Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Macworld Rumor Round-Up

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the wild-rumors-and-speculation dept.

Apple 179

seamuskrat writes to mention that LoopRumors has a round-up of many of the different Mac rumors making the rounds for the next Macworld. Among the front runners are the ITV, iPhone, and Mobile OSX. From the article: "In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device."

cancel ×

179 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

iTV (5, Insightful)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429446)

If they open up the protocols for this, thus allowing other devices to be compatible and streaming software to be created, say goodbye to over-the-air, cable, and satellite TV.

Knowing Apple, that isn't going to happen. A shame.

Re:iTV (1)

Baricom (763970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429486)

Just opening it up to video podcasts in your iTunes library would be a significant opportunity for new media providers.

Re:iTV (2, Insightful)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429588)

hmmm, The entire idea of Video Podcasts just isn't as compelling to me. Largely because it is MUCH easier and cheaper to do high quality audio, than it is to do video. I mean, hell, the mainstream industry companies have a hard enough time finding talent that can act and not be offensive to the eye. How are people on ultra-tight budgets supposed to do so?

Re:iTV (2, Informative)

Baricom (763970) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429824)

I agree in principle, but the problem is that iTV is going to hook up to a TV, so I'd imagine that any video content is going to fit better on that medium than purely audio content. If audio was its target functionality, Apple should have added an integrated display.

I actually think the next hurdle to be crossed is going to be live distribution. CNN and Fox News trade on the idea of immediate access to information; other people are also fascinated by the potential of live webcasts as a means of staying connected. Adding streaming to iTV, combined with an efficient and accessible delivery system, would send Apple's mindshare through the roof.

agreed, completely. (5, Insightful)

adam (1231) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429868)

let's look at Colbert Report and The Daily Show. These run on one of the smaller cable-only networks (Comedy Central), and many /. readers should be familiar with them. Daily show has a team of 40+ writers (iirc) and Jon Stewart (the "face" of The Daily Show) makes $1.5M+/yr (last I heard). Now, surely by doing a weekly show instead of a daily one, you could probably operate with substantially less writers (maybe three or four, if they are quite good), and maybe the face of your podcast is even going to be as comedically talented as Stewart (which is very doubtful, the guy is a genius). But there are still so many other elements to the production. Assuming you're broadcasting in standard def or below (320x240), you could get away with having simple DV cameras ($3k/each), of which you'll need at *LEAST* two for coverage, and probably would want three. Lighting will mean several thousand watts of very hot incandescent lights, or more expensive fluorescents. Cameramen. Production staff (cue card/teleprompter guy, boom operators, etc). Editing (equipment, trained editor, etc). A set. It gets expensive very quickly.

The bottom line is, shows like The Daily Show and Colbert Report have millions of dollars of budget per year, and even their day to day production values are pretty crappy. Comedy Central may run a lot of teaser compositing done by Interspectacular [interspectacular.com] , but for the most part the graphics in the shows we're talking about are pretty low in quality (and this is coming from productions who have millions of dollars to play with.. if they have trouble coming up with slick graphics on a show-to-show basis, imagine the hurdles you will face).

Even if you're lucky and you already own a lot of the equipment and posess many of the skills needed, you will still be several orders of magnitude below anything produced for TV nowadays. The only place where video podcasts may excel is in giving people *SUBSTANCE* that they can't find on tv-- a different opinion or commentary from what you normally hear from broadcast media, access to interviews and coverage of subjects that would never make it on tv (because they are too specialized, or too tabboo [google.com] or whatever the case). For instance, a Vegan Cooking Podcast may be able to draw many viewers simply because even the most specialized shows (on the cooking channel) don't ever cover vegan foods (let alone regularly devote a timeslot to it).

Video podcasts can definitely outperform traditional broadcast media in some ways, but to even imagine that they will supplant/usurp regaulr television is naive. (I know one post mentioned "goodbye to regular tv" and another mentioned this would be a "good opportunity" for new media.. so I want to make it clear I am not combining those posts inside my head.. re: post #2, this could indeed be a good opporunity for new media.. but even under the best circumstances, it won't even draw a fraction of a percent of users away from watching American Idol [which is what i am trying to say by agreeing with my parent post])

However, let me temper my analysis by saying that obviously some videos on YouTube, with low production values [youtube.com] , have garnered hundreds of thousands or even (in a few cases) millions of views. It would be unlikely that all but a handful of video podcasts could regularly do this themselves (other than LonelyGirl15 [youtube.com] and a few select others, most of these videographers don't have repeat success), but some might see this type of success.. which, when measured against the daily viewing of even reruns of Alton Brown or MythBusters, may not shatter any records, but it's still pretty impressive.

As someone who has done a lot of independent videography.. (spending one to two years shooting and traveling just to put together a film with one hour of runtime) it's very, very tough to put together something with respectable production values and worthwhile content. To do this in a serialized fashion is even more difficult. The costs and talent involved necessitate having some real business model. If you're simply downloading video podcasts week after week for free, the quality of the product will almost certainly reflect the fact that it is free (unless the video prodcaster happens to be an eccentric billionaire, in which case (s)he gets my undying respect). And if you're paying for the content, DVD-based distribution is hard to beat when it comes to quality, archiving, portability, and interoperability.


*disclaimer: i am not affilliated with any of the sites/people/videos linked or mentioned above.. they are all just random examples that i felt fit the purpose of illustrating my points.

Re:agreed, completely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429894)

Stewart (which is very doubtful, the guy is a genius).


Colbert is a genius, Stewart is a loveable guy but not all that great - but one who was at the right place at the right time to give voice to a lot of disenchanted people. He is a good "straight" guy (in the comic sense of the word) in an absurd world though.

Re:agreed, completely. (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430088)

To put it another way, unless you're going into porn, a DV camera and a pretty girl just ain't gonna cut it. Realistically, even good writing (and that's pretty rare anyway) isn't going to save Video Casting.

Podcasting is where its at for amateur media, in my opinion. Anybody with a Mic and a dream can compete quality wise with Talk Radio (I exaggerate, but not that much, as little as $1000-$2000 will get you equipment that, at least from a listener's perspective is as good or better than Broadcast, and at a certain point, more depends on what you're willing to spend on Bandwidth, than the gear you're using). Audio just gives a much better bang for the buck at this point. Anybody attempting, for example the niche Vegan cooking show you describe, would be better served by making it an Audio, rather than a Video, production.

