MacWorld 2007 Predictions [Text View]

wildrock

12-27-06, 07:26 PM

You've made the safest prediction of all :) My prediction for the #1 complaint: iTV 1.0 is not HD, and only supports iTunes, not 3rd party products like VLC or EyeTV.

But I'm still looking for the harder kind of predictions -- what Apple will actually announce.Yep, no matter what the Steve announces, somebody will be disappointed :rolleyes: inevitable.

That being said, the iTV, iPhone (maybe just a statement--if SJ doesn't comment on this, all else is moot and will be drowned out by the cacaphony of the dispossesed :mad: ), and Leopard are givens. What is a little more intriguing would be the following:

* Dual quad core Mac Pro (8 cores!)
* New form factor that would serve as a server or gamer machine. 1/2 the size of the Mac Pro case. Single dual or quad core processor with expansion slots. Geek tweeker special.
* 12" ultra thin laptop, in new design. Possible new design for MacBook Pro.
* Spreadsheet addition to iWork '07, ship same time as Leopard
* Expanded iTunes Store capabilities to match iTV features--one click movie downloads from the strato lounger. SD at first, to be followed later by HD. Stream from iTunes Store to your tv via enhanced Front Row interface. Possible integration with Google Videos.
* New line Cinema high res monitors (17, 20, 24, 30"). Possible 1920x1080 37-42" monitors.
* Enhanced wireless/IR remote for Front Row.
* And one last thing...???

Mark Booth

12-27-06, 11:43 PM

I'm holding off buying a MacBook Pro because I think Apple will be announcing something new in the laptop line. Or, at the very least, another speed bump for the MB Pros.

Mark

Andrew67

12-27-06, 11:47 PM

These are good predictions and I'm not sure I can top them. The iPhone and the iTV are the big unknowns, not sure we'll see either at the show.

* Dual quad core Mac Pro (8 cores!)

Yes.

* New form factor that would serve as a server or gamer machine. 1/2 the size of the Mac Pro case. Single dual or quad core processor with expansion slots. Geek tweeker special.

No.

* 12" ultra thin laptop, in new design. Possible new design for MacBook Pro.

Possible, and I'd say it's a better than 50/50 shot of happening.

* Spreadsheet addition to iWork '07, ship same time as Leopard

Yes.

* Expanded iTunes Store capabilities to match iTV features--one click movie downloads from the strato lounger. SD at first, to be followed later by HD. Stream from iTunes Store to your tv via enhanced Front Row interface. Possible integration with Google Videos.

Yes and No. I simply see this as iTV functionality. The big question is... will the iTV be released or simply reannounced? Anything less than a release will be a downer, but I'm not convinced that it's ready to go.

* New line Cinema high res monitors (17, 20, 24, 30"). Possible 1920x1080 37-42" monitors.

Good chance.

* Enhanced wireless/IR remote for Front Row.

Only if it's part of iTV.

The only thing I would add would be new iSight cameras and the possibility of an iChat handset. Although an iChat handset is a reach. Not sure the market is there, and it also could impact iChat with fees (e911, etc) and headaches. I don't see an iChat handset selling macs so there's no real point to it.

aychamo

12-28-06, 09:39 AM

Lets just hope that Jobs isn't in prison!! The rumor pages are making him look like he did something really bad.. I really hope not. With all the ass that Apple has been kicking, I would hate for anything to screw with their momentum.

DaveGee

12-28-06, 10:19 AM

I predict that a handful of AVS forum members will complain that Apple has missed the boat because an announced product did not fulfill their deepest desires. The majority of the complaints will fall on the shortcomings of the iphone, the lack of a touch screen ipod, and no tv tuner integration in the iTV or any mac product line.

A handful? I'd feel safe in wagering a substantial bet that if you're a Mac fan and have an account here on AVS then you WILL be disappointed with whatever Apple releases HTPC wise.

Things that I'd bank on:

Cable/Broadcast TV Support
----------------------------------
- No HDTV (QAM) Tuner
- No TIVOish Feature
- More than likely no TV Tuner at all

DVD Support
----------------
- No DVD Ripping at full quality
- More than likely no DVD ripping at any quality above the all but useless iPod rez
- No support for VIDEO_TS folders for DVDs you ripped by some other means

Sorry... but being a Mac user since -forever- I've learned to be quite pessimistic when it comes Apple's version ONE dot ZERO products (software or hardware) feature sets. Most products are introduced at v1.0 with a VERY basic and limited features and if successful future versions will evolve with features that should have been their since day one.

On the plus side it will usually contain 'something' that nobody has ever done before and after we all get to see that 'something' feature we'll all say 'DUH!! That's so cool or obvious or elegant a feature!! Why on earth didn't anyone else think of that -)

Yep... I have to assume that most of us here on AVS will be EXTREMELY excited by whatever gets demoed but at the same time be VERY frustrated that it falls way short in many other ways.

Dave

MickeyDora

12-28-06, 10:23 AM

This gave me the best laugh of the morning...

Don't take this too seriously. (http://www.meristation.com/v3/pop_up_imgs.php?id=cw4592f73de5605&nav=F&pic=GEN)

druber

12-28-06, 11:11 AM

Nice To Have:
Leopard to include HD-DVD/Blu-Ray playback software and supports BYO-drive (don't know why it wouldn't).
Desktop Macs/iTV (at least) are HDCP-compatible for hi-def video.
iTV can play HD MPEG2 (i.e. EyeTV recordings) and can play files from a NAS drive, no Mac needed.
802.11n Airport base station (functionality built into iTV?)

Like many others, though I would love to be pleasantly surprised by Apple supporting HD (optical or recorded) but don't expect to be. Although we may expect that Apple will transition iTunes video to high definition, I think it has to be Apple's plan as well for them to produce the iTV with that capability in mind.

My credit card's sitting safely in my wallet, but you can bet I'll be catching as much of the keynote as I can get.

wildrock

12-28-06, 02:19 PM

Things that I'd bank on:

Cable/Broadcast TV Support
----------------------------------
- No HDTV (QAM) Tuner
- No TIVOish Feature
- More than likely no TV Tuner at allI'd agree with you here, but for different reasons. I think that Apple will try to disrupt the current model of content distribution of video in all forms. The era of the channel is dead. No need for tuners or time-shifted content. All content will be available 24/7. No commercials. PPV, buy to own, or subscription models and/or a new model will take over. All delivered over IP.

This would be the true undoing of the current model where the networks control content, the cable companies and satellite companies and advertisers deliver revenue and in conjunction with networks control viewing schedules, access to content, and even the content creation itself. Throw out the middlemen (tiered programming monopolists and their "bundled services" telecom partners), the advertisers, the networks, and work directly with the studios, producers, and alternative IP-based content aggregators (i.e. Google Video). Let good, creative content rise to the surface, as the rest of the network/cable channel produced, ad-supported pablum sinks in mediocrity.

Has anyone else wondered why the other major studios than Jobs-affiliated ones have yet to throw their content into the iTunes Store? It has nothing to do with DRM, and everything to do with who controls the direction of a new model of delivering content in the 21st century. The battles for control are starting to rage. But Apple has the technology, experience and vision to drive this beast. Jobs' experience with Pixar and now Disney combined with his leadership at Apple uniquely qualifies him as an individual quite capable of a total market disruption here. Watch the studios, networks and indy producers get on the bus when they see it start to leave town. They will all love Apple on one hand, as they did with the iPod and iTunes Music Store, and may loathe them on the other, as they don't like change from the tightly controlled media world they once owned, and are suspect of a future in which they don't ultimately control or create. Apple will hand over the reins to the consumers, who will choose what they want to see, and how they want to pay for it, opening the way for a new model.

And Apple has all of the pieces to put together such a scenario. It is just starting to unvei them and put them together. And it won't be totally obvious from the outset, and people will be confused by what they will perceive as the apparent misdirection of Apple. But I think that 2007, starting with Jobs' keynote, will set the stage for this disruption.

The era of the channel is over. Nielsen is dead.

nightowl

12-28-06, 03:30 PM

I'd agree with you here, but for different reasons. I think that Apple will try to disrupt the current model of content distribution of video in all forms. The era of the channel is dead. No need for tuners or time-shifted content. All content will be available 24/7. No commercials. PPV, buy to own, or subscription models and/or a new model will take over. All delivered over IP.

The era of the channel is over. Nielsen is dead.

I would tend to agree, and I see it coming, but I don't like the replacement model. I don't want to pay $1.99 for every episode of every show that I want to watch. I like the "shout it out" method that cable and satellite offer now, where I can set my own DVR to record what I want it to, then watch on my own schedule.

Now, if someone can develop an all VOD system where I pay a flat rate per provider/channel or grouping per month, then I grab what programming I want when I want it, I'm ready to sign up today.

I just don't like the model of $1.99 per episode for whatever show you want. I pay less on average for that episode of Grey's Anatomy via satellite or cable than I do via iTunes. I lose some immediate flexibility in where I view it, but I paid a lot less on average for it.

Ted Todorov

12-28-06, 04:22 PM

The era of the channel is over. Nielsen is dead.
I think that can be true once iTunes graduates to DVD quality.

Right now it simply doesn't look good enough.

Any guesses on when the DVD quality will arrive, and whether the main obstacle to it are Apple's concerns over bandwidth cost/download time or studio/network objections?

