Speculation on the Intel switch, video iPods, and an iTunes Movie Store

[Steamboatwillie]

I don't get what the big deal is?

Uh, isn't the PSP sorta like a "Video iPod" ? Is that thing flying off the shelves for it's video playback capabilities? There are other small video devices as well. I really can't see the appeal of a video iPod. I may be short sighted here because Apple has a way of making something be "more useful" than one might have initially thought.

 

[R.Youden]

Video iPod as a playback device more than a viewing device?

I mean, you get movies from the iTunes Movie store in h.264 (which we all know is proc intensive), xfer them to yer Video iPod, then walk over to yer TV, hook it up via the dock and watch the movie in your living room.

Seems like a good idea to me.


-Lethal

Why dont they just make a set-top box that connects to the net with a basic version of OSX with iPhoto iTunes etc...

 

[daddy-mojo]

missing the point

I don't want a video iPod. I listen to music every day when I walk to school using my iPod, but I wouldn't watch movies on it, even if I could.

I use my powerbook to watch movies when I'm traveling.

I use my iPod to store music and play it wirelessly to my stereo with my airport express/iTunes, but somehow I don't see myself doing this with video any time soon.

I'd personally rather have a cheaper, smaller, higher capacity iPod than a video pod. I wish they would give the original iPod some new features like the ability to play music wirelessly to an airport express without the need for a computer and iTunes. Now that would be cool.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to watch a movie on a 2 or 3 inch screen (of course you know some will & then they'll complain), other then maybe a music video or just album art, photos etc. However, being able to hook the ipod up to a tv and and show the latest rough cut of something your editing (I do post production work/editing) or your portfolio or even your little movie clips from your digital camera. It will serve a needed purpose, and it will probably stand as its own device separate from the ipods with color displays. Just a thought.

 

[ibook30]

Video Pods ?? better get a bigger screen. I'm convinced it'll happen- if for no other reason it would be something new to advertise. But let's see some new design ideas to accomodate a larger screen!

Unlike many - I can believe that Apple / Steve looked to Intel for ipod enhancements. I find it hard to believe that was the only factor or even the most important. Just add it to the list -
1. IBM was not offering the speed Intel offers,,, creating the appearance that Apple machines run slow.
2. Steve's ego
3. Potential ipod enhancements
4. etc etc etc
I'm sure a more complete list has been submitted somewhere detailing all of the reasons,,,, but I can imagine ipod enhancements on the list

 

[kanaka]

Apple optimizes for size AND performance

I think it's true that Apple compiles with the -Os flag. But that's because optimizing for size usually IS optimizing for speed. Reduced code size results in speed gains due to improved VM usage, more code in high-speed cache, and more code in RAM. The author of this article makes some dubious claims.

-Keaka Jackson

From the article:

When Apple compiles OS X on the 970, they use -Os. That's right: they optimize for size, not for performance. So even though Apple talked a lot of smack about having a first-class 64-bit RISC workstation chip under the hood of their towers, in the end they were more concerned about OS X's bulging memory requirements than they were about The Snappy(TM).

 

[~Shard~]

For me the jury is out on whether or not the video iPod will be practical or not. It really depends how Apple implements and what they do with it, because if it simply is just a video player, I think they'll run into serious issues. I for one, would not want to watch a movie on a 2" or 3" screen. Also, what kind of battery life would you get from a device like that? And in general, when I listen to my iPod, I'm doing other activities, whether it's walking down the street, working out in the gym, etc. If there was video on the iPod, I couldn't be doing other activties, because the iPod WOULD be the activity.

And as for the a iTunes Video Store, what compression would be used on the videos to make them small, yet watchable? And what would your filesizes be, and what kind of High Speed connections would be required by the downloader (not to mention the infrastructure of the downloadee) so that people wouldn't be stuck downloading a multi-GB movie for hours on end? One of the selling features of the iTMS is the aspect of immediate gratification, where you can have a song essentially instantly. With a large movie file, this advantage goes away.

I know Apple will sort it all out, and I know that a video iPod and Video Store is a question of when, not if, but I think there are lots of issued that will need to be properly addressed before Apple jumps in with both feet.

 

[jwhitnah]

Oh gimme a break

An Ars Technica column, with what is claimed to be insider information, says that Apple's switch to Intel processors was a result more of Apple's high-handedness with IBM, and IBM's refusal to continue to acquiesce, than of the performance and roadmap issues stated publicly by Apple and disputed by IBM. Other purported reasons are an Apple interest in becoming an all-Intel shop, using Intel chips not only for Macintoshes but for iPods, and the possibility that Apple would use Intel's XScale technology, designed for high performance with low power consumption, for a video iPod.



Technology columnist Robert Cringely comments on the Ars article and adds his own speculation that Apple timed its Intel announcement for the benefit of Intel, purposely preceding IBM's announcement of new dual core PowerPC 970MP processor.

