Ommid
Apr 25, 12:50 PM
Should be interesting!!
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 31, 01:06 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
Everyone ASSUMES they will make these DVDs available via MP4. Who's to say they dont offer up an ISO file that is the FULL DVD (extra's and all)? Maybe even the full DVD encoded in MP4.
toddybody
Apr 22, 12:49 PM
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Thats what I'm thinking...hoping to grab a 13 at ~1000/1100 on Amazon.
Thats what I'm thinking...hoping to grab a 13 at ~1000/1100 on Amazon.
iRun26.2
Apr 26, 06:49 AM
I don't question the gaming issue, I just wonder what percentage of MBP buyers would not buy because of the Intel graphics. My uneducated guess would be a very small percentage. Remember, Apple caters to the average consumer, not the geeks.
That may be true but Apple does have the reputation of being 'a cut above the rest' when it comes to video and graphics.
That may be true but Apple does have the reputation of being 'a cut above the rest' when it comes to video and graphics.
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 10:48 AM
And then Apple would ruin Samsung, cratering them with winning lawsuits. Also, Samsung would lose their reputation in the supply chain as well as their credibility, and it would likely damage the Korean economy as a whole, and South Korea politically as well. You're talking about one company causing problems for tens of millions of consumers, and a mountain of negative news. If Samsung wanted to be bankrupted within a decade, this would be a way, for sure.
Lol do you know anything about Samsung? Do you know exactly how big of a company they are? good lord I feel embarrassed for you :(. just stop please just stop
Lol do you know anything about Samsung? Do you know exactly how big of a company they are? good lord I feel embarrassed for you :(. just stop please just stop
Eidorian
May 3, 11:47 AM
You can daisy chain multiple monitors with DisplayPort 1.2, and it has much more bandwidth than a Thunderbolt channel.Any instances and hardware where this is carried out?
cult hero
Apr 25, 06:28 PM
Maybe this MacBook Pro update will incorporate a retina display which the high resolution wallpaper in Lion hints at.
Guys... seriously. Retina displays aren't happening on anything larger than your iPhone for a while. I don't care what size icons or wallpapers have been spotted. The cost for screens of that resolution at that size would be absurd.
Guys... seriously. Retina displays aren't happening on anything larger than your iPhone for a while. I don't care what size icons or wallpapers have been spotted. The cost for screens of that resolution at that size would be absurd.
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 05:30 PM
As much as I love rumors approximating nearer and nearer some state of acuity, actually seeing the product a day ahead is a tad disspaointing. It reminds me of the late night when Time Canada unveiled the G4 iMac. Well it'll still be fun to watch me Opie tomorrow, especially since she's promoting iPods over the Dell Ditty she did a couple years back.
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Bottom line: The USA is already becoming like a 3rd world nation and I predict its going to get worse from here on through.. until the American People wake up and do something about it. One thing I have noticed about Americans when I came to this country many years ago - they are NOT revolutionaries like those in Eastern Europe or Europe for that fact.. they will allow their government to please them in any way shape or form, even when their freedoms are taken away by the Patriot acts I and II, and very soon III.
Americans don't have it in their blood any more to fight for what they truly believe in, all they care about is letting themselves be sent like sheep to the government's slaughter house.
WAKE UP!
Americans don't have it in their blood any more to fight for what they truly believe in, all they care about is letting themselves be sent like sheep to the government's slaughter house.
WAKE UP!
dazzer21
May 3, 11:34 AM
...that if each Thunderbolt port can support six daisy chained pieces of kit, if each one of those was a TB-equipped 30" monitor, we could have a 27" iMac with a 13-screen setup and 387" of screen real-estate?!! I need to buy a bigger house!!!!
rtdunham
Mar 23, 06:10 PM
... Honestly, do you think someone who is Drunk is going to be checking the app for the checkpoints? Its just an excuse to get rid of these apps from the store and increase revenue (by ticketing more DUI drivers)....
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
Your argument's inconsistent: If drunk drivers won't be checking the app, then they'd be ticketed at the checkpoint whether or not the apps exist, so pulling the apps neither increases or decreases revenue, does it? Your argument (revenue generation) ONLY works if it increases the number of drivers ticketed because those drivers use the apps.