Kadath

12-28-06, 07:18 PM

I really really hope they announce burnable bluray drives standard in MBPs.

A 12" MBP seems like it would be interesting.

A faster 3d card in the MBP is a MUST.

Yeah, I've got MBP envy =)

Sam

R8ders2K

12-28-06, 08:00 PM

Other than the obvious speed bumps and maybe an new iPod, I'm banking on 802.11n AirPort Extreme and Apple's announcement that it bought the rights to ReplayTV (TiVo's interface sucks). :D

gmwedding

12-29-06, 11:47 AM

My predictions:
1. New Mac media computer w/HDMI, 256MB video, Blu-Ray, 2-expansion slots, 2-internal HDs (pizza box or small tower) $1299
2. Mac mini updates (Intel Core2 Duo) w/HDMI, Blu-Ray @$699 & $799 supplements basic $499 & $599 models
3. iTV w/internal HD(s), 802.11n WiFi router, dual (gigabit) Ethernet LAN/WAN ports (replaces Airport Extreme, doubles as NAS device) $299-$599
4. Apple-branded NAS storage device or SOHO Xserve $699-$1299
5. New HDMI-equipped LCD displays (up to 42-inch); possibly 50- and 61-inch plasma displays
6. 802.11n Airport Extreme, Express routers (Flash upgradeable to final standard; see #3 above)
7. iTunes HD (720p) or DVD-quality (480p) movies w/ new quick-download technology that uses Mac customers' Xgrid in (Network) Sharing Preferences
8. Major Front Row update
9. New keyboard/trackpad/gaming input device for sofa
10. iPod video w @3.5-inch display
11. iPod phones (2) w/WiFi, iChat AV; (GSM and CDMA versions)
12. Gaming system (new platform or partnership with Sony)

OK. It's a wish list.

imlucid

12-29-06, 12:19 PM

iTunes DVD-quality (720p) movies
720p is HD, DVD quality is 480p

nightowl

12-29-06, 01:20 PM

My predictions:
1. New Mac media computer w/HDMI, 256MB video, Blu-Ray, 2-expansion slots, 2-internal HDs (pizza box or small tower) $1299
2. Mac mini updates (Intel Core2 Duo) w/HDMI, Blu-Ray @$699 & $799 supplements basic $499 & $599 models
3. iTV w/internal HD(s), 802.11n WiFi router, dual (gigabit) Ethernet LAN/WAN ports (replaces Airport Extreme, doubles as NAS device) $299-$599
7. iTunes DVD-quality (720p) movies w/ new quick-download technology that uses Mac customers' Xgrid in (Network) Sharing Preferences
8. Major Front Row update
9. New keyboard/trackpad/gaming input device for sofa

OK. It's a wish list.

These would be nice. Either 1 or 2 would be perfect for me, as I'm currently upgrading my home entertainment center and will be getting a Mac HTPC shortly after MacWorld. Not sure that we will get a Blu-Ray drive in a computer, however, at a 699 price point. The standalone players are still at $1000+

wildrock

12-29-06, 03:13 PM

Not sure that we will get a Blu-Ray drive in a computer, however, at a 699 price point. The standalone players are still at $1000+I would love to see Apple offer a Blu-Ray drive, either in a shipping product (make it a Mac Mini add-on please!) or as a BTO add-on. iSupply did a breakdown on the PS3 (http://www.isuppli.com/news/default.asp?id=6919) and lists the price of the BD optical disk player as $125. The high cost of the shipping players is due to the fact that they basically have to pair the drive with a computer in order for it to do what it needs to. And with a Mac Mini, say, you already have all of the computer, you just need a drive.

So a Mini with a Blu-Ray drive could actually be quite price competitive with current integrated BD drives (<$1k). Availability of such a drive to Apple, on the other hand, most likely would be very limited as the market is constrained on the supply of the blue diode lasers. So add the $125 BD cost to the cost of the Mini, minus the $25 or so of the cost of the SuperDrive, and you get the Mac MiniHT for just a hundred bucks more than what's available now. Add upgrade to C2D procesor, eSata, 802.11(n), an enhanced remote, HDMI, and whatever software interface (upgraded FrontRow??) the iTV will have, and you've got everything you need for less than the cost of a shipping BD player. And for those wanting BD on other Macs, it could be a $200 BTO option.

One of the problems I see with this for Apple is how they differentiate this from the iTV. Or is the the iTV on steroids that we here rumours about?

Larry Hutchinson

12-29-06, 03:44 PM

I hereby predict the following will not be announced (but should):

A mac mini HTPC in a box the same size as a standard DVD player with
1. No &*&%*^%*& power brick.
2. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray playback.
3. ATSC/QAM HD dual tuner

nightowl

12-29-06, 03:47 PM

One of the problems I see with this for Apple is how they differentiate this from the iTV. Or is the the iTV on steroids that we here rumours about?

I think the iTV will be similar to what gmwedding refers to above, with internal HDs, etc., but probably no optical drives at first. They don't want you to rip your own movies to the drive, but want you to share the content from other computers, so basically a video Airport device is what it will be. You might not even be able to directly access the device through your network, just share via iTunes to the device. Then step up to the mini for optical drive, full HDTV support, networkability, etc.

Jimwesternguy

12-29-06, 04:20 PM

There is one report on the Apple discussion board that the nVidia 7300GT card in the mac pro is already HDCP compliant. So, Apple just needs to release the playback software and a BluRay drive (or a 3rd party might step forward with a drive) and OSX is good to go for BluRay movies (oh, also assuming one uses a HDCP compliant display for 1080p over digital connection).

wildrock

12-29-06, 04:43 PM

Andrew67

12-29-06, 05:10 PM

I think the iTV will be similar to what gmwedding refers to above, with internal HDs, etc., but probably no optical drives at first.

I predict that the iTV will have no internal drive, optical or magnetic.

MickeyDora

12-29-06, 05:48 PM

I predict that the iTV (or MacTV, is my prediction) will NOT play any HD files that are not purchased from the iTunes store (with the exception of QT movie trailers).

wildrock

12-29-06, 08:43 PM

I predict that the iTV (or MacTV, is my prediction) will NOT play any HD files that are not purchased from the iTunes store (with the exception of QT movie trailers).Well that wouldn't make any sense. Why would Apple have iMovie HD and other software that can work with consumer generated HD and then not allow you to view it? I think that as with iTunes, Apple will allow you to view most any non-DRM files that QuickTime can play (including with plugins like Flip4Mac, etc.).

The day Apple starts closing the door to outside content is the day that others will step in and fill the void, and Apple begins to wither. Why become more Microsoft-like, when it obviously hasn't worked for them? Without the value of being able to, i.e, burn your own cd's, listen to generic mp3's, and listen to other sources than iTunes Store songs, the iPod would never have taken off like it did. Apple really doesn't make much money on the iTunes Store, nor does it have to for the iPod to be successful. It is a convenience and added value bonus for iPod users. I would likewise suggest that the iTunes Store would play the same role for Apple's iTV, iPhone, and any other AV device they might come up with. The money for Apple is in selling the hardware, and backing it up with a computing platform that integrates it all.

chefklc

12-29-06, 09:16 PM

Well that wouldn't make any sense

Like it made sense for Apple not to build recognition of video_ts into Front Row? MickeyDora is closer to being correct than not, I'm afraid. An EyeTV recording of a network show in HD won't have any DRM--want to bet it can't be streamed to the iTV? The "what Quicktime can play" limitation is already tired, most of us have moved past it.

wildrock

12-29-06, 09:53 PM

Like it made sense for Apple not to build recognition of video_ts into Front Row? MickeyDora is closer to being correct than not, I'm afraid. An EyeTV recording of a network show in HD won't have any DRM--want to bet it can't be streamed to the iTV? The "what Quicktime can play" limitation is already tired, most of us have moved past it.I was just taking his words "will NOT play any HD files that are not purchased from the iTunes store" literally. I fully expect that Apple's iTV will play other HD files than those purchased at the iTunes Store. It most likely won't play all HD files, just like the iPod doesn't play ALL music files. We can argue about the fine points of file support, but I don't agree that "most of us have moved past it." Those of us that use QuickTime professionally have to deal with the environment and workflow tools provided to us, and integrate them to do our work. Move on to what? Windows? :eek:

And if you want to talk about Front Row limitations, there are a slew of them. But to be fair to Apple, I'm sure that the next incarnation of it, either to be released with the iTV or with Leopard will address many of them. How would opening it to third party developers for plugin integration suit you? Now that would push it right along. Got a file type, we'll have a plugin to support it. If Apple won't do that with Front Row, maybe Center Stage or another product will. Front Row isn't the only show in town.

There's a MacWorld prediction for you. Plugin support for Front Row. Lots of people have been talking about it and rumors abound.

nightowl

12-29-06, 11:05 PM

Like it made sense for Apple not to build recognition of video_ts into Front Row?

Apple has already done that with the iPod. You can't buy music from the Zune store, Napster, Rhapsody, etc and use on your iPod, only the iTunes store. And last time I checked, they have been really successful in doing that. Why would the video equivalent be any different?

Any non-DRM stuff we would be able to view through the iTV, but we'll have to go through a few hoops to make it work.

chefklc

12-30-06, 12:01 AM

Apple has already done that with the iPod. You can't buy music from the Zune store, Napster, Rhapsody, etc and use on your iPod, only the iTunes store. And last time I checked, they have been really successful in doing that. Why would the video equivalent be any different?

