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        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.
    • 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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by flewp (458359)
      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 de
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mrchaotica (681592) *

        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 drinkypoo (153816)
          Do you (or does anyone) know of a tablet with firewire boot? That's the one mac feature I actually care about.
    • by hritcu (871613)
      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.
    • by drsmithy (35869)
      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.
    • by Sentry21 (8183)
      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.
    • 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).
    • 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.
  • All of these products are already available in the market from several manufactures.

    Apple is just playing catch-up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      Who moded that as funny?

      seriously....
    • by Llywelyn (531070)
      No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
  • Say no more.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MojoStan (776183)
      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 theurge14 (820596) *
        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. :)
  • 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.
  • I don't know how they missed the idea of new versions of iLife and iWork coming out, those are almost givens.
    • by metamatic (202216)
      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).
    • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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.
    • 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?
  • predictions? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by onefourfive (950209)
    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 deserv
  • New iPod (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unvjarhead (928317)

FORTUNE'S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44 Zebras are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Working...