Although I know if I waited 30 minutes, I would get a much better accounting of Steve's "One More Thingy", I'm not waiting. And this is what I'm told by someone who is watching it:
3 new things:
New iMac with iSight built in. Camera Camera app that takes pictures, even a flash (uses the monitor) Front Row app w/ remote control that controls iApps.
DVD Remote
Movie Trailers with out a browser
iMac 17" - with all stuff $1299 iMac 20" - $1699 (2.1Ghz)
Now the 2nd thing.... iPod.....
Time to replace the white iPod yes - it does video 2 1/2" display 320 x 240 - HD support
30/60Gb models thinner than the 20Gb model - and in white & black
30 Gb - 75 hours of video - $299
60Gb - $399
3rd Thingie:
iTunes 6 -- the iTunes "music" store
Gifting - buy other people music
Customer reviews now part of store
Music video purchase $1.99 per video
Short films from Pixar
TV shows from ITMS
offering 5 shows for download - lost, desp housewives, nightstalker, that's so raven, zach & cody (disney stuff) current episodes the day after they are broadcast AD FREE!!!!
COOL!
$1.99 per episode... I'm not so sure that price is the sweet spot. I wonder how that compares to DVD prices for a whole season...
Now go surf all the news sites... they will have better coverage than this post.
[ October 12, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Well, Coupling (BBC version) is ~$2.60 an episode if you buy all four seasons together from deepdiscountdvd. Star Trek TNG is a sad $3.77 each, per season. I think Firefly is about $2.30 per episode (is it 13 episodes?).
I think it works well for people who don't have a TV (raises hand) or Tivo or a VCR they know how to use.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
I hate my vcr's. I seriously want to get rid of them. I can't count the times the recorder has missed shows. I would get a Tivo, but there are times there are 3 shows on at the same time! I can't get 3 Tivo's!
But this little deal will probably be worth it. It wont be "The End Of The Universe" if my VCR screws up!
I think I'll buy every eposide so that the service succeeds and all the shows I like end up there. Can you imagine no more TV? It is all downloaded?
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Oh, and I'm not sure even a Tivo can fix it when the Network moves the show or interrupts it.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Too bad the ipod video doesn't seem to be able to handle divx (am i wrong on this?), and neither does the apple remote for the iMac.
Pout.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
iPod uses h264 (comes with Quicktime 7), which I believe is better than divx I believe. h264 is what will be used on the next gen of HD DVD's. Or something. My info isn't 100% accurate. But pretty close.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
The new iMac configuration is tempting.
I don't see myself using an iPod for videos, but smaller, larger capacity, and better battery all for the same price is a great deal.
Edit: Wait, I take that back about the videos on an iPod. It would be really cool to be able to carry with me my iMovies.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
well "better" doesn't help when I happen to own a couple divxs that would be darned nice to drag around on an iPod and display on a TV. Oh well, I guess you can just drag it around and display on a divx-friendly computer but that's if they have USB 2.0.
The new iMac is a little better looking to me than before. Honestly I'm a fan of the lampshade variety, which is why I own one as a secondary computer (bought it refurb).
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Just occured to me I don't need an iPod to get the TV shows. What I really want is an expanded iTunes Music Store becoming an iTunes Media Store...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Unfortunately, the TV shows on "iTVS" will be low resolution (so as to be able to fit readily on iPods). After all, an hour of high definition video is ~350MB as an AVI. It wouldn't be cost-effective for Apple to sell video files that large.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
They won't be high-def, but they will be clear and crisp... at that size screen. Dunno yet how they'll look on a computer monitor or TV.
Currently downloading iTunes 6 to find out...
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
iPod's video support: H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats
I'm pretty sure there are converters for avi/dvix to other formats. Not that I'm recommending that. In fact, I don't think I would ever want to watch a video *on* the ipod.
H264's datarate and quality ratio is outstanding. I don't believe any other codec around can really display HD content. A downside of h264 is it is very processor intensive, so older computers probably can't decode it fast enough.
H264 is suppose to be the bomb. There are competing codecs, but afaik, they aren't widely available yet. Because of the iPod -> iTunes -> Quicktime 7 requirement chain, H264 is now available all over.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Ok, memory coming back...
Microsoft's Windows Media 9 VC-1 is H264's main competitor. I don't think it is out yet...? Support for VC-1 should also be on HD DVD's.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Current codecs are perfectly capable of displaying HD content; H.264 simply produces lower file sizes at the same "quality." Ever watched a DVD rip in AVI format? Video encoding is resolution-specific, so a video encoded at 320x240 with any codec will look awful on anything bigger than the iPod's screen.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I'm not sure what excites me more. The video iPod or the new iMac with iSight built in. Both are quite awesome, and I wish I had the money to throw at both. Instead, I will just sit here and enjoy my iPod Mini and my iMac G4.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Actually, the new iMac is to my mind the more significant announcement. It's the first Mac with PCIe, meaning that Apple finally realizes they missed that boat by going with PCI-X. The question is whether the Power Macs will be updated significantly between now and the Intel switch. If not, the line is going to stagnate for almost as long as it did in the 500MHz G4 days...