Not sure of the counterpoint you're trying to raise, or how you think you've responded to me? Let's recap--no one is talking about purchasing media from a rival service, nor a proprietary file format, nor encryption. We're talking about the fact that Apple dvd player app itself makes it easy to play back a video_ts file--yet Front Row does not.

Why would the video equivalent be any different?

Because, that video_ts folder, or an EyeTV recording, IS the video equivalent of importing a CD into iTunes in Apple lossless. My point is we haven't seen Apple move toward embracing this content as valid in an integrated home theater sense, certainly not within Front Row, and you're just being naive if you think this will all of a sudden fall into place with iTV, or with Front Row 2.

Those of us that use QuickTime professionally have to deal with the environment and workflow tools provided to us, and integrate them to do our work. Move on to what?

Oh, agreed, I'm speaking solely from the consumer side of things not the pro content creation side--just as the typical home theater guy with Macs recording and playing back content a la dvd or high def television. And from the couch, rather than the film studio, if Quicktime doesn't pass, say, AC-3 with a particular file, if an addon or plugin doesn't help, we move past its limitations--or the software which relies on it--and find something that does.

My disagreement with you wildrock, and it really is a minor one, is one of degree: I don't think Apple has done such a great job of integrating outside content--I think the handwriting is on the wall that Apple is going to keep this more closed than open, more hindered if you will, a little bit longer than you do. As you say, the release of Leopard, the newer iteration of Front Row, and whatever iTV is capable of will go a long way toward demonstrating which sense is the more accurate. I hope I'm wrong. There's a lot of ridiculousness on this thread, see Geo's post above, but your writing has been clear, reasonable and lucid. I want to believe this:

The day Apple starts closing the door to outside content is the day that others will step in and fill the void, and Apple begins to wither

to be true. I'm sorry I didn't make that more clear. You just have more faith than I do.

MickeyDora

12-30-06, 12:12 AM

Apple has not implemented (at the GPU level) the most basic mpeg2 ATSC (HDTV) playback on any Mac. What makes you think that they will now implement a total playback solution.

I have said it before (those that have read my prior rants on this topic will know and remember) that Apple will not facilitate the playback of any files that is not created by their service (iTunes) in order to please the content providers (the studios).

In the same way that Apple will never develop an Apple branded DVR, now I am adding that Apple will not develop an Apple branded playback device that is not limited by the constraints of the iTunes DRM scheme. That will be left to second/third party developers.

I hope I am wrong but year after year they have proven me right.

wildrock

12-30-06, 01:32 AM

My disagreement with you wildrock, and it really is a minor one, is one of degree: I don't think Apple has done such a great job of integrating outside contentI tend to agree with this. Actively integrating outside content is a different beast than hindering outside content. I think that Apple tends to try to take more of a middle ground. We want total access and integration of all file formats, and the studios don't want us to have any, but they want our money.

You just have more faith than I do.I wouldn't call it faith. I just don't like to let my cynicism cloud my hope that Apple can do the right thing. After MacWorld and CES, we can all reassess and see where 2007 might go.

Apple has not implemented (at the GPU level) the most basic mpeg2 ATSC (HDTV) playback on any Mac. What makes you think that they will now implement a total playback solution.Have you looked at the specs for the upcoming Intel GMA3000 gpu specs I linked to above? "Hardware acceleration of MPEG-2 decode enables seamless playback of high definition (HD) video connection to HDTV and PC monitors." It is interesting to see where Intel is going with their integrated gpu development as that is most likely what we'll see on the Mini, or some similar derivative. But when you say "ATSC (HDTV) playback", are you referring to having onboard support for cable or OTA tuning and playback? If so, I don't believe that Apple wants to play in that sphere. They have no interest in competing with MCE, or anything similar, as far as I can tell. And I don't have any problem with that.

I have said it before (those that have read my prior rants on this topic will know and remember) that Apple will not facilitate the playback of any files that is not created by their service (iTunes) in order to please the content providers (the studios). Well, I don't think this thread is the right place to discuss the underpinnings of Fairplay. For me it's enough to know that there are some unrevealed agreements between Apple and the studios that probably keep Apple from doing a lot of things we would like. But that's what allowed them to start the iTunes Music Store in the first place. And without the ITMS, the iPod and iTunes could be viewed as nothing more than a device intended to facilitate the ripping and trading of copyrighted music. The ITMS, now ITS may be nothing more than Apple's way of throwing some money at the content providers to allow them to keep selling iPods, and now iTv's. A new form of Payola, and possibly no less perverse, but extortion just the same (I may be stretching here, but what the hey, it's friday night).

In the same way that Apple will never develop an Apple branded DVR, now I am adding that Apple will not develop an Apple branded playback device that is not limited by the constraints of the iTunes DRM scheme. That will be left to second/third party developers.

I hope I am wrong but year after year they have proven me right.I don't think that Apple wants to compete in the DVR space. They want to move to a different model that I think will become a bit clearer at MacWorld. Where's the motive, profit or otherwise, to build a better DVR, TiVo licensing rumors aside? And any playback device that Apple builds will necessarily limited by a DRM scheme, or the studios would drag Apple into court on day one. That doesn't mean I have to like Fairplay. But it sure is a lot better than PlaysForSure. And let's don't go tangential on the RIAA, the MPAA, and copyright and intellectual property theory on this thread. Apple's but one player in a huge media cultural revolution.

And I don't have any problem with having to go to second/third party developers or open source for my solutions. I do it all the time. Actually, that's one of the fun things about MacWorld---seeing what other developers bring to the big show, and what they come up with in the weeks after. And as Apple's platform continues to succeed, development efforts will increase, and we will have better software and hardware, and more choices. I see only good things ahead, though it will never be enough, or fast enough (and there will always be pitfalls) to satisfy the likes of us here at AVS.

Further

12-30-06, 02:55 AM

This is a very interesting discussion and it won't be too much longer before we will at least have some idea of which way Apple will go. In the meantime, I found this very interesting insight into the iTV that would probably be interesting to read considering what is being discussed here. It is here: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/Q4.06/FFFE776F-3BBC-4BAA-9F93-F56BCCB6887F.html

My personal view is that Steve Jobs is seen as something of a guru in the film industry. He has shown that it is possible to sell music over the Internet and Pixar was probably seen as one of the most successful studios in Hollywood. The fact that SJ now sits on the board of directors of one of Hollywood's biggest studios must also carry some influence. When you compare what SJ has done for Hollywood to what Bill Gates has done, perhaps it is easier to see my point.

Hopefully, with this influence, Apple will come out with some interesting products/services. Only a few weeks to find out!

MickeyDora

12-30-06, 11:30 AM

Have you looked at the specs for the upcoming Intel GMA3000 gpu specs I linked to above? "Hardware acceleration of MPEG-2 decode enables seamless playback of high definition (HD) video connection to HDTV and PC monitors." It is interesting to see where Intel is going with their integrated gpu development as that is most likely what we'll see on the Mini, or some similar derivative. But when you say "ATSC (HDTV) playback", are you referring to having onboard support for cable or OTA tuning and playback? If so, I don't believe that Apple wants to play in that sphere. They have no interest in competing with MCE, or anything similar, as far as I can tell. And I don't have any problem with that.

The ability to playback the most basic HDTV files (from either EyeTV, or those recorded from ATSC OTA tuners or 1394 capable cable tuners) has been supported on various GPU's that were included in the Mac for the last several years. But due to Apple refusing to release the API's to make these cards take advantage of the hardware decoding, none have been able to playback via GPU decoding. Software decoding (which uses CPU only) is the only current method for HDTV playback on the Mac (and I am not talking booting into Windows as a solution cause we are talking about Mac OS X here).

The API for the hardware decoding has been one of Apple's best kept secret (I would vote it higher than the whole Mac OS X on Intel) and I don't see them releasing them to developers any time in the future.

Ted Todorov

12-30-06, 11:41 AM

... And without the ITMS, the iPod and iTunes could be viewed as nothing more than a device intended to facilitate the ripping and trading of copyrighted music. The ITMS, now ITS may be nothing more than Apple's way of throwing some money at the content providers to allow them to keep selling iPods, and now iTv's. A new form of Payola, and possibly no less perverse, but extortion just the same (I may be stretching here, but what the hey, it's friday night)
....
I'm sorry, but the above assertion is simply false. Apple had iTunes and iPods before there ever was an iTunes music store, and they were going to continue, whether the music industry liked it or not. The RIAA had no way to stop Apple -- they had already sued an iPod predecessor -- the Diamond Rio and lost. Apple wanted the ITMS as a way to sell more iPods (and ultimately to make money selling music, although I'm not all that sure they were thinking so far ahead). ITMS, wasn't created to appease the RIAA -- indeed, Apple went through herculean efforts to persuade the music industry to let it exist. They finally agreed when they saw how utterly all the RIAA approved music stores with draconian DRM failed.

The same thing is happening now with the movie studios -- they are hoping that some other service with DRM/pricing to their liking, like the now forgotten Amazon thing would succeed. But of course everything that is not iTunes is failing. And meanwhile people are increasingly trading movies over P2P or downloading to their iPods from ripped DVDs. Soon the studios will have no choice but to come on board with ITMS on Apple's terms.