Re:agreed, completely. (1)

SirWinston (54399) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430774)

> Audio just gives a much better bang for the buck at this point

Not for long. Can we really expect podcast-type audio-only content to stay as popular as it currently is, now that YouTube and other online video options are competing with them for our time? No. Portable video devices are phasing out portable audio-only devices in all but the value segment. Mainstream media companies are now also competing for our Internet A/V time with "webisodes." Audio-only net content (excluding music) will be getting a dwindling portion of the viewership/listenership pie as net video content and devices to access it multiply.

> Anybody attempting, for example the niche Vegan cooking show you
> describe, would be better served by making it an Audio, rather
> than a Video, production.

Today--maybe. 6 to 12 months from now--no, because video content continues to increase as does the ease of accessing it (iTV will be a quantum leap in this regard, too). Audio-only won't be able to compete for our limited time in the very near future with all the YouTube(esque) phenoms and increasing webisode content.

Re:agreed, completely. (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431592)

I don't think my boss at work is going to let me watch a video cast, but he don't mind if I listen to a podcast. "Oh boy."

Re:agreed, completely. (1, Offtopic)

slashbart (316113) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430300)

I saw your 'too taboo' link to the Loose Change [google.com] documentary. This compelling low budget documentary is probably very far of the mark, and I'd like to point people also to the following links

Re:agreed, completely. (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430402)

Assuming you're broadcasting in standard def or below (320x240), you could get away with having simple DV cameras ($3k/each)
$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old. A $3k video camera better fluff your dick between shots for that kind of money.

Re:agreed, completely. (2, Insightful)

Orange Crush (934731) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430984)

$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old. A $3k video camera better fluff your dick between shots for that kind of money.

If you want it to look decent in a studio environment, then yes, you need a pro-sumer grade video camera. Usually the differences lie in better optics & control over focus and exposure settings, multiple CCDs for better color definition (especially important when you have bright studio lights if you want decent color balance/gamut). There are a *lot* more factors to a camera's video quality than just resolution.

Re:agreed, completely. (2, Informative)

Andy Somnifac (971725) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431116)

$3K for the camera is still a bit much. If I were looking to do a video cast I'd be looking at the Canon GL2 [bhphotovideo.com] for $1700 (after a manufacturer's rebate). The porn industry loves them, with good reason. They're small, easy to use, excellent quality, and inexpensive for what you're getting.

For only a bit more than $3000 you could be doing HD with an XH-A1 [bhphotovideo.com] . And I'm willing to bet that there are other manufacturers that make other possible choices, but Canon is what I'm familiar with.

Re:agreed, completely. (1)

UglyTool (768385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431118)

$3k for a video camera!? This isn't the 1980s anymore. My camcorder was $300 and it takes fantastic videos in that resolution and it's 4 years old.

Try this. [sonystyle.com]

I guarantee your $300 camera is not of this quality and, while it might look good to you, does not come remotely close to what is considered broadcast quality. Quality still comes at a premium.

Disagreed, completely. (1)

savage1r (856578) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430854)

Yeah, I have a few questions about the statements you make here. $3k for a DV camera? I don't think so, and I also don't think the daily show is using DV cameras either. You can pick up a great Canon GL1 for $1.5 and I'm pretty sure the daily show is using betacam or an equivalent which is probably pushing the $20k range. I also think they're using 4 if not 5 of them including one on a crane. The daily show has no need for boom operators (maybe 1 max for backup), I know for a fact they use wireless mics. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure standard Def maxes out at 640x480 and betacam and DV will cover that very well. The editing equipment would probably be minimal for a show like this, maybe 4-5 avids max and I would *HOPE* they had at least 1 trained editor, lord knows I've seen what happens when you have *untrained* editors, it's not a pretty sight. I really don't see how The Daily Show and Colbert Report's graphics are THAT bad, I'd say they have MARGINALLY less quality than network news braodcast and their graphics(for story bits) are often well done and if not, it's on purpose. The fact that it's taken you 2 years to make a 1 hour film is a little dicey. Is that shooting time or complete pre-production, production, post-production? That either covers alot of travel or is just one of those "labor of love" productions that you have to space out because of money and time constraints. Otherwise, I don't know, I've shot 1 hour shorts in 2 weekends and 2 of them are going to be hitting the film festivals pretty soon. I guess it depends exactly what the situation is. All in all though, I'd say your analysis of the Daily/Colbert report is a tad off, but hey, I could be wrong.

You misunderstand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431810)

You mistook my comments above. I was not postulating as to the Daily Show's production equipment, but rather giving a basic laundry list of what "one would need to produce a video podcast" that might even approach the production value of the Daily Show.

You are correct, Comedy Central almost certainly shoots on broadcast quality cameras. My statement was asserting that to create a SD (or 320x240) podcast that can even hope to compare itself to these shows, you would need a couple of prosumer cameras (i.e. Z1U, XL2, DVX100, HVX200, etc). I picked $3k because it's a nice average figure.. some prosumer DV cameras cost $2k.. some cost $5k. Your "OMG YOU CAN BUY A GL1 FOR $1500!" comment just seems like semantic fight-picking, especially because the GL1 hasn't been made for several years (which means you'd be buying used) and they must surely be well below $1000 used now.

The Daily Show does use a jib as well for crowd sweeps after commercial, although you could get away without one.. or even if you did buy one, a decent prosumer-capable jib is only $1000ish. And wireless lavs are a matter of preference, although a few good lavaliers will cost around the same are one or two decent shotgun booms.

Ultimately, it all does add up, and that was my point; that to produce even a basic "look at funny guys sitting on a couch talking about how our leaders are retarded and also showing you the latest ipod gadget" show you're gonna need $20k in equipment, a couple of really smart and talented people, and a lot of freetime. Or the production value of that show will be on par with a high school video production class. Again, my comments weren't assessing what *THEY USE* at comedycentral, so much as what you would need to use to not look like a complete amateur in comparison.