Now, IF some drivers do check the app, it increases the likelihood they can avoid the checkpoint and being taken off the road. Remember, most drunks don't think they are. So they might use the app to avoid what they think is an unfair stop. But if the stop shows they are over the particular state's alcohol content level, then the system's sorted them out and done a favor for the rest of us, no?
cwt1nospam
Jan 12, 09:21 AM
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
For anyone who might buy into the above crap:
Many "virus writers" are script kiddies. They don't necessarily know much if anything about the Mac, so they assume that the virus they're using will work the same as on a PC. That's why they'll "make a message just for Mac users" even though it won't do anything. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't ever any Trojans for the Mac. There have been a few in the past and there certainly will be some in the future. There's just no need for antivirus software to detect these until and unless one or more of them become successful AND it takes Apple significantly longer to come out with a system update than it does the AV vendors to detect the threat and create a definition for it.
Why significantly longer? Because AV software costs you time and money while it slows your system down and potentially creates new vectors for viruses to attack your system! Software updates are free, don't slow your system down or make it more vulnerable, and unless they're long delayed the odds are excellent that you will not see the attack on your system before receiving the update.
This all applies to IOS too, except that because IOS is locked down to the point where the only way to get an application is through the app store it is practically impossible to create and transmit a trojan, let a lone a virus.
For anyone who might buy into the above crap:
Many "virus writers" are script kiddies. They don't necessarily know much if anything about the Mac, so they assume that the virus they're using will work the same as on a PC. That's why they'll "make a message just for Mac users" even though it won't do anything. This of course doesn't mean that there aren't ever any Trojans for the Mac. There have been a few in the past and there certainly will be some in the future. There's just no need for antivirus software to detect these until and unless one or more of them become successful AND it takes Apple significantly longer to come out with a system update than it does the AV vendors to detect the threat and create a definition for it.
Why significantly longer? Because AV software costs you time and money while it slows your system down and potentially creates new vectors for viruses to attack your system! Software updates are free, don't slow your system down or make it more vulnerable, and unless they're long delayed the odds are excellent that you will not see the attack on your system before receiving the update.
This all applies to IOS too, except that because IOS is locked down to the point where the only way to get an application is through the app store it is practically impossible to create and transmit a trojan, let a lone a virus.
Mac-Addict
Aug 31, 06:35 PM
or maybe just maybe...
Apple is bringing out a new desktop! I mean think about it they haven't really bought out a new desktop for agess all they have done is switch all products to intel.
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
Apple is bringing out a new desktop! I mean think about it they haven't really bought out a new desktop for agess all they have done is switch all products to intel.
**Edit, IMO i think its silly because whos gonna pay $14.99 for a movie on a tiny screen, and if they make it to watch on your computer then its just going to take hours and hours to download if you have a slow broadband connection
dmelgar
Mar 23, 05:19 PM
You counter point is just as silly.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
He makes a wonderful counterpoint.
People are willing to give up freedoms one inch at a time. But when you realize how much you stand to lose, or how much you've already lost, it takes on a different perspective. What is going on now, with Apple's control over what applications you can run on your general computing device, would have been deemed silly just a few years ago. But somehow its different because this computer is an iPad and not a Windows PC.
DaddyShortLegs
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
How many trees were harmed in the production of their leaflets?
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
Bomino
Apr 25, 03:02 AM
You certainly ain't the only one. Obvious troll is obvious.
i thought this from my first post, but his join date is 08, and he's a regular. that is what has me thinking that what he is saying is really how he thinks/acts.
i thought this from my first post, but his join date is 08, and he's a regular. that is what has me thinking that what he is saying is really how he thinks/acts.
Aperture
Sep 10, 05:00 PM
What time is the Sept. 12th event taking place? Anyone know? I am going to be in school and want to know if I am going to be able to get in on the action live. I doubt it though.:(
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:15 PM
Absolutely perfect design? Not even close.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
Things apple needs to do to make a better MBP with a redesign:
MUST DO:
(1) IPS screen. I actually don't mind lower resolutions on small screens (1280x800 is fine for 13.3"), but please, please give me a real IPS panel.
(2) Sharp edges need to go. I don't care what people say, working on a macbook for any extended period of time leaves deep grooves in my wrists/palms.
(3) A better design for cooling. Even with light cpu usage, the fans go crazy on my MBP and it gets terribly loud. Awful experience. I'm hoping Ivy Bridge will help with this. Either way, the fans need to be quieter. Maybe larger, slower fans rather than small fast ones?