The only question is, will Macworld 2007 be the point where the studios come on board.

nightowl

12-30-06, 11:43 AM

Not sure of the counterpoint you're trying to raise, or how you think you've responded to me?

Sorry about that. I thought I was responding to something else, and apparently pulled the wrong quote from the wrong post.

Ted Todorov

12-30-06, 11:49 AM

The API for the hardware decoding has been one of Apple's best kept secret (I would vote it higher than the whole Mac OS X on Intel) and I don't see them releasing them to developers any time in the future.

I am totally puzzled as to why this is so -- wouldn't it be to Apple's advantage to have 3rd party products work under OS X as well as possible? The only logical explanation I can think of is that they want to force their customers to upgrade to faster CPUs, thus buying more Macs, but that seems to me short sighted. They would sell more Macs in the long run if OS X software blew away it's Windows competitors, which would be a lot easier with better video performance... (Aside from video think of games, graphics software, etc.)

MickeyDora

12-30-06, 12:20 PM

I am totally puzzled as to why this is so -- wouldn't it be to Apple's advantage to have 3rd party products work under OS X as well as possible? The only logical explanation I can think of is that they want to force their customers to upgrade to faster CPUs, thus buying more Macs, but that seems to me short sighted. They would sell more Macs in the long run if OS X software blew away it's Windows competitors, which would be a lot easier with better video performance... (Aside from video think of games, graphics software, etc.)

You would think so. But for some reason it is the case. But even the fastest Mac (running Mac OS X) cannot playback full bitrate h.264 (BAFF/MAFF) streams even though there is enough CPU power to do so. The main reason is the ability to allow GPU decoding or the ability of software to completely use the CPU power for decoding.

The iTunes videos (including the full 1080p movie trailers) are done according to Apple's standards and require a lot less CPU than those produced by network encoders (using MAFF/BAFF standards).

If you run a Mac Mini (Core Duo) under Windows the true power of the CPU is used to decode the h.264. Under Mac OS X, it is severely crippled.

Although Apple wants to sell more Macs, they also do not want to piss off the Studios. They want to continue to have iTunes to grow into a content provider. Apple is slowly turning from a hardware company and more and more into a software/content company (iTunes).

wildrock

12-30-06, 03:34 PM

The ability to playback the most basic HDTV files (from either EyeTV, or those recorded from ATSC OTA tuners or 1394 capable cable tuners) has been supported on various GPU's that were included in the Mac for the last several years. But due to Apple refusing to release the API's to make these cards take advantage of the hardware decoding, none have been able to playback via GPU decoding. Software decoding (which uses CPU only) is the only current method for HDTV playback on the Mac (and I am not talking booting into Windows as a solution cause we are talking about Mac OS X here).

The API for the hardware decoding has been one of Apple's best kept secret (I would vote it higher than the whole Mac OS X on Intel) and I don't see them releasing them to developers any time in the future.OK, I get what you're getting at now. And you are correct. But have you heard of Accellent (http://www.defyne.org/dvb/accellent.html)? John Dalgliesh has made a proof of concept reverse engineering decoder of Apple's APIs for hardware decoding of MPEG2. While it is by no means a finished product, he has been shopping it around to see if anyone wants to put the tech into a current product. Maybe if the third party devs break the log jam here, Apple will follow. There's a bit more of a discussion of it at Macintouch (http://www.macintouch.com/readerreports/hdvideo/topic2226.html)

wildrock

12-30-06, 03:47 PM

I'm sorry, but the above assertion is simply false. Apple had iTunes and iPods before there ever was an iTunes music store, and they were going to continue, whether the music industry liked it or not. The RIAA had no way to stop Apple -- they had already sued an iPod predecessor -- the Diamond Rio and lost. Apple wanted the ITMS as a way to sell more iPods (and ultimately to make money selling music, although I'm not all that sure they were thinking so far ahead). ITMS, wasn't created to appease the RIAA -- indeed, Apple went through herculean efforts to persuade the music industry to let it exist. They finally agreed when they saw how utterly all the RIAA approved music stores with draconian DRM failed.

The same thing is happening now with the movie studios -- they are hoping that some other service with DRM/pricing to their liking, like the now forgotten Amazon thing would succeed. But of course everything that is not iTunes is failing. And meanwhile people are increasingly trading movies over P2P or downloading to their iPods from ripped DVDs. Soon the studios will have no choice but to come on board with ITMS on Apple's terms.

The only question is, will Macworld 2007 be the point where the studios come on board.Well, while I agree with you, sometimes the conspiracy theorist in me takes over--it was Friday night after all. :rolleyes: And I'm not sure if once the RIAA saw how successful the iPod was, that when Apple came knocking at the studios doors, they upped the ante. But we probably won't know any of these details until some historian or biographer lets us in on the details many years hence.

As to MacWorld, while all of us would like to see this, and it may well happen that some of the studios come out and want in on the bandwagon, it has all of the makings of a Texas Shootout, and who knows who'll blink first? I think there's a lot of power-brokering going on behind the scenes. How it comes out is anyone's call. But if something doesn't happen at MacWorld, you can bet the financial analysts will have a heyday with it, and there will be some negative fallout.

gmwedding

12-30-06, 03:51 PM

Like it made sense for Apple not to build recognition of video_ts into Front Row?

My guess is that Apple dosen't support video_ts because it seems to be one of the preferred formats for pirated (unlicensed) movies that probably have been stolen using Internet distribution.

Am I correct about this, or just naive? If so, I understand and fully support the decision.

wildrock

12-30-06, 04:05 PM

Apple is slowly turning from a hardware company and more and more into a software/content company (iTunes).I think this is a key point. While I'm not sure that it is turning into more of a software/content company yet, as hardware sales are booming, I think the balance sheet of the company shows more, well, balance between the differing segments. But what I have been thinking of, is at what point does Apple let another company in on the hardware side of things. I think that Apple necessarily can only sell so much hardware before it becomes a liability in the greater market place. This goes back to what happened with the Mac clones in the mid-90's. Licensing other manufacturers at that point in time for Apple was an act of desperation to get market share, and it all went wrong. (And I just decommissioned my last Mac clone earlier this year--a Power Computing PowerBase that I loved).

So what options does have in the future? 1) keep the hardware production environment the way it is with all of the inherent limitations and risks; 2) license or contract out another hardware company to build out hardware to targetted market segments not currently accessed by Apple; 3) license out OS X to other computer manufacturers, keeping control of where it gets deployed, or 4) release OS X for PC to general consumers. All 4 strategies for the future of Apple have their risks and hteir benefits. What Apple chooses to do, may be none of the above, or a combination of any of them. But what I do know is that none of us want to see Apple grow to the point where the whole livelyhood of the company rests on its ability to develop and produce an increasing percent of the marketshare of PC's. At some point the battle between OS X and Windows takes on new meaning as the market share gap between the two begins to significantly close.

Jobs once said something like, for Apple to win, Windows doesn't have to lose. That was almost ten years ago. Today it is more like, for the Mac to thrive, OS X must take on Windows directly. Apple's move to Intel has aided that greatly, and the expansion of non-Mac markets (iPod and ITS, and maybe soon the iTV and iPhone) assures Apple of enough diversity in its offerings to weather adversity in any one sector.

Ted Todorov

12-31-06, 12:58 AM

My guess is that Apple dosen't support video_ts because it seems to be one of the preferred formats for pirated (unlicensed) movies that probably have been stolen using Internet distribution.

Am I correct about this, or just naive? If so, I understand and fully support the decision.
No, you are not correct. VIDEO_TS folders are not floating around the internet - -they are simply too big. Pirated stuff is converted to far more compressed formats like MPEG4 or DIVX.

VIDEO_TS folders come directly from DVDs -- either your own collection or borrowed/rented ones. Most people rip their DVDs to disk for convenience, childproof backup, eliminating unwanted forced subtitles or region coding, etc -- most of this activity is completed unrelated to piracy.

Further

12-31-06, 03:00 AM

No, you are not correct. VIDEO_TS folders are not floating around the internet - -they are simply too big. Pirated stuff is converted to far more compressed formats like MPEG4 or DIVX.

Sorry, that is just not true. There may be far more compressed files floating around, but that doesn't mean that VIDEO_TS aren't also plentiful.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Apple decided not to let Front Row recognise ripped DVDs because of issue of piracy. Doesn't WMC recognise them? And Microsoft is certainly in a far more sensitive position with both the government and Hollywood.

I can't offer an alternative theory, because I just don't know why they decided to do it this way.

MickeyDora

12-31-06, 11:08 AM

No, you are not correct. VIDEO_TS folders are not floating around the internet - -they are simply too big. Pirated stuff is converted to far more compressed formats like MPEG4 or DIVX.

VIDEO_TS folders come directly from DVDs -- either your own collection or borrowed/rented ones. Most people rip their DVDs to disk for convenience, childproof backup, eliminating unwanted forced subtitles or region coding, etc -- most of this activity is completed unrelated to piracy.

You should spend some time on the DVD9 or HDTV NG's and you will see how wrong you really are.