One of my final points was that this could indeed be a good chance for "new media" as the grandparent comment stated, but that no one should even dream of video podcasts usurping regular tv shows.. except for the percentage of viewers who value the substance the podcasts bring (obscure interviews, uncensored conspiracy theorist commentary, whatever) over actual production value. And that even the "cheapest to produce" shows on brokeass cable-only networks still have millions of dollars of budget to play with.

Furthermore, I don't think you're in a position to be drawing conclusions about the production time of my films and whether or not they are "dicey." First of all, had you spent more than four seconds skimming my post, you probably wouldn't have misunderstood what I was saying (as it seems no one else did), and at the same time, you might have noticed that I seem to know what i'm talking about. This might have led you to suspect that i'm in the industry, and that i likely do something along the lines of video/film production as a fulltime gig. And although i wouldn't have expected you to read my profile, it does prettymuch come out and say as much.

If we go back to my comments, we'll see I said "one to two years" to put together a film. In fairness, I was being vague, since I do consider marketing and distribution part of that, and that adds several months (my last film was finished over a year ago, and the street date was just a few months back). However, even taking one (or heck, two) years to pre-produce, travel and shoot, edit/composite/title/conform a film (so we're leaving out distribution considerations) is not excessive. One of my favorite films, Fight Club, had a 6 month shoot schedule (according to IMDB).. and this is the first random film i pulled out of my head, I didn't cherry pick it. Now, you couldn't have known this, but I shoot mostly documentary work, which can take significantly longer to shoot (my next major project is going to take at least three years to shoot).. and although you couldn't have known exactly what I shoot, if you're halfway knowledgable you should be able to envision many circumstances that could take a project 1-2 years to be completed. Hell, in summer of 2003, I was shooting on location in Canada when a Robin williams [imdb.com] film called RV was being shot near us.. it was released April of 2006!! The IMDB page I linked above says the shoot dates started in 2005, but it is quite mistaken (hey, IMDB is a public wiki.. you can't expect much in the way of accuracy, haha).

Anyway, my point here is that you're opening the door for me to make you look like an idiot by saying a production is "dicey" because it took 1-2yrs to completion when in fact the majority of major films follow this pattern.. if you trot over to IMDB, you'll find directors like Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Tarantino, etc direct about 1 major film every year. And there are directors who no doubt work on many more projects, and many fewer. I'm not particularly offended by your comments, they are just short sighted. If you're shooting 1hr features in 4 days of work, well, good for you.. even better for you if they actually turn out well.. but surely you must be aware that many cinematic productions spend many weeks or months shooting (and pre-production before this, then post-production after.. then fun things like distribution, marketing, merchandising, etc).

You said, "Yeah, I have a few questions about the statements you make here.", so hopefully i've answered them.

Re:agreed, completely. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17432008)

Video podcasts can definitely outperform traditional broadcast media in some ways, but to even imagine that they will supplant/usurp regaular television is naive.

Old Media constantly fools itself saying that. Then they make excuses for plummeting newspaper sales and low news ratings. The problem is never themselves... no, they're professionals.

"Who is this 'Matt Drudge', anyhow?"

Steve Colbert thinks himself trendy for referencing Wikipedia. Well, there were trendy dinosaurs once -- they all died with the rest of them.

Re:iTV (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430714)

I disagree. ZeFrank's The Show is excellent. Podstarrunner is excellent. It is possible for people to create good content without a huge budget.

Re:iTV (2, Insightful)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431504)

I mean, hell, the mainstream industry companies have a hard enough time finding talent that can act and not be offensive to the eye. How are people on ultra-tight budgets supposed to do so?

They aren't. What they can do is focus on niche markets with their low budgets that the big guys can't hit.

Re:iTV (4, Insightful)

Babbster (107076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429584)

There are already open protocols for what you describe, as well as devices that will do what this Apple product is reported to do (even my modded Xbox has no trouble streaming NTSC/480p TV). Yet, over-the-air, satellite and cable TV have gone nowhere. Okay, it's not so odd because as much as broadband Internet adoption is increasing it doesn't have nearly the level of penetration of those three methods of delivering televised content. Even amongst those who do have broadband, they're unlikely (at best) to have the bandwidth necessary to, for example, instantly change between two live HDTV streams (or, in most cases, even receive one), nor would most be able to have simultaneous, different, high-quality live streams going to two or more TVs - OTA, cable and satellite can do all of those things. In my case, with DishNetwork, I've got hundreds of channels slamming into my dish constantly, requiring just a click to switch instantly between them. OTA, satellite and cable transmission have advantages that the Internet (as it is today, at least) just can't match.

In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.

Re:iTV (4, Interesting)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429858)

Not everyone has HDTV, nor does first-out Internet TV need to be high-quality. Just look at YouTube as an example. Even so, you are completely correct the bandwidth on the user-side simply isn't there -- yet. Most people have DSL, probably provided by the the phone company. Do you not think that the phone would love to put the cable companies out of business? Fiber-to-the-door is coming, slowly but surely.

Second, although there are devices and protocol that can do what is needed, none of the providers of them have the kind of backing and connections that Apple has. With an established, positive relationship with media companies, Apple could (and has) help push true Internet-delivered TV.

In other words, Internet isn't going to kill the television star anytime soon.

Probably true, but I can dream of having literally every episode of every TV show just a remote click away, and still complaining that nothing is on TV. (You heard it here first!)

Re:iTV (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429606)

tags: notnews

Re:iTV (5, Insightful)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429664)

I have a feeling this won't happen, unfortunately.

Take Airport Express. Apple has encrypted all the music that goes from your Mac to the Airport Express so that evil people can't intercept it and steal music, thus making it impossible for anyone other than Apple to take advantage of the audio capabilities of Airport Express in their applications.

It'll work the same here. Some people who have signed the appropriate paperwork may be able to get access to it (eg, El Gato) but I doubt Apple will allow just anybody to work with it.

Re:iTV (3, Interesting)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429770)

Take Airport Express. Apple has encrypted all the music that goes from your Mac to the Airport Express ... thus making it impossible for anyone other than Apple to take advantage of the audio capabilities of Airport Express in their applications.

