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

[Mainyehc]

But what to call such a program? Well iMovie is taken. iMovie could be renamed to something like iFinalcut and the name given to this new program. But that seems complicated. The new program could be called iFilms. However, there already is a website called ifilm, iFilms is close to iMovie in name, and digital movies actually do not employ any real film. So there is then iFlicks. But there is already a shareware program by that name, actually one that is very much like iTunes and elegantly organizes your movies like iTunes does your music. And remember, iTunes is based on the purchased SoundJam MP.

So, maybe Apple will buy out iFlicks.

I don't know...just some ideas...

You may be right on Apple buying out iFlicks, but as for the naming, I don't think they'll keep that name...

Nope, absolutely not... It's obvious... They could blend iTunes with iFlicks, or just enhance iTunes' video capabilities, and call it iMedia!! It's perfect: On one side, you have Windows Media Player which besides not being cross-platform, er... sucks! On the other side, you have iMedia, which, besides being very user-friendly, syncs with the iPod and iPod Video... Which do you think people would choose?

Of course, one could argue that renaming a brand as strong as iTunes could be a risky move. But if Apple can pull off three major technological transitions, why not a brand transition too? And besides, the "i" prefix is very entrenched in people's minds by now, so no problem there... That "i" prefix is proving to be one of Apple's most ingenious marketing schemes (and you know, the "i=internet" thing is still true... think iTMS )

As for the iTMS, it should be renamed "iMedia Music Store" and "iMedia Movie Store". Or they could just go with "iMedia Store", like Amazon, which has a single, well-recognized name, and different store sections. Now that I think about it, Apple would be taking on Amazon on two fronts already (make that three, I almost forgotten about the Audiobooks)! Add a subscription model for both music and movies, and Napster et al, plus Blockbuster and other movie rental stores could be in trouble.

And the MPAA, much like the RIAA, would definitely have to bow to His Royal Steveness... The man is, after all, the CEO of the biggest animation studio in existance today. If there's anyone capable of pulling off something like that, he's the one

 

[Porchland]

From the ClickStar web site: "ClickStar, Inc. offers branded online services where consumers can easily access, purchase, and download pre-DVD, first-run Hollywood films and artist created entertainment channels through numerous viewing portals. ClickStar will bring the best of the movies to its audience in a brand new home entertainment experience."

Pre-DVD? Sounds like a licensing nightmare. Didn't Wal-Mart threaten to dump Fox Home Video if Fox allowed pay-per-view of movies before the DVD release? This will be fun!

 

[Draelius]

Am I the only one...

...who grows increasingly disgusted with the talk of the latest and greatest iPod or now the Vidpod?

I want a new Powerbook. When did Apple stop being a computer company?

 

[solvs]

eh I'm using Firefox just cuz I got hookt on it whilst still stuck in PC land so when I got my Mac I immediatly started using FF.

Use Spellbound.

I want a new Powerbook. When did Apple stop being a computer company?

They haven't. That's why they're moving to Intel and keep releasing great software. The iPod has nothing to do with the stagnation of the 'Books as it's a separate department, and is actually helping. Being a distraction of sorts and bringing in the Switchers.

 

[iMeowbot]

...who grows increasingly disgusted with the talk of the latest and greatest iPod or now the Vidpod?

We were all promised that in The Future™, we would all be zipping around in flying cars, vacationing on the moon, having our martinis served by nuclear-powered robotic butlers, and carrying around vast amounts of data in our pockets. Here it is, the 21st century, and all we have is the data thing. Sure it's lame, but it's the only fulfilled promise of the whole bunch!

I want a new Powerbook. When did Apple stop being a computer company?

Hang in there, the awesome power of the Sentryno is coming. People have to like, write programs, and stuff.

 

[mvc]

...who grows increasingly disgusted with the talk of the latest and greatest iPod or now the Vidpod?

I want a new Powerbook. When did Apple stop being a computer company?

The very moment they can, Apple will release the greatest, most insanely desirable laptop/notenook/tablet computer ever!