Ted Todorov

12-31-06, 12:00 PM

Well I guess I am naive -- about the size people's internet connections if nothing else -- download 4 to 8GB files?!? Clearly I need a new ISP ;)

In any event I agree with Further -- this restriction on Apple's part has nothing do with piracy.
You would think so. But for some reason it is the case. But even the fastest Mac (running Mac OS X) cannot playback full bitrate h.264 (BAFF/MAFF) streams even though there is enough CPU power to do so. The main reason is the ability to allow GPU decoding or the ability of software to completely use the CPU power for decoding.

The iTunes videos (including the full 1080p movie trailers) are done according to Apple's standards and require a lot less CPU than those produced by network encoders (using MAFF/BAFF standards).

If you run a Mac Mini (Core Duo) under Windows the true power of the CPU is used to decode the h.264. Under Mac OS X, it is severely crippled.

Although Apple wants to sell more Macs, they also do not want to piss off the Studios. They want to continue to have iTunes to grow into a content provider. Apple is slowly turning from a hardware company and more and more into a software/content company (iTunes).
Are you saying that even a MacPro doesn't have the horse power to play back 3rd party H.264?

To further Further's comment, I just don't buy that this is being done to somehow appease the studios -- why would Microsoft feel free to piss all over them, but Apple would be dying to appease them (and I'm really not sure how not offering hardware acceleration on H.264 playback appeases them). There has to be another explanation, because this one just doesn't make sense.

chefklc

12-31-06, 12:52 PM

yes, suffice it to say, there's pirated stuff available at all resolutions, we risk getting too distracted trying to debate that...

My guess is that Apple doesn't support video_ts because it seems to be one of the preferred formats for pirated (unlicensed) movies...Am I correct about this, or just naive?

I find it hard to believe that Apple decided not to let Front Row recognize ripped DVDs because of issue of piracy.

I can't offer an alternative theory, because I just don't know why they decided to do it this way.

The only reason I brought this up in this thread in the first place was to counter what I sensed as a little too much optimism, a little too much altruism being applied to Apple--and while I respect that hopeful wildrock/Geo speculation--there's just too much we've had to swallow to get to this point. History teaches us whatever comes our way will be constrained, and I'm glad we countered the hopeful optimism with some specifics...the not allowing hardware decoding, the not-so-subtly pushing QT H.264 1080p at the expense of say a 1080i MPEG2 TS of the EyeTV 500, the Quicktime and AC-3 issue, FR not recognizing video_ts which to me seems a very obvious boost for the downloading of "near-dvd quality" movies from iTMS--and nothing to do with "pirating" at all. Hell, G3 iBooks could play back VIDEO_TS...that format is a standard, it's been "supported" forever by Apple.

This was Apple's way of saying "you want to use our cool new Front Row? OK, then play by our rules."

Remember when iLife and iDVD was first released? Apple only allowed it with built-in Apple OEM superdrives--why? The less cynical but naive among us would say to ensure compatibility, but most of us here would say it was primarily to upsell hardware and drive sales of new Macs.

An OEM superdrive in a firewire enclosure, which you obtained elsewhere, wasn't going to help Apple's bottom line one bit.

I suspect that same approach will apply to much of what's to be revealed, at least initially--if you wanted to use iDVD, you forked over the cash for an Apple-supplied internal superdrive, and that lasted until Patchburn and subsequent OS versions were released with native support for various drives, even those connected via firewire! (Gosh, what a concept!) We had to wait a long time for that, though.

Which brings us to the fundamental dividing point between the optimists, the cynics and the self-delusional: have we waited long enough and is the new Apple business model advanced enough? Or will it be more like: you want to use the cool new iTV, then you accept the inherent limitations we've built into our even cooler new version of Front Row with respect to file formats, and in the process help us build up our new content delivery business.

The rest of us already know that a core duo mini or Macbook makes a fine "iTV" right now.

MickeyDora

12-31-06, 02:05 PM

Are you saying that even a MacPro doesn't have the horse power to play back 3rd party H.264?

Under Mac OS X yes. It will not playback ANY SkyHD or BBC-HD H.264 files. Not so much due to the CPU but due to the fact there is no way to take advantage of the horsepower of the CPU under Mac OS X. Again, Apple has throttled this ability in OS X since if you boot the Mac Pro (or any of the Intel Macs) into Windows you will be able to playback these files with no problem whatsoever.

wildrock

12-31-06, 04:12 PM

Which brings us to the fundamental dividing point between the optimists, the cynics and the self-delusional: have we waited long enough and is the new Apple business model advanced enough? Or will it be more like: you want to use the cool new iTV, then you accept the inherent limitations we've built into our even cooler new version of Front Row with respect to file formats, and in the process help us build up our new content delivery business.I think this will define what market segment Apple positions the iTV in. I think that for the average home consumer user, it will be extrememly successful. Apple will keep it dumbed down so as to keep it simple and functional for the unwashed. Those of us who are more involved in our tech and AV won't be satisfied with anything less than a Mini on steroids (Mini Pro???), excellent software support and hardware integration, and I doubt we'll get that--at least at first. But the ITV could still be a great solution for a home user that doesn't care about anything more than one-click movie downloads from the ITS via their strato lounger. And that is a potential huge cash cow for Apple.

The rest of us already know that a core duo mini or Macbook makes a fine "iTV" right now.I hear it about the Mini/MacBook approach to iTV. I love my MacBook w/dvi to my westy 37w3! But I have no use for Front Row as it currently exists. I like fine control over my tools. And FR fails miserably in this arena. Take all of the limitations and problems with iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, etc. and put them behind the curtains of FR, and Houston, we have a problem. How many home users know the difference between FR and DVD Player? Or where to go to adjust settings? Not to mention adding a plugin, if you could.

But I think that it is how Apple puts together its content delivery model that will be the big story in the upcoming year for video. And that will be one of the big stories at MacWorld (or should be). And while I'm excited about Apple attempting to disrupt the current channel/tiered/ad-supported model we have, I know that there is huge opposition to it.

And about the "fundamental dividing point between the optimists, the cynics and the self-delusional", sometimes I think that I skirt all three view points, depending on my mood. But when it comes down to it, as a pro in the field, I have to accept what Apple gives me, third party tools, and my own experience and ingenuity to put it all together with a healthy dose of pragmatism and just "get 'er done". :D

gmwedding

01-03-07, 10:05 AM

On Jan. 2, 2007, Apple was granted United States Patent (#7,158,158): "Method and apparatus for nonlinear anamorphic scaling of video images." Surely this is evidence of a key home theater capability that would be available just in time for the rumored new Apple Cinema Displays. The original patent application was filed on March 12, 2003. The new patent reads as follows:

Methods and apparatuses for nonlinear scaling of video images. To match the aspect ratios of a video image and the target display area, at least one embodiment of the present invention scales the video image according to one or more nonlinear functions along the horizontal direction and/or the vertical direction. In one embodiment, the nonlinear functions are such that the original aspect ratio of the video image is preserved near the center region (or strip) of the image and the image is gradually stretched (or compressed) as it is mapped to the edges. In one example, the scaling is implemented by the texture mapping functionality of OpenGL using graphics hardware. In one embodiment of the present invention, the nonlinear mapping is constructed according to a polynomial mapping; and, the coefficients of the polynomial are adjustable by a user to trade off distortion between the image center and the image edges, giving the user control over the location and the amount of distortion.

Here's a link to the actual U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database info:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,158,158.PN.&OS=PN/7,158,158&RS=PN/7,158,158

This info raises some intriguing questions:
- Will new displays be LCD-only (24, 30, 40-inch) or will a larger plasma model be offered? (I think no Apple plasma, but it would be cool)
- Will they include one or two built-in ATSC tuners? (Seems possible)
- Will they include a bult-in iChat AV camera? (Yes)
- Will a large screen iMac eventually be made? (A cool idea, however impractical for consumers)
- How cool would it be if Apple simply bought (or merged with) Pioneer Electronics? (I love the complementary synergy, but it's just a pipe dream)

Apple's new home page image and teaser headline ('The first 30 years were just the beginning’) only add to the intrigue. Some groundbreaking announcement(s) are coming.

Ted Todorov

01-03-07, 11:41 AM

On Jan. 2, 2007, Apple was granted United States Patent (#7,158,158): "Method and apparatus for nonlinear anamorphic scaling of video images." Surely this is evidence of a key home theater capability that would be available just in time for the rumored new Apple Cinema Displays. The original patent application was filed on March 12, 2003. The new patent reads as follows:...
Here's a link to the actual U.S. Patent and Trademark Office database info:

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,158,158.PN.&OS=PN/7,158,158&RS=PN/7,158,158

This info raises some intriguing questions:
- Will new displays be LCD-only (24, 30, 40-inch) or will a larger plasma model be offered? (I think no Apple plasma, but it would be cool)
- Will they include one or two built-in ATSC tuners? (Seems possible)
- Will they include a bult-in iChat AV camera? (Yes)
- Will a large screen iMac eventually be made? (A cool idea, however impractical for consumers)
- How cool would it be if Apple simply bought (or merged with) Pioneer Electronics? (I love the complementary synergy, but it's just a pipe dream)

Apple's new home page image and teaser headline ('The first 30 years were just the beginning’) only add to the intrigue. Some groundbreaking announcement(s) are coming.
I don't l know why you see this as proof of Apple branded "TV" displays. (Mind you I am very hopeful that you are right). It could just be an iTV feature to take advantage of the higher anamorphic resolution on certain displays, and maybe to be able to pass along anamorphic DVD video natively. This is especially important for 16:9 SD displays which are very common in Europe.