I understand how it would be nice to stream other content to an airport express, but I wonder if it isn't simply companies being unmotivated to support the APE. There is for example airfoil [rogueamoeba.com] which will stream non-itunes to the APE. Perhaps it's a trick though, like redirecting a stream through iTunes somehow and thus avoiding the issue of directly communicating the APE?

Re:iTV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430490)

Last time I looked at it there was some Linux software that allowed you to pipe any sound stream to an Airport Express. However, making any soundcard receive an Airport Express stream is a much more difficult problem.

Re:iTV (2, Informative)

Utopia (149375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429670)

I don't that will happen.
Microsoft Media Center with MCE extenders provides exactly what iTV will provide but adds full HD support.
Xbox 360 is already an extender.

Microsoft licences the tech to others.
So there are several manufactures who build extenders other than Microsoft.
However I haven't seen anything to indicate that it will kill cable/sat or OTA.

Re:iTV (1, Interesting)

TodMinuit (1026042) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429876)

I'm saying what we need -- nay, what consumers need to demand -- are the HTTP and HTML, the Apache and Firefox for Internet TV.

Re:iTV (0, Troll)

FractalZone (950570) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430592)

Knowing Apple, that isn't going to happen. A shame.

Knowing Apple, the product will be lame, but will appeal to wannabes/posers. It will be white, of course. Probably shiny in places, too.

I just bought a Dell 2407WFP (1920x1200) LCD monitor that is competetive with the high-end display Apple sells for the Mac. Guess what? The Apple product (Apple M9178LLA Silver 23" Cinema HD LCD Display) is smaller, costs more, and offers nothing extra of significance...unless it makes you feel trendy to waste money on an Apple logo item.

Remember, Apple is the company that thought the single-button mouse was revolutionary..even after they ripped off the WIMP interface concept (that MS later snagged for Winblows) from Xerox PARC. Hmmm...I have several fingers on each of my two hands...why limit myself to only one button per pointing device? Maybe Apple figures its typical consumer is confused by numbers greater than 1...

Yeah...I ought to flame iPodiots, too, but the marketplace is now (finally) doing that for me. :-)

Re:iTV (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430976)

You know, you could have saved time, but yet had the same effect by simply shouting "Apple and winblows(hehe) users are gay!"

Re:iTV (1)

metamatic (202216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432388)

Actually, knowing Apple they'll just use a trivial variant of a standard protocol, but fail to document it--like how AirTunes uses a variant of RTSP.

ITV? (2, Insightful)

able1234au (995975) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429464)

Isnt there a british TV Channel called ITV? If so, that might be why he wont call it iTV.

Re:ITV? (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429640)

It won't be called iTV because it's too similar to Elgato's EyeTV [elgato.com] product.

Re:ITV? (3, Funny)

nuggetman (242645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430734)

It won't be called iTV because it's too similar to Elgato's EyeTV product.


It won't be called iTV because Steve Jobs said it wouldn't, and he's the guy who gets to make that decision (being CEO and all).

Re:ITV? (4, Informative)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429802)

yeah. ITV in Britain, and CITV in Canada (which pushes itself as ITV [www.itv.ca] ).

SUN Microsystems got bit by this sort of thing when they labeled their online directory service Yellow Pages. British telecom's lawyers got all over it, and SUN ended up renaming it NIS, but they never bothered to renaim the scripts which continue to these days with names like YP, YPCAT, YPWHICH, /var/YP/ ....

And, of course, Apple also got into trouble with Apple Records back in the '70s ... and then again when they released the I-POD (they had promised Apple records that they wouldn't go into music distribution).

As such I can see them being really itchy about releasing a TV oriented product who'se name would start dead in the sights of ITV's tradmark lawyers in both Canada and Britain (not to mention any number of other venues).

Re:ITV? (2, Informative)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430050)

CITV is also used in the UK for "Childrens ITV"
ITV has several channels not ITV-1 which was the original second channel in the UK. ITV-2, ITV-3 & ITV-4 are all available on Cable, Satellite and Freeview (Broadcast Digital TV)

Apple will certainly be in the sights of the ITV Lawyers if they want to call their product "iTV".

Re:ITV? (1)

Ramble (940291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430668)

They wont be calling it iTV because they don't want their name thrown around with the kind of crap ITV puts on the air.

Re:ITV? (1)

adnonsense (826530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430880)

There's a Thai channel called ITV [itv.co.th] too (warning: site does not render well with Mozilla-based browsers).

haven't heard the song? (1)

Sigg3.net (886486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17432128)

I saw this thing on ITV the other week,
Said, that if she played with her hair, she's probably keen
She's playin with her hair, well regularly,
So i reckon i could well be in.

-- The Streets (A Grand Don't Come For Free)

repost (0, Offtopic)

r3st2 (987153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429468)

2nd time this week

The official Slashdot song (-1, Offtopic)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429490)

Dupe, dupe, dupe of Neal.(to the tune of Duke Of Earl)

I'm amazed the dupes aren't showing up on the same day the way things are going.

Some rumors not listed (4, Interesting)

PapayaSF (721268) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429506)

I've read 'em in the last year, for whatever they're worth:

  1. Leopard may have some built-in P2P functionality, allowing Apple to do BitTorrent-like distribution of movies from the iTunes Store. You could earn credit by being a seed.
  2. Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here [slashdot.org] .

Re:Some rumors not listed (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429616)

Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here.

Wow, no way. There's been work toward language extensions to "hint" to the compiler what can be parallelized - Sun's done some of this work as well - and fancier compilers, for C and for higher-level languages. But it's not an OS thing. The kernel won't just magically make your already-installed copy of Photoshop go four times as fast - Adobe would need to recompile, at the very least. More realistically, they'd have to do a bunch of profiling, add hints around the bottlenecks, possibly reorganize some algorithms and data structures to avoid mutating data structures all processors will be accessing. The best Apple can really do - short of an incredibly complicated JIT-like machine code translation thing that would be a Herculean effort to produce - is give the vendors better tools.

Re:Some rumors not listed (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429680)

Well, one obvious thing that can be done is to put each app on a core if it's a single-core app. There's no reason for your browser, word processor, e-mail, and spreadsheet all to be running on the first core even if they're all single-core apps. This alone would at least help out with multitasking.