Cringely also theorizes that Intel's investment in the ClickStar movie download site is now part of a coordinated plan with Apple to create an iTunes Movie Store. Cringely agrees with Ars that a video iPod is in the works, with the consolidation of the iPod photo into the standard iPod as a sign of that effort.

Video iPods have long been rumored, and recent events, such as the inclusion of videos in the iTunes Music Store and statements by Steve Jobs in May contribute to those rumors, especially in comparison with earlier statements by Steve Jobs.

Come on! Even I was pissed at IBM for not pulling through with 3.0 GHz over a YEAR ago. They lost the road map and have been 4-Wheelin' off-road for 2 years. Spare me the paranoid BS spin!

 

[treblah]

Uh, isn't the PSP sorta like a "Video iPod" ? Is that thing flying off the shelves for it's video playback capabilities? There are other small video devices as well. I really can't see the appeal of a video iPod. I may be short sighted here because Apple has a way of making something be "more useful" than one might have initially thought.

Sony shot itself in the foot by using their proprietary MemoryStick format. That adds another $100 for a 1gig stick to the $250 price tag. Then all the videos need to be transcoded to MPEG-4 files which is also a PITA. Unless Apple makes a vPod with at least DivX and Xvid support most people will yawn.

 

[~Shard~]

Sony shot itself in the foot by using their proprietary MemoryStick format. That adds another $100 for a 1gig stick to the $250 price tag. Then all the videos need to be transcoded to MPEG-4 files which is also a PITA. Unless Apple makes a vPod with at least DivX and Xvid support most people will yawn.

Agreed. Although I'm a fan of the PS/PS2 (and no doubt will be of the PS3!) the PSP is something I have no desire to buy - too proprietary, to impractical.... If Apple's "vPod" goes this way they're really going to have to make sure they do it RIGHT.

 

[Lepton]

When the Video iPod will come

Those saying people won't watch video on a small screen are just wrong. People already do watch video on small screens, on everything from camcorders to portable DVD players to pocket TVs to Web pages to cell phones. I had no problems watching Spider Man II on the PSP, which I think is about the right size for a screen. And it won't so much be movies, I expect, but short form things. Look at what iTunes is offering on Video right now. Music videos, video podcasts of a few minutes (check out Tiki Bar TV for an example,) movie trailers. Add things like newscasts and TV shows. All stuff you won't mind watching on the bus or subway.

Take a PSP and chop off the two ends with the game controls leaving just the screen, and that's about the right form factor. Take out the UMB drive and replace with a hard disk. Use FireWire and WiFi for communication in and out, and recharging. Keep the replacable battery. Controls might be touch screen or perhaps an iPod wheel on the back - that CAN work.

Functionally it should play music, play video, output video via FireWire, be a remote control for a Mac, be remote controlled by a Mac, AND act as a portable monitor for a Mac using Apple Remote Desktop type of software - a WAY cool thing - and browse the Net over WiFi.

But Apple won't bring this out until the technology is right. Battery life, proper integration with the software, and so on. Almost all of it is in place right now. I think one thing that is necessary is perfection of a suitable OLED screen. These things are brilliant, have fast response, and are much thinner and use less power than backlit LCDs. Their current problem is they have a limited lifetime, but they have just about got that worked out.

I see it happening next year.

 

[Cpt Bruno]

Something to think about

Five-six years ago, I bought a Panasonic portable DVD player with a built-in LCD screen which you can also connect to an external TV. Cost me $1000. You can now get ones for as little as $100.

Suppose you add in the iPod/iTunes software/hardware and you have the video iPod. Add in a port to connect to external HDTV monitor, a large, external hardisk and TIVO-type software, you now have a killer media center. Add in a video game chip and you have something to compete against the sort of thing Microsoft and others are working towards.

 

[Ge4-ce]

Apple has done crazy stuff all the time..

I trust them to make a videopod, and make it way way better and more usefull than others..

imagine this:

-viPod with indeed H264 compression videos from videostore or from your Harddrive.

-Mp 3 or Acc audio like we're used to now.

-same goes for Photos

-view this stuff on TV using the videoconnector (or a dock or whatever)

-But best of all!! Maybe Apple's up to something like this: surprise surprise

 

[quackattack]

I think H.264 could get the file sizes down enough to be practical. Especially if they cut down the resolution to match the iPod screen size.

Perhaps this is why they need new intel processors, it is my understanding that H.264 is more processor intensive (at least to encode, I am not positive about decoding.)

Also we are assuming that the video iPod would have the same exact design. Everyone is complaining about watching movies on a 2 inch screen. What if apple ran the screen horizontally, it would allow a much larger screen on the same size device. Of course the controls and buttons would have to be moved, but Apple is very good at design. I think it could work.

I welcome a video iPod, but mostly I would just like one with more capacity to store all my music!

 

[Phat_Pat]

Just to add to the speculation of the vidpod......

 

[gerards]

2) IBM may or may not be behind Intel, but they're certainly not way ahead, and there's no realistic promise that they will be. Looked at from that perspective, it's a whole lot easier to sell a computer that--power wise--is just like everybody else's instead of having to start by proving the equality of your alternate architecture (and hoping that it remains competitive) before you even start selling the MacOS.