Of course if Apple comes out with a 40" LCD that can do double duty as a monitor and HD video display, I will be first in line to get one.

wildrock

01-03-07, 02:19 PM

On Jan. 2, 2007, Apple was granted United States Patent (#7,158,158): "Method and apparatus for nonlinear anamorphic scaling of video images." Surely this is evidence of a key home theater capability that would be available just in time for the rumored new Apple Cinema Displays. The original patent application was filed on March 12, 2003.Well, Apple uses lots of technology that is either unpatented, or is in the process of being patented. Just because a patent was issued doesn't mean that anyting new has happened, nor does it change the landscape. Looking at Apple patents can give some insight, but this one is almost 4 years old, and I doubt that Apple's strategy this year was laid out in any fashion in March of 2003. Much has changed in the landscape since then. My thought about this patent is that it may be nothing more than a way of scaling games for handheld devices like an iPod. Then again, it may be more than that. But anamorphic scaling technology, while incredibly useful for things like enhanced DVD's or CIH projector lenses/scalers, doesn't indicate any real breakthroughs in the world of, i.e. 1080p wireless streaming, display tech, or handheld interactivity. It's more in line with patenting a new spark plug wire. But then again, I could be wrong, and Apple has something BIG up their sleeve here.

Apple's new home page image and teaser headline ('The first 30 years were just the beginning’) only add to the intrigue. Some groundbreaking announcement(s) are coming.I've heard some talk about a 30th Anniversary Mac. Either high end lightweight notebook, or power user small form factor desktop. Look to Apple to introduce a product that will define its direction for the next few years. But I'm not talking about iPhone or iTV. It will have to be something greater than a CE gadget to justify a headline like that at "Mac" World.

gmwedding

01-03-07, 03:02 PM

Why could this be related to Apple-branded HDTV displays? Because of this patent passage...

"...original aspect ratio of the video image is preserved near the center region (or strip) of the image and the image is gradually stretched (or compressed) as it is mapped to the edges...."

This certainly is not a new idea but it sounds similar (though I'm sure different) to how Pioneer (and other vendors) stretch 4:3 SDTV content so well to fill out a 16:9 HDTV. Why else would Apple need such scaling if not to engineer their own solutions for TV? Of course, Apple could be developing this capability to scale the SDTV shows it already has sold through iTunes to customers...And as I think more about this, I guess it also could be remotely related to Quartz, since Apple is supposed to introduce resolution independence in OS X v10.5 Leopard. But then, why the edge stretching? So, my first guess (Apple-branded HDTVs) seems most likely to me, as it would represent a new OS X feature for a new product that would generate new income...Finally, the new Web site headline about "the next 30 years" does hint at a product line or direction that is different from the past. Finally, as I have said before, Steve Jobs will not be able to resist slapping an Apple logo on the single most visible home entertainment component -- a big-screen display for the den...

Heck, if Gateway, Sharp, Sony, Dell and H-P can do an HDTV, so can Apple. Now, maybe it won't have an ATSC tuner (or two), and just be marketed primarily to cable customers, but built-in tuners also seem likely if they're gonna' bother doing an HDTV. No matter what, it's all entertaining speculation to pass the time until next week...

wildrock

01-03-07, 03:47 PM

Another thought I've had lurking, is with all of the movement of Apple into the CE space, and MacWorld focusing on Mac equipment, will Apple do something at CES to surprise everyone? Afterall, the 30 year teaser at apple.com doesn't have to refer just to MacWorld. I can just hear everyone groan, when Steve's "one more thing" is a new speed bump to the MacBook, or some swuch. Then the next day he has a surprise announcement at CES about the iPhone. Probably not. But right now, anything anybody says about Apple in 2007 will have to be met with a touch of humility.

druber

01-03-07, 03:54 PM

Considering the FCC's rule that all TV sets >=13" and tv-receiving devices must have DTV tuners by July 2007, it seems likely to be included should an Apple-branded HDTV come to light. I'm not sure why an iTV device should be a "tv-receiving" device if its purpose is to stream content from the computer to the TV, not vice versa. Why not vice versa? Because ATSC has limited availability, needs lots of storage, ClearQAM is messy, and it generally doesn't seem to fit the usability needs of the general consumer who, let's face it, is Apple's target. I'm not saying "lowest common denominator", and I'm not saying I don't want that capability in an iTV. I think it'd cause more consumer grief than gladness. I know personally, EyeTV2 has caused me plenty of grief mixed in with success (and by success I mean it performing the task of recording TV when requested). While on the other hand, Apple has lots of content on the computer (iTS music, your ripped music, iTS TV/Movies, photos) to send to the TV. Yes I very very much hope we can bring our own video content, but I don't anticipate the iTV playing Slingbox.

After its initial release, I haven't heard much media coverage of the XBOX360's ability to download/play HD TV shows and movies. Variety has a brief, non-specific article (http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117956232.html?categoryid=1009&cs=1&query=xbox) about the 360's success in this space. Interesting question: would you pay more for HD content? $3.99 for a TV episode in HD? $1.99 for HD, $0.99 for SD? What would really break open the space?

Ted Todorov

01-03-07, 04:52 PM

Considering the FCC's rule that all TV sets >=13" and tv-receiving devices must have DTV tuners by July 2007, it seems likely to be included should an Apple-branded HDTV come to light.
What is TV according to the FCC? Would an Apple branded 16:9, 40", 1920x1080 LCD with with two HDMI, one S-Video & one DVI input be considered a TV?

wildrock

01-03-07, 04:58 PM

question: would you pay more for HD content? $3.99 for a TV episode in HD? $1.99 for HD, $0.99 for SD? What would really break open the space?I think, as I mentioned above, that Apple's content model will prove to be one of the big stories, if not the biggest story of the year. It proves to set the stage for many years of content delivery service, hardware to service it, and software to manage it. It won't make the big splash like a fancy new computer form factor or CE gadget. But it will be huge to provide an avenue into the livingroom, and into people's perceptions of Apple as a company that they might really want to buy a computer from, once they see how well the iTV will [hopefully] work. Similar to the iPod halo effect.

Now, what could that model be. I see three possibles: 1) purchase to own (iTunes current model); 2) PPV; or 3) subscription. I think number one is a given. Will Apple be willing to take on the Blockbusters and Netflix's of the world and offer a PPV with a time bomb attached? And will Apple be willing to take on the cable and satellite companies with a subscription based service?

I think the PPV model could be hugely lucrative with the iTV acting as a one click shopping method from the strato lounger. All the pieces are there. Jobs demo'd the iTV by having it download and play trailers from the ITS. Extending that to full movies is easy. And adding a time bomb and charging half or a third of the purchase price would attract a huge amount of interest. Why use the mail for DVD or BD/HDDVD rentals? Why get in the car to rent a few movies? Watch the trailer then buy or rent the movie. Make it comparable quality and price. I see HD not happening right away. Let the DVD/SD model settle, and let the cable and telcos get used to the idea that their time as content deliverers may be relegated to providing the big pipe.

Number three is the least likely in the near-term, though I think that it would provide an enticement for Apple to totally disrupt the current content delivery monopolies of the Cable and sat companies. Look for Apple to move into this arena a ways down the road once it gets its technical infrastructure and IPTV network streaming down pat (think video podcasting on steroids), and the public accepts Apple as a player in this arena. Huge money. And look for the big sports nets to get onboard pushing it as it will have Apple publicizing its PPV wet dream agenda, and acting as a cushion against the ala carte movement.

Mark my words here. The iTV is the trojan horse that Apple is wheeling into the entertainment world next week--and the content delivery model will show how serious and fast Apple is moving. And the networks, studios, and cable/satcos smell a rat, but can't stand to see Disney and Pixar getting all of the sales and hype, and buy in (being drug in kicking and screaming all the way, claws out grasping at anything for leverage). And they ultimately will be powerless to stop it if Apple executes it's plan.

wildrock

01-03-07, 05:01 PM

What is TV according to the FCC? Would an Apple branded 16:9, 40", 1920x1080 LCD with with two HDMI, one S-Video & one DVI input be considered a TV?I think that there would have to be an exclusion for LCD monitors. And what's to keep someone from using an LCD monitor from Apple (or Dell or Gateway, or HP for that matter) hooked up to an iTV, or a cable/sat box? Absolutely nothing. I think that the FCC will be irrelevent to computer manufacturers delivering dual purpose displays. There's absolutely no need for these displays to have an ATSC tuner. And if the consumer wants one, many usb ones are available.

almostinsane

01-03-07, 05:59 PM

Andrew67

01-03-07, 05:59 PM

I predict there will be no Apple TV announced at Mac World 2007/2008/2009 or 2010.

Lazlo

01-03-07, 07:43 PM

I agree that Apple isn't going to come out with a "tv" (or anything with an ATSC tuner in it). Also, I think wildrock is pretty close to the mark. The iTV will be a true revolution - the "tv for the 21st century". If Apple can provide streaming content on the same schedule as the broadcast networks, why not use it instead of a tv? You could pause, rewind, replay, etc., the same way one does with a DVR. And, once it's downloaded, it's yours. Furthermore, if they start bundling shows/networks into an a la carte package concept, I'd seriously consider dropping Comcast like the bloated, heavy, hot potato it is. Pretty much the only non-broadcast channels I watch are ESPN and HGTV. If I could just get the major networks, plus those, and pay less, I'd be very happy.