Re:Some rumors not listed (1)

null-und-eins (162254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429756)

This already happens and is called scheduling. (It is in no way OS X specific - all modern OSs take advantage of multiple cores.) Processes are distributed over cores (CPUs). A process is not tied to a specific core but can use one core during a time slice and another one later.

Re:Some rumors not listed (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431790)

Leopard might be very multi-core aware, taking advantage of multiple cores regardless of whether a specific application is written to do so. More here.

Wow, no way... The kernel won't just magically make your already-installed copy of Photoshop go four times as fast - Adobe would need to recompile, at the very least.

Actually, one of the announced features of Leopard is a way to take some existing OpenGL applications and spawn a second "feeder" thread for the graphics card which encompasses some of the functionality of the OpenGL libraries. Theoretically, this means and OpenGL application designed to run in a single thread could obtain up to double the speed on Leopard with a multi-core processor, provided it was CPU bound and exactly half the bottleneck was feeding the GPU. Realistically, this will probably result in some more modest benefits, if any at all for a given application. Still, it is incorrect to assume that the only way an application can benefit from multiple cores is through a recompile, rather than through OS improvements.

Re:Some rumors not listed (1)

carbona (119666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429760)

Although it seems unlikely given the continued state of RIAA paranoia and greed over digital music distribution, I would hope built-in P2P in Leopard would also allow for lossless encoded music on the iTMS. If so, I would definitely consider buying from it.

Re:Some rumors not listed (2, Interesting)

JavaLord (680960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431520)

Leopard may have some built-in P2P functionality, allowing Apple to do BitTorrent-like distribution of movies from the iTunes Store. You could earn credit by being a seed.

I wonder what the ISP's would think of that. I know comcast has something in their ToS about not reselling bandwidth...I wonder if this would qualify?

ATTN: Windows/Linux refugees! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429542)

The only thing more pathetic than a PC user is a PC user trying to be a Mac user. We have a name for you people: switcheurs.

There's a good reason for your vexation at the Mac's user interface: You don't speak its language. Remember that the Mac was designed by artists, for artists, be they poets, musicians, or avant-garde mathematicians. A shiny new Mac can introduce your frathouse hovel to a modicum of good taste, but it can't make Mac users out of dweebs [atspace.com] and squares [atspace.com] like you.

So don't force what doesn't come naturally. You'll be much happier if you stick to an OS that suits your personality. And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige [imageshack.us] to you.

For a girl like that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429580)

For a girl like that, I'll gladly be "beige." Strange fascination with bodily fluids be damned.

Re:For a girl like that... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429652)

I don't get it. Is the girl supposed to be beige, or is it what she's rubbing? And if the latter, how do I make her think I'm beige too?

Article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429632)

Since the site is being /.'d. Here you all go.

As promised, LoopRumors is posting a round-up of all the rumors we expect to become a reality at this year's Macworld Expo. Please take into consideration that the following article is purely speculation, and nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says it is. This is our best hypothesis as to what we might expect at Macworld based on the information we've been given. If you have any comments or questions regarding this round-up, or the Macworld keynote, you may address them here. So here's what we have:

iTV:
In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device.

Leopard:
Steve Jobs has been touting Apple's next generation operating system, Leopard, for quite some time. He promised to hold back on unveiling some 'Top Secret' features so Microsoft wouldn't be able to copy them prior to their Vista release. We initially thought Steve might surprise the crowd with an early release of the new OS at Macworld, but that seems to be more unlikely as the time draws near. New information targets a release date of Saturday, March 24th, exactly 6 years to the day of the initial OS X release.

Mobile OS X:
LoopRumors told you first that Apple is developing a mobile, 'lite' version of its OS to be used in smaller devices. It's possible this OS may make its debut at Macworld. Some of Leopard's hidden features may have tie-ins to this mobile OS. One possible 'Top Secret' feature of Leopard may be the ability to sync with the scaled down version of itself.

New Macs:
After all, this is Macworld. We expect Apple to introduce new Macs at the Expo. Signs point to new Mac Pros, with Core 2 Quad processors by Intel. Apple's flagship models have been lagging since there is no native Intel version of Adobe's creative Suite software available yet.

New Displays:
Apple recently discontinued its iSight camera which enables iChat video conferencing for computers without built-in displays. Since updating to Intel processors, all of its computers with the exception of the Mac Pros have included built-in iSight cameras. Information suggests that Apple will include iSight cameras in its new displays which are expected to be unveiled at Macworld. Some reports have expected the new displays to come in sizes up to 50-inches. The new displays are said be even thinner, with a lighter design and have more mobility.

Partnerships:
We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google. Also, we expect more movie studios to make their films available on iTunes. Apple has worked very hard to ensure its iTunes Store stays up-to-date and offers a wide variety of media. Currently, only Disney movies are available for download on iTunes, but we expect that to change in the very near future. This won't happen over night, but the information we gathered suggests Apple will offer new films from other movie studios with the launch of iTV.

One more thing...

iPhone?
Notice the question mark. We are skeptical about this one. So much speculation about an Apple Phone has been made all over the internet and television, that we are going to remain conservative on this one. So-called authorities in the tech business have claimed unabashedly, that Apple will deliver a new iPhone at Macworld. At this point, the possibility of an iPhone at Macworld may be more wishful thinking than actual concrete evidence. We do believe that Apple is developing an iPhone, and there is information to support that. But Apple is not going to release a product until it is ready. All eyes are on Apple to see what they will do next to continue their success of the iPod, well that just may be a new iPod.

Touch-Screen video iPod?
Apple's top-of-the-line iPod is now long in the tooth. Seeing an updated top-of-the-line video iPod is not far fetched. Patents have been discovered which prove Apple is developing a touch video iPod. We believe that the new iPod will be wireless, and be more of a communicating device today's iPods. These new iPods will be smarter, and offer users more functionality than current iPods with better user control. We hope that either an iPhone or smarter video iPod is in the cards for Macworld, but don't be disappointed if you don't see either. Apple has been known to hold a few surprises up its sleeve, and we have no reason to believe that this year will be any different.