It's what they do.

It's what made the Mac great.

It's what made the iPod great.

It has not gone away just because of some indifferent laptop processor progress over the last couple of years.

Excellent functional and aesthetic design and excellent ease of use are their forte. It's their edge, their selling point, I could even say their passion.

Over the years, they have been frequently frustrated in that passion, being often at the mercy of indifferent or disinterested suppliers with substandard or inappropriate processor offerings.

Now, with the move to Intel, nothing will stop them making the very best laptops that CAN be made.

 

[Sedulous]

I read that column when it first came out. In my opinion it is complete and utter tripe, with absolutely no factual basis. When the author was called on it in the article discussion thread, his responses were pompous and along the lines of, "Well, you're not in the industry and you don't understand what's going on."

Totally.

People are even spouting off about how Apple sales are decreasing and there is no iPod influence on computer sales. I've never seen anything quite like it (actually, a it is a lot like the Bush Administration): Even with direct evidence to the contrary, they continue to restate disproven ideas.

 

[sbrhwkp3]

I want my iPod to play movies. I don't care how apple does it. Just let me load movies on there, and allow it to still have a long battery life and the ability to plug it into a TV. I don't understand why there's so much debate on the usefullness of this. People are going to buy a video iPod just for the sake of owning one. Especially if it can load movies from iMovie or Final cut, or even better iDVD so you can play them on a TV just like they are DVD's.

The ability to watch real movies and share your own through your iPod...

you can't tell me you wouldn't buy that

 

[w_parietti22]

a vidPod would be pretty cool, but I still don't see the usefulness...

Lets see...

1.) being able to watch a movie on the plane without having to a laptop.

2.) Listening to music

3.) Watching Music Videos

4.) Watching iTunes movies

5.) Watching Video Podcasts


Basically what the PSP does.

 

[jettredmont]

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).

It's also worth noting that Apple has advocated optimizing for size, not speed, in several years' worth of WWDCs. I remember that was very highly stressed at the Jaguar-preview WWDC. Does that mean Apple was, then, not only planning for the G5 to be 64-bit, but also to subsequently dump IBM for Intel's 32-bit chips? Seems silly.

Apple stresses compiling for size, not speed, as the gcc compiler, when compiling for speed, can create some very wildly bloated code which, in the end, tends to feel less snappy, not more, because of the startup times and reduced memory availability. I've tried both settings, and I have to say that I came to the same conclusion as Apple: if you want happy customers, compile for size. There may well be exceptions to this, but having needlessly high memory requirements is bad for an app, and deadly for an OS.

 

[Object-X]

Uh,...

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?

Well, you are!

 

[jettredmont]

Could Apple possibly get permission to distribute software that rips your existing DVDs to your computer, which you can then use on your video iPod as you do with your CDs and iPods for music? What kind of rights management would they have to apply? How much of an issue would disk space be?

CSS is a public mechanism (http://userpages.umbc.edu/~awirth1/decss/csspaper.pdf). One needs to apply for a license to use the CSS keys in a device (the same ones that DVD Jon published using DeCSS). The primary constraint upon getting a CSS key is that one needs to prove (to a reasonable extent) that the video path from your device to the screen is "protected". The requirements are actually significantly easier in a consumer electronics device (which I'd guess the iPod video would be) than a PC device.

Note that you can, today, copy DVDs bit for bit, still CSS-encoded, off your DVD-ROM drive. DVD-R/etc drives contain restrictions to not allow writing of CSS-encoded content, but the ripping phase is certainly not prohibited.

So, to answer your question: I think Apple would have to provide some assurance of video-stream protection in an iPod device intended to allow for viewing of ripped content. They might hit some industry resistance if the hard drive is massive, but even in an 80GB drive, that's a little over ten movies that can be ripped and shuttled around; I know folks who keep more movies than that on laptops to take over for movie nights / enjoy on airplanes / etc. I don't think we'd see too much of the "rent it for a night and keep it forever" type of thing going on, as your pod would fill up pretty quickly, and commercial DVDs are a significantly less expensive long-term storage mechanism. However, making it that much easier for people to watch the movie they rented from Blockbuster a week after they returned it instead of incurring late fees might be troubling to some ... except for the general move towards getting rid of late fees altogether led by Blockbuster and being followed by the lesser rental giants.