I really don't see the market for an iTV. It doesn't even play games. This is going to be a huge flop. We all know it won't be priced cheap. I mean, it's Apple. If it's over $399 why wouldn't you get an Xbox 360 instead?

For one, they already announced that it will be $299. For two, there are a limited number of cute little games available for the iPod, so Apple is clearly open to making games available on the iTV. Unlike the iPod, the content won't be driving the purchase of hardware, it's the hardware that will be driving the purchase of content through the iTS - television!

wildrock

01-03-07, 08:24 PM

Why would Apple come out with a TV in the first place? The majority of HDTV's sold are the cheapest ones available at Bestbuy/Walmart/Costco. There are such a limited number of people that are willing to pay 2x more for one with an Apple logo on it.

Look at how many monitors Westinghouse sold because of their price? Are their named after a frickin' microwave.

The Xbox 360 is taking over the living room at this point. An entire media center with the ability to download HD movies, TV shows, music videos, and short clips without the need for a PC. Do you want to start an HD-DVD movie collection? $199 for the add-on that works better than standalone players.

Want to stream the music and movies from your PC? Simple, just install windows media connect - a free add-on. Want to watch recorded shows from your MCE? no problem! You get MCE on your Xbox for free!

I really don't see the market for an iTV. It doesn't even play games. This is going to be a huge flop. We all know it won't be priced cheap. I mean, it's Apple. If it's over $399 why wouldn't you get an Xbox 360 instead?I guess this is why we are having the MacWorld prediction thread in the Mac HTPC chat forum. It's not a thread about WindowsWorld for Xbox/MCE/Vista/Zunie astroturf. If you're happy in the Windows-centric view of where entertainment is going, have fun. After all, you are from Kirkland, WA.

Sorry, I don't mean to get personal here, but you're missing the point of this thread. And I don't think any of us who follow Apple really need to debate your world view.

But I will agree with you on the Westinghouse. Damn fine display, though I tend to think of it more in terms of "built like a nuclear reactor." Maybe that's why China just picked them to build four reactors there.

wildrock

01-03-07, 08:35 PM

I agree that Apple isn't going to come out with a "tv" (or anything with an ATSC tuner in it).I agree. But then again, who ever thought Apple would deliver a boombox that was iPod only for $350?

If Apple can provide streaming content on the same schedule as the broadcast networks, why not use it instead of a tv? You could pause, rewind, replay, etc., the same way one does with a DVR. And, once it's downloaded, it's yours.This is where RSS and the podcast on steroids idea comes in. Show is released by studio simultaneously to internet viewers and to cable/sat broadcast, RSS feed goes out, software on PC or iTV adds it to playlist setup by user. Studio puts single copy out on Apple's network, where it gets distributed by Akamai. Couch potato looks at RSS feed, pushes button. 24, or whatever plays. Or is stored on a hard drive for later showing. All the tech pieces are there, just need a little development and integration.

Furthermore, if they start bundling shows/networks into an a la carte package concept, I'd seriously consider dropping Comcast like the bloated, heavy, hot potato it is. Pretty much the only non-broadcast channels I watch are ESPN and HGTV. If I could just get the major networks, plus those, and pay less, I'd be very happy. Wouldn't we all!

Ted Todorov

01-03-07, 09:24 PM

Why would Apple come out with a TV in the first place? The majority of HDTV's sold are the cheapest ones available at Bestbuy/Walmart/Costco. There are such a limited number of people that are willing to pay 2x more for one with an Apple logo on it.

Look at how many monitors Westinghouse sold because of their price? Are their named after a frickin' microwave.

The Xbox 360 is taking over the living room at this point. An entire media center with the ability to download HD movies, TV shows, music videos, and short clips without the need for a PC. Do you want to start an HD-DVD movie collection? $199 for the add-on that works better than standalone players.

Want to stream the music and movies from your PC? Simple, just install windows media connect - a free add-on. Want to watch recorded shows from your MCE? no problem! You get MCE on your Xbox for free!

I really don't see the market for an iTV. It doesn't even play games. This is going to be a huge flop. We all know it won't be priced cheap. I mean, it's Apple. If it's over $399 why wouldn't you get an Xbox 360 instead?
Wow, where do I even start? Let's see -- The majority of computers sold are the cheapest ones available at Bestbuy/Walmart/Costco. There are such a limited number of people that are willing to pay 2x more for one with an Apple logo on it. Heck, we are talking 95% of the computers sold are PCs -- Apple should drop out of the computer business immediately.

All Apple needs to be successful is modest percentage of the overall HDTV market, but a more substantial portion of the high end.

As for iTV, where are you getting your pricing nonsense from? Apple already announced the price: $299 If you think that XBOX 360 is an iTV competitor, your a missing two important factors --- with iTV you'll get "It just works" effect, and I think the iTV market vs. the gamer market are totally and completely separate.

kenliles

01-03-07, 10:39 PM

and I think the iTV market vs. the gamer market are totally and completely separate.

Not to mention the iTV market being orders of magnitude larger...

druber

01-04-07, 02:21 PM

Not to mention the iTV market being orders of magnitude larger...

Well, the potential market is very large, just like the potential iTunes market is very large. People like music, but that doesn't mean that everyone will bite. Requirements, restrictions, costs are all potential deal-breakers, and it doesn't mean they like music any less. I'm not sure what you mean by "the iTV market", but the video game market is nothing to scoff at.

With iTunes software and content freely available on PCs, what's the chance of iTV being to draw from any iTunes library, Mac or PC? Do you think it'd be a good Trojan horse, or a way to skip buying a Mac at all? I don't remember a "For Mac only" slogan when it was announced, but I won't swear it wasn't there. Would Mac/PC streaming cause a stir?

Ted Todorov

01-04-07, 02:47 PM

With iTunes software and content freely available on PCs, what's the chance of iTV being to draw from any iTunes library, Mac or PC? Do you think it'd be a good Trojan horse, or a way to skip buying a Mac at all? I don't remember a "For Mac only" slogan when it was announced, but I won't swear it wasn't there. Would Mac/PC streaming cause a stir?
It is PC/Mac compatible. It will work with iTunes on any platform -- Steve Jobs was quite explicit about that.

wildrock

01-04-07, 02:55 PM

It is PC/Mac compatible. It will work with iTunes on any platform -- Steve Jobs was quite explicit about that.And the devil is in the details with how Apple is going to provide streaming support with PC's. Should be interesting to see if it is a "bring your own wireless" solution, or will Apple bundle a PCI/USB/Firewire wireless solution for both PC's and pre-(n) wireless Macs.

ftaok

01-04-07, 03:38 PM

What is TV according to the FCC? Would an Apple branded 16:9, 40", 1920x1080 LCD with with two HDMI, one S-Video & one DVI input be considered a TV?
If it didn't have at least an ATSC tuner, it would not be considered an HDTV. It would be an HD monitor.

gmwedding

01-04-07, 04:49 PM

We have a really interesting discussion going on here. The exciting hardware and software announcements aside, I agree with wildrock that the biggest story at MacWorld Expo will be the revelation of the details behind Apple's content delivery and consumer electronic business models. Will movies be 720p HD, 480p DVD- or the current near-DVD quality? Will live streaming be supported? Can some (legitimate) P2P bastardization involving the Xgrid Trojan Horse in OS X revolutionize movie download speeds? Will Apple deliver a purchase-only, single PPV rental or subscription rental service?

However this all plays out, who here thinks Apple will end up competing on some level (as a content provider) with Comcast, Time-Warner and/or the Satcos?

If so, don't the cable companies have an inherent conflict-of-interest in providing us with Internet service that in turn would then be used to deliver high speed, DVD- or HD quality content provided by a competitor like Apple? How would this play out? Would Comcast and other cable companies have an incentive to raise their Internet rates even higher, or throttle back Apple movie download speeds to make their own On-Demand services appear more attractive?

To counter this, will Apple (eventually) have to become an ISP as well? What did Apple ever do with that new and unused 107,000 sq. foot "Tier IV" data center (with high levels of redundancy and security) that the company purchased for $50 million in February 2006 in Newark, CA? The center was originally designed for MCI WorldCom and such facilities usually house computing, data-storage and networking equipment for Web-based services and transactions. My guess is it houses (or will) the central iTunes Store.

druber

01-04-07, 09:40 PM

Joseph S

01-04-07, 10:29 PM

MacTablets for anyone's HT?
http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ModBook

Coming 1/9/07

ftaok

01-05-07, 07:31 AM

So if it doesn't have an ATSC tuner, then it isn't considered an HDTV and isn't required to have a tuner by the FCC? That's no regulation at all. I don't see an immediate definition on the fcc.gov FAQ page, but I would guess that a "TV" would contain a tuner, any tuner, and that the cut-off marks when any unit with an NTSC tuner must also have a DTV tuner. Without any tuner, it's simply considered a monitor.

If Apple wants to sell to the PC market, I can't at all imagine an Apple-proprietary 802.11n would fly. I did think the iTV was meant to stream from Macs and PCs, but that part seems to have received no notice in the coverage/rumors. I would absolutely expect that streaming from Macs will have a few extra features: iPhoto integration, for a start, that PCs won't enjoy. They're pushing Mac sales, of course.
Regarding the FCC and their regulations. It's par for the course for those bozos. They always have regulations that have ridiculous loop holes and vagueness. We should have been on digital only for years, but they keep pushing the deadline further and further back.