Being a dual G5 owner, my chief concern is future upgrades for my system, meaning I want to see the tower lineup improved between now and the Intel switch. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Hmm. Loaded up iTunes 6, and it has Videos in the menu now, but when I click on it I get a black screen. Is this live now? Anyone else getting in?
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Current codecs are perfectly capable of displaying HD content
Are you talking about the same HD as me? 1920x1080, 24p. That is bigger than any monitor I have.
My dual 2.0 G5 certainly can NOT play movies with that resolution with any codec besides H264. I've tried.
Current DVD is MPEG-2, which is twice the data rate as H264 (for movies of the same size).
Anyway, TV's are 320x240, so I'm not sure if the TV video download size is because of the iPod screen (which lists 480x480 as its max resolution) or a limitation of the media source.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
iTunes 6 hasn't come up in my Software Update yet (the only thing there is an iSync update which I'm not downloading). I'm not going to download until it does show up there. Too lazy to find it on Apple's site.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
From yesterday's financial results conference call:
Tim Cook: "We have some very cool PowerPC-based Macs in the pipeline"
That probably meant the iMac.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0: [QUOTE]Anyway, TV's are 320x240, so I'm not sure if the TV video download size is because of the iPod screen (which lists 480x480 as its max resolution) or a limitation of the media source.
Actually, the source should be NTSC at 720x480. But for TV's the 480 is cut in half for interlacing. So on a computer that translates to 240. And broadcast TV doesn't use all 720 lines resolution because TV's typically don't use all 720 lines. So I believe they only use 320 of the lines.
Or more specific: "The normal NTSC broadcasting is now at 330 line resolution with its bandwidth limit of 4.2 MHz. DVD's video bandwidth is limited to about 6 MHz and thus 475 lines. "
But then, a lot of TV content is suppose to be HDTV already...
quote:Actually, the source should be NTSC at 720x480. But for TV's the 480 is cut in half for interlacing.
For the HDTV label, the "minimum" is 720p. This is actually something of a problem, because a TV can say "HDTV" on it and you don't immediately know if it means it can display only up to 720p, up to 1080i, or even up to 1080p. In fact, your link discusses this problem (bottom of the page). What you're talking about -- 1080i -- is what they call "true HDTV."
That's what I mean what I say that current codecs and computers are perfectly capable of displaying high definition content. I've certainly watched plenty of video files (mostly TV shows) in "high definition" (720p) on my dual G5.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Hm. Well, all I know that H264's main competitor is VC-1, not Divx. Actually, I would think Real Networks has something too, but I don't know. Now that Real and Microsoft have teamed up against Apple, who knows what will happen.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The videos work fine for me through iTunes 6.0
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I don't know if I'd want to watch something on that small of a screen. It would really only be beneficial for car rides or something, but then it probably sucks the battery like crazy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I predict non-driving commuters are going to really like it -- they have a place to charge their ipod at both ends, and it makes it incredibly easy to keep up with Lost or Desperate Housewives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As far as I'm concerned, you're not really a commuter if you don't have to pay attention to your commute. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've known too many people with long spates on public transit, myself included at one time, to think that.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'm sure once I don't have to walk everywhere I go I'll feel differently, but for now, I'm sticking with my nonvideo Ipod. Music is good for walking. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Downloaded the Nightstalker pilot, since I couldn't watch it on TV and I was curious about the quality.
Not bad. I think it'd be grainy on a TV -- don't have the hookups to try it -- but it's ideal for a small screen and isn't too shabby on a monitor.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
So my old fashioned 40B ipod (not one of those crazy photo ones either) seemed to sprout legs and walk away. It is gone. I am figuring that it was lifted out of my car when I accidently left it unlocked one night last week.
suckage.
that one was free. It's replacement wasn't. Double suckage.
On Thursday we went out and bought a new ipod to replace it. We got a 60GB video one. This thing is cool. It's been distracting me every evening since we got it. And at work I can sit there watching The Simpons on my lunch break. Today was the first day of that, but many more will come let me assure you. You would think that watching TV on something so small would be painful but it's really quite comfortable.
My only complaint is that it seems to scratch much easier than the 40GB did. Long story short, (and I know I am several months behind the times here) the ipods with video rock my face off!
that is all.
Modeling just sucks Posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (Member # 9384) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)