Were the PPC significantly ahead of the competition, the case would be different--"hey, look, we're WAY better!"--but it isn't, so from a marketing perspective you might as well be exactly the same instead of similar but different.

(As someone else already pointed out, though, this is relatively "old news".)

Let's be clear about this. I've been a Mac user for many years now, and I still love the stuff Apple delivers, but it is a fact that the PowerPC is lagging behind some other Intel or AMD processors.

Please refer to this link for a clear comparison of some popular processors: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436

It even gives some detail on some awkward architectural choices Apple has made for MacOS X. Interesting....

 

[Lynxpro]

Why isn't Cringely not exploring the possible reasons why Apple trademarked the name *MacTel* more?

To me, it sounds like a co-branding partnership between Apple and Intel, giving more prominence to Intel on the machines, as if the machine is designed by both companies. If Macintoshes are then known as "MacTels," it freezes out any chance of AMD going into those very machines as well.

Perhaps Apple is going Intel exclusively because Intel has agreed to co-finance the R&D necessary to keep the Macs at the top of the tech ladder amongst all the other PC manufacturers.

With such an agreement, it means the Macs would become the premiere platform for non-CPU based technologies Intel develops that would later (in a year or two) end up on the Windows platform.

So my question is, why isn't anyone speculating about this?

 

[eazyway]

dual path

Cringley says " I wonder if Apple even intends to go forward with the changeover?

That's taking it a bit far! It'd be suicide for relations with developers to throw that at them and then say, oh, we changed our minds!

This is true but a dual path may be a possibility. (although remote)

 

[gerards]

I think it's true that Apple compiles with the -Os flag. But that's because optimizing for size usually IS optimizing for speed. Reduced code size results in speed gains due to improved VM usage, more code in high-speed cache, and more code in RAM. The author of this article makes some dubious claims.

-Keaka Jackson

From the article:

I don't fully agree with you on this one. An important part of software development (and compilation) is balancing so called "time complexity" and "space complexity" of the code. How to do this best depends a lot on the processor architecture the software is being written for. For the G5 (which has relatively high memory latency) reducing the memory size for an app could save a lot of time. On the other hand this might result in unnecessary operations during execution.

 

[Lynxpro]

Cringley says " I wonder if Apple even intends to go forward with the changeover?
That's taking it a bit far! It'd be suicide for relations with developers to throw that at them and then say, oh, we changed our minds!

No its not. If the developers write universal binaries from now on, then Apple is free to select whatever chip manufacturer has the best chips regardless of platform, x86 or PPC.

For example, if IBM actually got off the crapper and ramped up the clock speeds on the G5, then the G5s would remain in the PowerMac and iMac lines. While at the same time, the Pentium-M could find itself in the MacMinis and the iBook/PowerBook lines. That's like giving the platform freedom Linux enjoys but with an OS that has been desktop ready since 1984. PPC in PowerMacs, Pentium-M in small form factor machines, and XScale in the MacTablet.

Now that's something I could toast to, but I'm sure Apple's moving to an Intel exclusive shop is about getting a giant discount on all the types of chips that Apple uses throughout their entire product line, and less having to do with any inclination about being CPU agnostic no matter the benefits. I didn't even type the possibility of OS X on SPARC.

 

[jcshas]

*Yawn* How many more articles are going to be written about Apple's switch to Intel!?! Who really cares anymore! This is old news.

 

[Lynxpro]

Uh, isn't the PSP sorta like a "Video iPod" ? Is that thing flying off the shelves for it's video playback capabilities? There are other small video devices as well. I really can't see the appeal of a video iPod. I may be short sighted here because Apple has a way of making something be "more useful" than one might have initially thought.

The only problems with the PSP are:

1. Not iTunes (AAC+Fairplay) compatible, yet...

2. No PDA OS available for download. (c'mon, Sony, give us a PalmOS download, for $15 or so).

3. Sony trying to stop hacking/homebrewing.

4. No stated goal of using the PSP as a smart controller with the PS2 or PS3, unlike Nintendo with the Gamecube and the Gameboy Advance or Atari's planned use of the Lynx with the Jaguar.

 

[Loge]

A video iPod needs to have an easy way for people to move their existing content to it, such as DVDs. Otherwise its appeal will be limited. A large factor in the original iPod taking off was that you didn't have to purchase any new content for it.

 

[ham_man]

Probable that they were going to switch, but if Apple just wanted to have Intel chips for their iPod lines, then why do a full changeover on their portable and desktop computers? There was another reason that this happened than just "video iPods"...

 

[Lacero]

Who said anything about viewing video on the iPod? If anything, it will play out to a TV, HDTV, or projector. I can see many uses for this in professional settings, as well as recreational activities, where one could conceivably view content "on the go".

 

[guerro]

MacRumors has been **** lately. WTF is going on ? Very late with stories on items posted weeks earlier. Guess its time to remove the bookmark.