All of which is to say: if Apple is going to provide a movie download service, I'd be extremely surprised if it didn't also provide for ripping of current DVD content for "on the go" viewing. If the HD rumors are true, then there'd still be a really big reason for those of us with HD sets to want to download movies we already own in DVD format: for just a little more hard drive space, we get the same movie in high-definition.

 

[SiliconAddict]

The only major problem with ripping DVD's, as I see it, isn't putting encryption on the resulting file to make sure you can't share it. The problem lies in what does Apple do the keep people from going to blockbuster, renting a DVD and ripping it? Or using a netflix subscription and ripping countless DVD's? Screw watching the movie. Just open up the sleeve, rip the DVD, and get it back in the mail the same day. Someone or many someones could rack up one hack of a collection in short order. I HIGHLY doubt the MPAA would look favorably on such a situation and as such probably wouldn’t allow such a thing to be implemented. Which sucks but that’s the MPAA for you.

Also I highly doubt that if Apple implemented such a thing it would only dump it onto an iPod. There would be local content. Apple isn’t going to change the way iTunes works simply to appease the MPAA. Jobs has too much of an ego for that.

 

[stuepfnick]

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.

1.) Your post offers to me, that you are really not very well informed. First of all, already the iPod photo has a Video-Out connector, to show all content stored on the iPod on any TV.
2.) There is a video Codec, called H.264, AVC or MPEG4-part10. This Codec provides DVD-Quality Videos with about 1/5 of the size, of a DVD.

So you can think of a movie beeing encoded in about 1 Mbit or maybe 1,5 Mbit. Then think further: Todays internet connections are at least 1 Mbit downstream, we in Austria have 2 Mbit download with a cheap cable internet provider.

So that bandwith would easily suffice to play movies INSTANTLY - after you have watched them, you can store it on your iPod video to watch it at a friends home or anywhere else, where a TV stands. (or in some special cases it could even make sense to play stuff in the iPod screen)

Also there could be some sort of advanced glasses that show all video to your eyes not only in Full-Screen, they could show you movies in full - field of vision.
But I would be VERY, VERY disappointed, if Apple brings out such glasses and doesn't offer a possibility to transfer different pictures or video streams to each eye to make it real 3D, just because there is very less content, but it would be typical for Apple. The iPod could show video like it is now, but until there aren't tons of content, Apple refuses to activate this features.

 

[Doctor Q]

Apple isn’t going to change the way iTunes works simply to appease the MPAA. Jobs has too much of an ego for that.

But weren't the design of the iTunes and iPod software based on appeasing the RIAA? What's different about appeasing yet another industry association to establish another product line? I'm not claiming I know one way or the other, but I'd like to hear why you think Steve Jobs wouldn't make another compromise deal.

 

[SiliconAddict]

1.) Your post offers to me, that you are really not very well informed. First of all, already the iPod photo has a Video-Out connector, to show all content stored on the iPod on any TV.
2.) There is a video Codec, called H.264, AVC or MPEG4-part10. This Codec provides DVD-Quality Videos with about 1/5 of the size, of a DVD.

So you can think of a movie beeing encoded in about 1 Mbit or maybe 1,5 Mbit. Then think further: Todays internet connections are at least 1 Mbit downstream, we in Austria have 2 Mbit download with a cheap cable internet provider.

So that bandwith would easily suffice to play movies INSTANTLY - after you have watched them, you can store it on your iPod video to watch it at a friends home or anywhere else, where a TV stands. (or in some special cases it could even make sense to play stuff in the iPod screen)

Also there could be some sort of advanced glasses that show all video to your eyes not only in Full-Screen, they could show you movies in full - field of vision.
But I would be VERY, VERY disappointed, if Apple brings out such glasses and doesn't offer a possibility to transfer different pictures or video streams to each eye to make it real 3D, just because there is very less content, but it would be typical for Apple. The iPod could show video like it is now, but until there aren't tons of content, Apple refuses to activate this features.