Members of our staff will be at Macworld with FREE T-Shirts to hand out during the event. We'll tell you where and how to get one, so stay tuned. We'll also have several stories to post this week, so if you haven't already, bookmark us as we lead up to the advent of Macworld, this most exciting time of the year for Apple fans.

Re:Article (-1, Troll)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429708)

Some other rumors I've heard:

AssOSX: A version of OS X targeted at a specific device or class of devices that transcends and previous use of the OS or it's variants. Usage: "ASSOSX is going to be on Cell Phonesandipods!!!!

iPine: Similar to the long-rumored iPhone, the iPine is a PDA/Phone/Computer/PDA/Mouthwasher that runs OS X. No one has heard of it. iPine will be a complete surprise. It will not check e-mail.

JobsNet: Apple Buys Monster.com. Steve was the first guy since 1996 to be able to convince them that Jobs = jobs, while Monster = Nightmares.

The Apple PCI Chassis: We almost introduced it years ago. Now that no one wants it, get ready to buy it.

Apple Care DoublePlusUngood: A build-to-order warranty delete option that saves you $900.00 at purchase time...but mandates a warranty repair of at least $1100.00 in the second year of ownership.

That's your Apple MacWorld announcements in a nutshell. You can thank me later.

Re:Article (4, Funny)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430092)

TFA: "We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google."

This comment might be true and accurate. Additionally, it might be true.

Re:Article (1)

jgardner100 (559892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430724)

Mobile OS X: Sigh,they had the Newton OS, a mobile OS designed from the ground up and they dumped it, now they follow the Microsoft lead of squeezing their main OS into a matchbox. I hope this one doesn't pan out.

RE: Mobile OS X (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430744)

There was a rumor in 1997-8 about Apple developing a mobile version of MacOS to replace the Newton.

I still don't think this is going to happen.

Re: Mobile OS X (1)

spiderbitendeath (577712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430766)

Apple had a mobile MacOS for a pen based computer along time ago. They dumped working on it because it'd compete with the Newton. Then Steve Jobs returned and dumped Newton. Now there are rumors of a mobile MacOS, again.

Re: Mobile OS X (2, Interesting)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430780)

Apple had a mobile MacOS for a pen based computer along time ago. They dumped working on it because it'd compete with the Newton. Then Steve Jobs returned and dumped Newton. Now there are rumors of a mobile MacOS, again.
Was it that it would compete with the Newton, or just that the Newton was designed from the ground up to use pen input while MacOS isn't?

The one I was specifically referring to was the Allegro-Lite rumors which Apple came straight out and denied on the Newton developer conference call in 1997.

Site been /.-ed but here's the overview: (4, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429658)

iTV, the $299 TV device showed last time
Leopard, the new OS
New displays, some rumors about that going around
iLife '07, new year, new iLife, new iWorks
video iPod, new full video iPod's? Maybe
Apple Phone, lots of vibe about that
Mac Pro with 8 processors. Intel got the chips, did Apple implement them?

Re:Site been /.-ed but here's the overview: (1)

figleaf (672550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429692)

iTV, the $299 TV device
Media Center Extenders sell between te range of $199 to $299 so this price seems to be right on target.

OS X 10.5 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17429944)

Leopard isn't done yet. It probably shouldn't be released until mid to late 2007, but Apple's history suggests the company doesn't mind pulling a "Vista" and releasing sort of half-baked software -- and maybe prefers doing so versus pulling a "Vista" by releasing something years late. A light demo of 10.5 features at MacWorld wouldn't be too surprising, but the system is still looking pretty rough around the edges. It also may be worth noting: If 10.5 isn't released until the second quarter of 2007, Apple may have to figure out what to name the 10.4 update that comes after 10.4.9. ;-)

Re:OS X 10.5 (1)

Thalagyrt (851883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431530)

My guess would be 10.4.10. ;-)

Stephen Tennant (936097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429722)

I've cracked the Macworld secret - selective, vowel exclusive acronyms!

Digital Lifestyle Device = DiLDo

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430470)

You are talking about this [youtube.com] , right?

12" Macbook Pro? (4, Interesting)

carbona (119666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429728)

That's what I'm hoping for anyway. Dedicated graphics, matte screen option, and under 4 lbs. would seal the deal so I can finally upgrade my aging 12" Powerbook.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (2, Informative)

Kufat (563166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429758)

I hope that if they do release a 12" Macbook Pro, they realize that 1024x768 just doesn't cut it anymore. I'm typing this on a Toshiba laptop with a 1400x1050 12.1" display, which I find to be quite readable at arm's length despite my poor eyesight.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (1, Interesting)

Pink Tinkletini (978889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430310)

They could be waiting for Leopard's fully resolution-independent UI to announce a high-DPI laptop. This would be the Macworld to do it, I guess.

As a side benefit, this would finally put to rest the silly notion that a Mac's hardware is separable from its software, any more than the mind is separable from the body. It's holistic, I tell ya.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (1)

mrwatanabe (904585) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429786)

Agreed. I don't need a laptop to be 15" or 17" in size. I'd prefer it to be small, slim and genuinely portable with enough power to get the job done. /cancels innuendo mode. Please Apple, a 12" Macbook Pro with dedicated graphics card. That would be a great late xmas present for me (even if I did have to pay for it myself).

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (2, Interesting)

flewp (458359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430056)

Sorta OT, but I've been wanting a marriage of a Cintiq and a laptop for awhile. I've thought it would be a good product for Apple, what with the marketing writing itself: "The SketchBook". That, and Apple likes to target the artist/graphic design crowd. I have no idea how tablet laptops compare in terms of their resolution (input resolution, not display resolution) and pressure sensitivity (if any), but I'm guessing they're not quite to the level of a Cintiq (or a Graphire or Intuos). I'm sure such a device would be rather expensive, probably in the 4-5k dollar range, but I'd pick one up in a heartbeat to have a digital sketchbook to carry around.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (2, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430334)

If Apple comes out with that, I'm going to have to kill someone -- after waiting about six months, I broke down and bought a (non-Mac) Thinkpad X60 tablet to replace my iBook (granted, I had to wait for the X60 too, but I was hopeing for a tablet Mac the whole time).