WOULD BE NICE:
(4) Ability to turn off the super bright glowing apple logo would be nice
(5) Change 13.3" macbook to 14" (they prob won't do this)
(6) Support some kind of docking station (maybe just with thunderbolt?)
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 12:29 PM
Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
samiwas
Apr 18, 04:56 PM
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
Ummm...that was pretty much the point....:confused:
The line should be drawn by universal standard workers laws that prevent an employer from needlessly abusing their employees (timewise) without just compensation.
For instance, when I'm working on a union job (yeah, those awful unions protecting workers and stuff), anything over 8 hours a day is time+half. Anything between midnight and 6am is double-time. More than 40 hours in a 7-day period is time+half. Sunday is time+half. The employer has a right to decide when he wants his job done, and he can pay the price for it. The problem is that most employers choose ridiculous timelines and budgets, and the people working for them are stuck having to work the hours to complete something beyond their control. Without some sort of workers protection laws, this will only get worse and worse.
Of course, there are jobs that have to get done in a certain amount of time (as I referenced above), and some people may alter their speed and go slower to push into that overtime (of course this happens...I've seen it firsthand and abhor the practice). But that's no different than an employer dumping a new workload onto someone on Friday afternoon and saying "Yeeeaahh...I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow. Oh, and I almost forgot, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? We, uh, lost some people this week, and, uh, we have to sort of play catch up. Thanks!"
So, do you prefer a world where the employer has all the control and can make his employees do whatever he wants for whatever he wants to pay (or they can quit/be fired), or a world where employees have some sort of power to require fair compensation for extraordinary work periods? I know which I prefer, and I'm pretty sure I know which you prefer.
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
What does the hotshot trader making a killing have to do with anything? What if the trader is working 80 hours a week and not making a killing? Is the trader WANTING to work 80 hours, or is his firm requiring him to work 80 hours? Are they compensating him or is he just working for the man making the killing for his company but not really seeing the results for himself? I guess if someone WANTS to work 80 hours for free, you can let them...but it should never be a required part of the job.
Ummm...that was pretty much the point....:confused:
The line should be drawn by universal standard workers laws that prevent an employer from needlessly abusing their employees (timewise) without just compensation.
For instance, when I'm working on a union job (yeah, those awful unions protecting workers and stuff), anything over 8 hours a day is time+half. Anything between midnight and 6am is double-time. More than 40 hours in a 7-day period is time+half. Sunday is time+half. The employer has a right to decide when he wants his job done, and he can pay the price for it. The problem is that most employers choose ridiculous timelines and budgets, and the people working for them are stuck having to work the hours to complete something beyond their control. Without some sort of workers protection laws, this will only get worse and worse.
Of course, there are jobs that have to get done in a certain amount of time (as I referenced above), and some people may alter their speed and go slower to push into that overtime (of course this happens...I've seen it firsthand and abhor the practice). But that's no different than an employer dumping a new workload onto someone on Friday afternoon and saying "Yeeeaahh...I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow. Oh, and I almost forgot, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? We, uh, lost some people this week, and, uh, we have to sort of play catch up. Thanks!"
So, do you prefer a world where the employer has all the control and can make his employees do whatever he wants for whatever he wants to pay (or they can quit/be fired), or a world where employees have some sort of power to require fair compensation for extraordinary work periods? I know which I prefer, and I'm pretty sure I know which you prefer.
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
What does the hotshot trader making a killing have to do with anything? What if the trader is working 80 hours a week and not making a killing? Is the trader WANTING to work 80 hours, or is his firm requiring him to work 80 hours? Are they compensating him or is he just working for the man making the killing for his company but not really seeing the results for himself? I guess if someone WANTS to work 80 hours for free, you can let them...but it should never be a required part of the job.
rstansby
Apr 19, 11:21 PM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
milo
Sep 5, 04:51 PM
Only one problem with that..
You can already do it with iTunes.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
Did you read the post? iTunes doesn't do that, right now apple doesn't have an airport with *video* output. And look at the picture again, that mockup has a remote that talks to the airport, you don't have to leave the room.