Couple things:

1. video glasses - While I can't be 100% certain I'd wager a paycheck that Apple will, for the forseeable future, NOT do such a thing. Have you EVER used such glasses before? If not then I suggest you try a pare sometime and bring along the Excedrin. Even 20 minutes will give the average person a headache. Now try doing that for 2 hours.

2. H.264 - Do you have ANY idea how processor intensive that codec is? Unless Apple's implementation is for **** in Quicktime 7, its simply a heavy codec. Sure you could probably use H.264 for iPod resolutions but forget HD resolutions. Ain't going to happen on a iPod without some massive hardware.

3. Broadband connection - I think here in the US we are around 50% broadband. (I read that about a year ago so it prob is more.) But the simple fact is that most of America would be screwed when it comes to using such a service. Also never mind the fact that costs to Apple to have such a FAT pipe to provide such a service would be huge which in turn would have to be passed back down to the people buying the movie. Even H.264 would prob require file sizes in excess of 100MB. Imagine 1,000 people an hour downloading a movie and that's conservative. Imagine if it was as popular as iTMS? Apple would have to be hooked up to the freaking backbone to handle such a thing. ISP's would probably start bitching because of the strain.

 

[SiliconAddict]

But weren't the design of the iTunes and iPod software based on appeasing the RIAA? What's different about appeasing yet another industry association to establish another product line? I'm not claiming I know one way or the other, but I'd like to hear why you think Steve Jobs wouldn't make another compromise deal.

It was a compromise. Did Apple fundamentally alter HOW iTunes and iPod functions? It still allows you to do everything you did before but now you can’t share it with others. The closest I've seen Apple totally cave is dropping streaming music support to only computers that are on the same subnet. They still have the feature though.

*shrugs* Its just my opinion. I think by only having video on the iPod Apple would be degrading the features they want. Sure as heck the ultimate goal by Apple is to be buddy buddy with your home entertainment system. Think Airport Express A/V with a remote control.

 

[~Shard~]

1.) Your post offers to me, that you are really not very well informed. First of all, already the iPod photo has a Video-Out connector, to show all content stored on the iPod on any TV.

How am I not informed? I know of the video-out connector, what made you think I didn't? That wasn't the point of what I was saying, please read my post more carefully.

2.) There is a video Codec, called H.264, AVC or MPEG4-part10. This Codec provides DVD-Quality Videos with about 1/5 of the size, of a DVD.

So you can think of a movie beeing encoded in about 1 Mbit or maybe 1,5 Mbit.

I am well aware of h.264, as I work with our R&D lab in order to compress HDTV signals for use over our Video over DSL service. Thanks though, but I probably know more about it than you...

Encoding a 4.7 Gb DVD movie using h.264 will result in a 1 Mb file? You need to check your math, as 1/5 the size (based on your comment) of a 4.7 Gb DVD is ~1 Gb, not 1 Mb.

Then think further: Todays internet connections are at least 1 Mbit downstream, we in Austria have 2 Mbit download with a cheap cable internet provider.

Not even counting the overall population that does not have High Speed, having this bandwidth available is irrelevant. Do you understand what Apple would have to do from an infrastructure standpoint in order to allow for thousands of people simultaneously to be maxing out their 2 Mb Internet connections (or whatever) downloading these videos? You can have an ADSL 2+ or GigE access, but my guess is you won't be able to download at 20 Mbps (or higher) from Apple's site, nor many other places for that matter. Even with sub-GB files, say 100 MB (which would be poor quality in the first place) you would run into serious issues. Not to mention the intensive nature of the codec itself...

So that bandwith would easily suffice to play movies INSTANTLY

Again, check your math. I can't even imagine a full ~4 Gb movie compressed into a 1 Mb file - the quality would be amazing... And to reiterate, your access network is but one small piece of the puzzle. Apple's backbone in order to support this would be a nightmare. Trust me, I work for a SP.