Maybe it's not that simple, but the FCC could have forced the broadcasters to move to digital and HD years ago and auctioned off the spectrum that they "lent" to the broadcasters. That money would easily pay for the set-top boxes that people would be issued so that their current analog TVs could use the digital signals.

The FCC is what happens when politicians (not engineers) gain control of a technical organization. What does a lawyer politician know about tech anyways.

RANT OFF

As far as iTV integration with PCs, I fully expect that it will just work. As long as the PC is running Windows 2000 or XP. Mac users will enjoy iTunes, iPhoto, iDVD, Quicktime, and maybe DVD Player integration. PC users will enjoy iTunes, Quicktime, and Picasa integration. Just look at the iPods. PC users with Picasa can sync to their iPods.

Just my 2 cents.

wildrock

01-05-07, 01:57 PM

Here's an interesting article today from Technology News, entitled: Internet TV: A Million Channels, Zero Cable Networks (http://www.technewsworld.com/story/K8HDxmTq0DNFjS/Internet-TV-A-Million-Channels-Zero-Cable-Networks.xhtml). This article spells out a lot of the ideas that I've put out about where Apple is moving. If you read the article with Apple in mind, and what we know they are capable of doing, then they are definitely poised to lead the charge in this direction with what Forrester Research calls "over-the-top TV" (OTT-TV). I think we'll see a lot more of this kind of analysis in the upcoming year. The article also mentions the net-neutrality battle in ways I had never thought before. Like why the cable industry is against it because it doesn't want the likes of MTV to have direct access to the viewer, and MTV is for it because it doesn't want cable to limit their abiity to gain direct access to the viewer. And that's where Apple comes in. Circumventing the cable/satcos, and facilitating content creators' direct access to the viewers, selling an integrated hardware/software system to deliver, organize, and view it, and taking a piece of the action for every program viewed (via one or more of the delivery models I described above). That's a sugar pot I woudn't mind having my hand in.

Now the only question that remains, is Apple going to be able to execute this? Cutting out the middle man is one of the greatest business plays to watch unfold, especially when the middle man is powerless to stop it.

wildrock

01-05-07, 02:24 PM

Ha, Ha! I just have to laugh today, it's friday before the biggest week of the year for all of us tech AV geeks. :D

Microsoft to unveil Home Media Server at CES:

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/home_network.jpg

Apple to unveil iTV at Macworld:

http://www.macdailynews.com/gfx/article_gfx/060912_itv.jpg

R8ders2K

01-09-07, 09:17 PM

Other than the obvious speed bumps and maybe an new iPod, I'm banking on 802.11n AirPort Extreme and Apple's announcement that it bought the rights to ReplayTV (TiVo's interface sucks). :D Hmmm...if there was pool, I guess I might have won. :D

Just got back from MacWorld...

iPhone (http://www.apple.com/iphone/) :cool: Available June '07

Expensive, but WOW, Apple did an excellent job. Widescreen iPod, cell phone, internet access (e-mail and Safari), and Wi-Fi.

AppleTV (http://www.apple.com/appletv/) ;) Available February '07

HDMI, 720p, 40 GB internal hard disk, and 802.11n.

And let's not forget about Apple's new AirPort Extreme (http://www.apple.com/airportextreme/) base stations supports b, g, and n. Available February '07

But also check out the Axiotron ModBook (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/ModBook). The first Mac tablet computer. VERY nice piece of engineering. Other World Computing is taking pre-orders.

:D

MickeyDora

01-09-07, 09:36 PM

I predict that the iTV (or MacTV, is my prediction) will NOT play any HD files that are not purchased from the iTunes store (with the exception of QT movie trailers).

MacTV / AppleTV...man I was close.

The rest was dead on so far.

I have said it before (those that have read my prior rants on this topic will know and remember) that Apple will not facilitate the playback of any files that is not created by their service (iTunes) in order to please the content providers (the studios).

Andrew67

01-09-07, 10:18 PM

MacTV / AppleTV...man I was close.

The rest was dead on so far.

I beg to differ. This device will play all kinds of media not available from the iTunes Store. It simply needs to be in a format the device understands. It will play ripped DVD's, if those DVD's are ripped into mpeg4 (h.264) format. I do agree that the point of the device is to get people to use the iTunes store, but to deny that it does not play user created content is just plain wrong.

MickeyDora

01-09-07, 11:34 PM

And how many people will continually rip their DVD's to h.264 just to watch them. It takes forever and its never perfect. Trust me, I know. It's a huge PITA.

wildrock

01-10-07, 12:03 AM

I predict there will be no Apple TV announced at Mac World 2007/2008/2009 or 2010.Well, at least you got the name right. :D

Andrew67

01-10-07, 06:31 AM

Well, at least you got the name right. :D

That was probably not a good choice of words, still I can't see Apple getting into the big screen television market.

Ted Todorov

01-10-07, 07:10 AM

wildrock

01-10-07, 02:25 PM

What does surprise me is that Apple isn't (at least for now) getting into the "true" Video iPod market -- they clearly have the technology for an iPod with the iPhone screen, iPod only functionality (WiFi, BlueTooth for future models) and a 80-100GB HD. Tons of people would by one.

Unless they are worried of a touchscreen component shortage and want to save it for the iPhone, I don't see why they don't release it. I don't think it will cannibalize the iPhone market, and the iPhone's 4 to 8GB capacity is totally insufficient for a video lover's G5 iPod replacement.I'm sure that it is the next big announcement for the iPod line. What better way to blow away the Zune-boys than to take the iPhone's features, strip out the phone, add in a hard drive, and get it to market. I think that the touch screen probably isn't quite ready for the mass market yet, but look for Apple to leverage mass market production to minimize the costs of the screen and bring it to the iPod. Only makes sense. It's what they are good at in the CE space. Apple's ability to manipulate flash memory and HD prices by their sheer purchasing power has given it a huge competitive edge against any wanna be so-called iPod killers. MS's only leverage here is their ability to lose signficant amounts of money to try and garner market share--then try and cash in.

ftaok

01-10-07, 02:44 PM

I think that the touch screen probably isn't quite ready for the mass market yet, but look for Apple to leverage mass market production to minimize the costs of the screen and bring it to the iPod. Only makes sense. It's what they are good at in the CE space. Apple's ability to manipulate flash memory and HD prices by their sheer purchasing power has given it a huge competitive edge against any wanna be so-called iPod killers. MS's only leverage here is their ability to lose signficant amounts of money to try and garner market share--then try and cash in.
I wonder about this. I don't think it's component shortages or whether the population is ready for a touchscreen iPod. I think it might be pricing. Look at it this way. The iPhone is $500 and $600. And that's with a 2-yr contract. So how much is Cingular subsidizing the phone?

So if Apple were to strip out the phone and internet capabilities to make a true iPod Video, but left in the widescreen and touchscreen capabilities, how much would it cost? I would guess $600. I don't know if there's a market for that device.

Just thinking out loud.

ft

wildrock

01-10-07, 03:07 PM

I wonder about this. I don't think it's component shortages or whether the population is ready for a touchscreen iPod. I think it might be pricing. Look at it this way. The iPhone is $500 and $600. And that's with a 2-yr contract. So how much is Cingular subsidizing the phone?I don't think they really know yet, as production hasn't even begun.

So if Apple were to strip out the phone and internet capabilities to make a true iPod Video, but left in the widescreen and touchscreen capabilities, how much would it cost? I would guess $600. I don't know if there's a market for that device.

Just thinking out loud.

ftI doubt that the touch screen would add that much. Leave everything else about the current video iPod the same, then substitute screens, and it may cost a hundred bucks more. Apple probably already has the ability to drop the price significantly and keep a healthy margin. So, maybe the price would increase $50-100 would be my guess. $299 for the low end, $399 for the 100GB model. It would sell easily at that price point. Current models drop $50 to diifferentiate them. Not everybody will want widescreen touchscreen for listening to music, or other data transfer needs. But it will be interesting to see what sort of electronics will be needed to run a touchscreen on a non-iPhone handheld. Will OS X be moving to iPods too??? Maybe just a widescreen without the touchscreen for the iPod. I've heard rumors of an iPod with the wheel on the backside.

pdubyu

01-10-07, 04:56 PM

I wonder about this. I don't think it's component shortages or whether the population is ready for a touchscreen iPod. I think it might be pricing. Look at it this way. The iPhone is $500 and $600. And that's with a 2-yr contract. So how much is Cingular subsidizing the phone?

So if Apple were to strip out the phone and internet capabilities to make a true iPod Video, but left in the widescreen and touchscreen capabilities, how much would it cost? I would guess $600. I don't know if there's a market for that device.

Just thinking out loud.

ft

I believe Apple is trying to upsell people right now. They would rather sell you an iPhone than a "widescreen iPod".

An Apple phone by itself would have only grabbed a certain percentage of existing smartphone and Wifi PDA users. It probably would have done ok but no more.

But with the iPhone, they are tapping into the rabid iPod fans that have been clamoring for widescreen video. That's a big win and alot of sales.

The widescreen touch interface will eventually "trickle down" to normal iPods but not until the iPhone is well established.