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (1)

hritcu (871613) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430154)

For me a 13'' MacBook with Firewire 800 and extension capabilities would be enough. I'm typing this from my MacBook and I find its form factor very attractive (as tall as the 12'' PowerBook, only wider). Sure it's not light, and it also has the glossy display I was very scared about at first, but which I find quite nice after some time of getting used. On the other hand, MacBooks are much more affordable compared to the MacBook Pros, so I'm thinking of buying one for every member of my family.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430552)

To this day, I remain amazed Apple didn't take the obvious path and differentiate the black MacBook with (at least) a dedicated video card as a replacement for the 12" PB.

Re:12" Macbook Pro? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430876)

Any laptop purchase should wait for flash-assisted drives and Blu-Ray DVDs.
If my 12" iBook can only hold out a little longer.

Nothing exciting. (2, Funny)

solitu (1045848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429746)

All of these products are already available in the market from several manufactures.

Apple is just playing catch-up.

Re:Nothing exciting. (2, Funny)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429940)

Who moded that as funny?

seriously....

Re:Nothing exciting. (1, Funny)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430358)

heh, and now you were modded funny too :)

Re:Nothing exciting. (1, Funny)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430316)

I've never called anyone a troll or labeled anything as flame bait because I hate those terms and think people throw that stuff around too easily. This, however, is flame bait, and you are a troll. Would you care to elaborate, or am I just falling for the bait?

Full text of article (0, Redundant)

cbh (259837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429846)

As promised, LoopRumors is posting a round-up of all the rumors we expect to become a reality at this year's Macworld Expo. Please take into consideration that the following article is purely speculation, and nothing is concrete until Steve Jobs says it is. This is our best hypothesis as to what we might expect at Macworld based on the information we've been given. If you have any comments or questions regarding this round-up, or the Macworld keynote, you may address them here. So here's what we have:

iTV:
In an uncharacteristic move, Steve Jobs previewed this new digital lifestyle device and gave us a release timeframe of 'early 2007.' iTV will stream movies, pictures and more from your Mac or PC to your television wirelessly. We expect to see the 'hidden features' of iTV spelled out, and a release date announced, if not immediate availability at the keynote. Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product, so we can expect a new moniker for the media device.

Leopard:
Steve Jobs has been touting Apple's next generation operating system, Leopard, for quite some time. He promised to hold back on unveiling some 'Top Secret' features so Microsoft wouldn't be able to copy them prior to their Vista release. We initially thought Steve might surprise the crowd with an early release of the new OS at Macworld, but that seems to be more unlikely as the time draws near. New information targets a release date of Saturday, March 24th, exactly 6 years to the day of the initial OS X release.

Mobile OS X:
LoopRumors told you first that Apple is developing a mobile, 'lite' version of its OS to be used in smaller devices. It's possible this OS may make its debut at Macworld. Some of Leopard's hidden features may have tie-ins to this mobile OS. One possible 'Top Secret' feature of Leopard may be the ability to sync with the scaled down version of itself.

New Macs:
After all, this is Macworld. We expect Apple to introduce new Macs at the Expo. Signs point to new Mac Pros, with Core 2 Quad processors by Intel. Apple's flagship models have been lagging since there is no native Intel version of Adobe's creative Suite software available yet.

New Displays:
Apple recently discontinued its iSight camera which enables iChat video conferencing for computers without built-in displays. Since updating to Intel processors, all of its computers with the exception of the Mac Pros have included built-in iSight cameras. Information suggests that Apple will include iSight cameras in its new displays which are expected to be unveiled at Macworld. Some reports have expected the new displays to come in sizes up to 50-inches. The new displays are said be even thinner, with a lighter design and have more mobility.

Partnerships:
We've heard a lot of rumblings about Apple making partnerships with other companies such as Google and Disney. Expect more partnerships, possibly a collaboration with Google. Also, we expect more movie studios to make their films available on iTunes. Apple has worked very hard to ensure its iTunes Store stays up-to-date and offers a wide variety of media. Currently, only Disney movies are available for download on iTunes, but we expect that to change in the very near future. This won't happen over night, but the information we gathered suggests Apple will offer new films from other movie studios with the launch of iTV.

One more thing...

iPhone?
Notice the question mark. We are skeptical about this one. So much speculation about an Apple Phone has been made all over the internet and television, that we are going to remain conservative on this one. So-called authorities in the tech business have claimed unabashedly, that Apple will deliver a new iPhone at Macworld. At this point, the possibility of an iPhone at Macworld may be more wishful thinking than actual concrete evidence. We do believe that Apple is developing an iPhone, and there is information to support that. But Apple is not going to release a product until it is ready. All eyes are on Apple to see what they will do next to continue their success of the iPod, well that just may be a new iPod.

Touch-Screen video iPod?
Apple's top-of-the-line iPod is now long in the tooth. Seeing an updated top-of-the-line video iPod is not far fetched. Patents have been discovered which prove Apple is developing a touch video iPod. We believe that the new iPod will be wireless, and be more of a communicating device today's iPods. These new iPods will be smarter, and offer users more functionality than current iPods with better user control. We hope that either an iPhone or smarter video iPod is in the cards for Macworld, but don't be disappointed if you don't see either. Apple has been known to hold a few surprises up its sleeve, and we have no reason to believe that this year will be any different.

Members of our staff will be at Macworld with FREE T-Shirts to hand out during the event. We'll tell you where and how to get one, so stay tuned. We'll also have several stories to post this week, so if you haven't already, bookmark us as we lead up to the advent of Macworld, this most exciting time of the year for Apple fans.

Re:Full text of article (1, Informative)

spathi-wa (575009) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430020)

redundant? give me a break. TFA is slashdotted. mod parent up.

Blu-Ray Drives (1)

nathanh (1214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17429958)

Say no more.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives (2, Insightful)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430102)

Subject: Blu-Ray Drives

Say no more.