I would comment further, but SiliconAddict has already beat me to the punch, so no need to reinvent the wheel. Plus, I could go on and on, but since I am "not very well informed", as you put it, I guess I should stop.

 

[rolandf]

...who grows increasingly disgusted with the talk of the latest and greatest iPod or now the Vidpod?

I want a new Powerbook. When did Apple stop being a computer company?

The iPod spoiled a lot! (all?)

I bought Apple for the computer and the OS! And there are other things Apple should
improve, e.g. LCD screens of notebooks, real improvements in the OS, carefully tested etc.

 

[puuukeey]

I really like the idea of using the existing ipod design to play movies into a home theater or stereo. viewing them directly on the ipod seems eh. (other than previews or little QT films.) OLEDs are another option. (see universaldisplay.com)

While we're at it, why not give it a camera and mic as well???


I dont like the idea of apple having a verticle monopoly on digital movies or music.

 

[oskar]

Encoding a 4.7 Gb DVD movie using h.264 will result in a 1 Mb file? You need to check your math, as 1/5 the size (based on your comment) of a 4.7 Gb DVD is ~1 Gb, not 1 Mb.

I believe he was referring to a 1 or 1.5 Mbps data rate. 1.5 is one fifth (1/5) of the average 7.5 Mbps you get on good quality DVD's.

I don't very much like rumors on the iPod Video, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see it out now!
I wonder what will appear on the Apple main page when that counter reaches 500 million. Less than 40,000 to go...

 

[Loge]

The only major problem with ripping DVD's, as I see it, isn't putting encryption on the resulting file to make sure you can't share it. The problem lies in what does Apple do the keep people from going to blockbuster, renting a DVD and ripping it? Or using a netflix subscription and ripping countless DVD's? Screw watching the movie. Just open up the sleeve, rip the DVD, and get it back in the mail the same day. Someone or many someones could rack up one hack of a collection in short order. I HIGHLY doubt the MPAA would look favorably on such a situation and as such probably wouldn’t allow such a thing to be implemented. Which sucks but that’s the MPAA for you.

Good points! But consumers who have purchased significant content on DVD aren't going to be inclined to pay for it again just to watch it on a different device. Of course there will be plenty of third party tools/hacks to get around such restrictions, but not with the customary Apple ease of use.

 

[~Shard~]

I believe he was referring to a 1 or 1.5 Mbps data rate. 1.5 is one fifth (1/5) of the average 7.5 Mbps you get on good quality DVD's.

That would make more sense then. However he said 1 Mb (file size), not 1 Mbps (data rate), and said "1/5 the size of a DVD", so he was never talking data rates - he was perhaps just a little unclear, that's all, thanks for the explanation.

 

[iMeowbot]

It's also worth noting that Apple has advocated optimizing for size, not speed, in several years' worth of WWDCs. I remember that was very highly stressed at the Jaguar-preview WWDC. Does that mean Apple was, then, not only planning for the G5 to be 64-bit, but also to subsequently dump IBM for Intel's 32-bit chips? Seems silly.

Another thing t note about -Os is that it does also turn on most of the optimizations that -O2 enables. -O3 does often turn out to be a pessimization, and on occasion it simply produces incorrect code.

 

[Surreal]

Encoding a 4.7 Gb DVD movie using h.264 will result in a 1 Mb file? You need to check your math, as 1/5 the size (based on your comment) of a 4.7 Gb DVD is ~1 Gb, not 1 Mb.
<snip>

pretty sure he meant 1 gbit/sec

i noticed that too.

proceed

o, and for what it's worth..

I WANT LINE IN RECORDING!!!!!!!!!!!
i don't care about video. i want to record with my beautiful stereo electret mic into an ipod. apple has a 179 rebate deal that ends in sept.

but the ipod is not nearly as important to me as a new powerbook is... all i want is a better fsb..so much to ask?