You miss the whole point of this. Why would you want to have an expensive box next to the TV when you could just have a tiny airport, and let your computer do the heavy lifting from another room?
isn't the resolution going to be terrible. I don't see these movie downloads working with a hi-def TV. The television shows are pretty pathetic on my old 42" panasonic. 320x240 is going to look terrible on a beautiful sony 1080p television...
You're assuming they won't up the resolution when they start doing movies. What makes you so sure they'll do that?
You can already do it with iTunes.
And it would be hard to go to one room and start the movie then go to the other room and start watching it.
If there is a media device it will be set-top box or Mini style that sits next to the main TV.
Did you read the post? iTunes doesn't do that, right now apple doesn't have an airport with *video* output. And look at the picture again, that mockup has a remote that talks to the airport, you don't have to leave the room.
You miss the whole point of this. Why would you want to have an expensive box next to the TV when you could just have a tiny airport, and let your computer do the heavy lifting from another room?
isn't the resolution going to be terrible. I don't see these movie downloads working with a hi-def TV. The television shows are pretty pathetic on my old 42" panasonic. 320x240 is going to look terrible on a beautiful sony 1080p television...
You're assuming they won't up the resolution when they start doing movies. What makes you so sure they'll do that?
Bawstun
Apr 20, 01:03 PM
This is really, really, REALLY bad for Apple. Bad publicity - and quite alarming.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
I've had every model iPhone, had iMacs, iPads, iPods and even I am concerned. This is not okay.
Lawsuits are coming.
Just wonder how long it will take and if it will be class action or not. Days? Weeks? Months? Probably not months.
milo
Sep 6, 07:52 AM
This is what I had anticipated a while back, but Apple went and invested in the Mini as the quasi-set-top-box. I'm not saying it's not possible, but I wonder if they would change horses mid stream, as it were. I think the video AE would be cool, but it's not quite mainstream enough for regular folk. The Mini, on the other hand, would be sufficiently mainstream if Apple cut the price a little bit and made Front Row a little more robust (and included a DVI to HDMI cable ;)).
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
The mini isn't really any more of a set top box than any other mac, other than it being small. I don't see going with an airport as a change in direction, they've been pretty adamant that it's not a set top box all along. For a TV unit to become mainstream, it would have to be $200 tops, and even that is pretty high. A mini will never get that cheap - and even if it was, it would still be a waste to have a whole computer used for just TV when a cheap, simple streaming device would do the job.
I agree with everyone here who says that when Apple starts their own movie store they should also release a new Application along with it.
Playing video in iTunes is pretty bad.
They don't need a new app, they just need to fix iTunes.
I guess I was thinking if they up the resolution too much on the movie it may look better on the big screen, but it will no longer be compatible on the ipod.
I don't think the problem would be fixable in the firmware either. How big are we going to make these files?
Right now, I can rip a DVD (that I own of course) and crunch it down to my iPOD's size 320x240 (roughly 600MB for a couple of hours) . Now... it supports up to 640x480, but that turns it into a pretty hefty file.
I don't see apple changing the resolution for movies unless you want rediculous download times. Just downloading some of these HD trailers takes forever, and they look terrible on the displays at the apple store (tried it there only because I thought it was my computer, not the technology).
I guess I would rather see an on demand viewing solution for the hi-def stuff, which I can already do through comcast, and stick to low res for my iPod Video when I am traveling.
Either way... like I said in another post... you are going to see an updated iPod Nano, upgraded processors for some of models still using the first generation intel chips, and a worthless video streamer that lets you feed your video to a TV without hooking your computer up to it lo res (which will look terrible on a 1080p television)... oh and the Movie downloads - probably from Disney Pixar only at first.
This would suck for me because the last thing I want to do is tie up my computer so somebody in my house can watch INCREDIBLES with bad picture and average sound in my living room.
My guess would be that they'd offer two versions of the movie, one for TV and one for iPod (either giving the user a choice or letting them have both). If download time is an issue, another option is having the user's computer render out the smaller version, if the machine is fast enough.
They pretty much have to up the quality if they want to sell movies and promote them for watching on a TV. I assume they'll go NTSC and not HD, the size for that is still managable for people with high speed connections.
I disagree that the airport will be "worthless", because I don't think they will ship one that is low rez. NTSC (dvd quality) at minimum. I don't think low rez is even an option for TV viewing, apple wouldn't release something they'd know was doomed to fail.