If you say Blu-Ray drives, then more should be said:
  • updated Cinema Displays with HDCP-enabled DVI ports
  • updated graphics cards (with HDCP support) in Mac Pros
  • HDMI port added to Blu-Ray MacBook Pro
  • updated DVD Player app (maybe renamed)

Re:Blu-Ray Drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430642)

"HDMI port added to Blu-Ray MacBook Pro"

Why would you need that? I'm expecting a small DVI-VGAesque connector which is white which is DVI-HDMI, for maybe $5. It'll probably sell extremely well to non-mac users too.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives (1)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431002)

"HDMI port added to Blu-Ray MacBook Pro"

Why would you need that? I'm expecting a small DVI-VGAesque connector which is white which is DVI-HDMI, for maybe $5. It'll probably sell extremely well to non-mac users too.

I also wondered why HDMI (instead of DVI w/HDCP) when I read about the first Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks. In case you didn't know, Sony's Blu-Ray notebooks and Toshiba's HD-DVD notebooks have HDMI ports instead of DVI ports. HDMI has already become the standard high-quality video output port (replacing DVI) on Blu-Ray/HD-DVD notebooks.

I suspect it's because they think many users will want to connect their Blu-Ray notebook to high-definition home theater systems, and one cable (HDMI) is much more convenient than two cables (DVI and digital audio). Since HD televisions far outnumber set top Blu-Ray players, a Blu-Ray notebook would probably get a lot of use as a portable Blu-Ray movie player for all those digital televisions that lack a Blu-Ray player.

Also, HDMI-to-DVI converters should be cheap for those that want to connect to their Cinema Displays. In fact, Sony includes HDMI-to-DVI converters with their Blu-Ray notebooks.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17431158)

UDI [wikipedia.org] , which is being supported by Apple, nVidia, and others, is another possibility for new Apple computers and Cinema Displays. As far as I can tell, the primary reason for its existence is to skirt around some HDMI licensing issues.

Re:Blu-Ray Drives (1)

zeromorph (1009305) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430546)

Know what I mean? Nudge nudge. Say no more.

I wouldn't expect something like this now, squire! Not even in the new MacPros, even less in the MacBooks, or iMacs.

Snap snap, grin grin, wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more?

I bet she does, I bet she does!

Yuo Fa1l I(t. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430094)

as the premiere said. 'Screaming

new software not new hardware (2, Interesting)

cvos (716982) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430098)

I predict there will be an as yet unknown piece of software announced by the man in the black turtleneck. It seems Apple generally announces new hardware in the early summer and fall. Don't expect the ipod picoshizzle. By 'unknown' this excludes the iphone, itv, upgraded 'book, monitors/TV's.

Lower prices, PLEASE (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17430372)

PLEASE consider lowering the prices on your overpriced stuff. I'd love to buy a mac, and lots of people I know would buy a mac, but considering you need to spend nearly $3000 on an imac before it's a comparable config to a normal PC, that ain't gonna be happening soon.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (1)

goodcow (654816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430414)

What the hell are you talking about? $1200 gets you a high-spec 17-inch iMac.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430468)

I agree with you, but if the grandparent wants expansion slots I'm afraid he's right. There's some demand for an iMac with more expansion capabilities for those that don't need Xeon-level performance and has been for quite some time. I have to say I'm pining for this model less and less with the iMac getting more and more technically competent with what it's got, but it'd still be a worthwhile addition to the lineup.

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (2, Insightful)

TheGreek (2403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431870)

There's some demand for an iMac with more expansion capabilities for those that don't need Xeon-level performance and has been for quite some time.
Yes, there's "some demand."

There isn't, however, "enough demand to make it worthwhile and profitable."

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (3, Interesting)

Beefslaya (832030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430894)

On a personal note:

I purchased a MacBook (black) and maxed out the RAM at 2GB (Crucial), all for a mere $1750 dollars.
Also a Mac Mini Core Duo and maxed out that RAM, for about $850

Both of them kick the crap out of my desktop (P4 HT 3.0E Ghz) which I haven't booted in a month.

I'm not a fan of the 400 dollar rebated notebook from Compaq.

I guess it depends on your preferences. I was able to effectively eliminate the Windows based PC's in my life for Under the 3 grand you speak of.

Maybe you should change your supplier?

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (1)

david.emery (127135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431108)

I dunno about this one. I've been pricing alternatives to replace my dead "token PC". By the time I start with a base machine and put stuff into it to make it usable, I'm easily at the price of a Mac Mini. And if I needed a monitor, adding a -good- monitor to the configuration would get me to an iMac.

Any more the prices for Macs are equivalent to -similarly equipped, quality- hardware. That's not to say you can't go to Fly-by-nite Computers and get a clone box thrown together for a lot less. The last 3 'token PCs' in my home network have all failed in less than 2 years, while I routinely get 4-6 years from each Mac I've owned.

          dave

Re:Lower prices, PLEASE (2, Informative)

schiefaw (552727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431606)

considering you need to spend nearly $3000 on an imac before it's a comparable config to a normal PC


Huh? In order to spend $3k on an iMac, I had to really crank it up.

  • # 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  • # 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
  • # 750GB Serial ATA Drive
  • # NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
  • # SuperDrive 8X (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
  • # Apple USB Modem
  • # Apple Keyboard & Mighty Mouse + Mac OS X (US English)
  • # 24-inch widescreen LCD
  • # AirPort Extreme
  • # Bluetooth 2.0 + EDR

I would never actually buy RAM from Apple, as they charge an arm and a leg for it. I would think that if you need this much of a machine, you would get a Mac Pro and buy additional components off the shelf.

There will be new hardware... (1)

Voltar (973532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430874)

Apple is planning to develop an iPod that will receive LIVE broadcasted signals. It's rumored to be called a radio.

iTv vs ITV (1)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17430922)

Apple has said it will not use the name iTV for the product


I imagine this is because there is a popular UK television channel called ITV, and Apple have saw what troubles Gmail had in the UK over name copyrights (and most Brits haven't even heard of the "UK gmail").

Missing iWork and iLife (1)

larkost (79011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431432)

I don't know how they missed the idea of new versions of iLife and iWork coming out, those are almost givens.

Looprumors suspended (1)

qazwart (261667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431744)

Clicked on the link and found out that Looprumors website has been suspended. So, do you think the cause was the lack of non-payment or a little legal letter to their ISP?

If it was the latter, does that mean they were hot on the trail of something?

Re:Looprumors suspended (0)

kjart (941720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17431908)

I'm guessing it was the Slashdoting.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>