dAlen
Apr 13, 08:56 AM
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
tf23
Sep 12, 08:07 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
gwest
Apr 12, 11:31 PM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
When Apple's Pro App for photographers, Aperture, hit the App Store, the price dropped from $200 to only $80. Compare this to Adobe's $300 Lightroom app.
Providing Pro Apps at such low prices helps to establish Apple's hardware as more affordable. Today's young computer users bring a sophistication to application utilization that previous generations did not. High school students quickly outgrow iMovie's capabilities in their media classes and are prepared to move up.
Forget "Pro Apps"- these are "Advanced Apps" and, though the pros may not like it, these apps are going to make it into the hands of amateurs and hobbyists.As a professional photographer, I recommend Aperture to even the most novice digital photographer- if you can understand iPhoto, Aperture is within reach.
Ultimately, don't let the low price fool you. Volume of sales and baiting eager pro app users to the Apple OS will do more for Apple than trying to make these apps solely available to professionals. Software-only companies are at a big disadvantage here- selling inexpensive (and great) software will ultimately increase their overall sales as the hardware flies off the shelves.
jayenh
Feb 24, 08:44 AM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
iphone users are the only people who do this. before the iphone it was pretty well accepted that your new nokia/sony ericson/blackberry/anything is only going to be new for the next 3 months tops until the next model comes out. the mobile industry used to be probably the fastest paced of the tech industries and at it's peak no one gave a crap that there phone manufacturer brought out a new phone every couple of months.
i suppose it was a little easier to swallow with 12 month contracts being the norm until the last couple of years (in the uk at least), but this is the fault of carriers, not the phone manufacturers. they are doing the exact same release cycle they always have done.
edit: not all iphone users, obviously, but probably a larger proportion of iphone users than [insert any phone here] users based on the outrage when the 3gs came out. and that was possibly only because of assumption (the mother of all f... ups) due to the cheap/free (?) upgrade of the 1st gen to 3g. i bet there won't be that outcry this year.
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
I feel sad at how many of you are totally distorting the message of Christ. The real blame goes on those who use his name to sully his very purpose. Those false Christians make me sick.
citizenzen
Apr 23, 02:57 PM
The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
I haven't yet heard a good argument from a theist that used the principles of entropy or thermodynamics.
Could you put forth one of those points?
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Interesting question. One of my thoughts on why people follow a religion are that they were raised with it, so it becomes a tradition. You just do it because you always have done it without much thought to it. This one is an especially hard reason to overcome, because as a child, you want to believe that your parents and family have all the answers. It's hard to admit that they don't or that they led you down a wrong path. But you have to ask yourself, if you crash landed on an island as a small child (a la Blue Lagoon), would you be following Islam, Christianity or any of the established religions? No, you would not. You wouldn't even KNOW about them. So religion is largely handed down socially. It's even geographical in nature to a large extent.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Another reason would be that some people need to believe in something. That whole "if God didn't exist man would invent him" thing. A lot of people on this planet have a hard time explaining their purpose here without some divine reason. Religion fills that void. In the "Blue Lagoon" example from above, it's possible that the small children would grow up, think about their place in this world, and start their own religion, customs and rules.
Icy1007
Apr 8, 11:21 PM
This is great and all, but Apple should start supporting gaming on Mac OS X more. First step would be to improve their implementation of OpenGL.
Mord
Jul 12, 05:55 AM
At what point servers began to demand less than workstations or regular desktops? Server-grade hardware (SCSI cards for example) are 8x pcie, so I expect nothing less from Apple server hardware. Anything less would be a joke.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
i meant for graphics.
oh and stop with the quadruple posting, you can reply and open the thread in another tab and copy quotes across to multi quote, or just learn the quoting syntax and use one window
as for why mac users use photoshop it's because the competitors suck, gimp is ok but nothing more, corel products make me want to pull my hair out and don't talk to me about fireworks is a completely different product.
firestarter
Apr 23, 06:20 PM
Have we answered the question of why there are so many atheists here?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
Was the answer: 'It's Easter weekend, all the theists are off celebrating Zombie Jesus day'?
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:35 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A341 Safari/528.16)
Any word on Motion? I use it alot.
They hinted at motion controls and color as built in items with FCX. No word on the rest of the current suite. There complete lack of mention could mean bye bye suite.
Any word on Motion? I use it alot.
They hinted at motion controls and color as built in items with FCX. No word on the rest of the current suite. There complete lack of mention could mean bye bye suite.
faroZ06
May 2, 09:06 PM
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
Agreed. Also, "fanboy" counts as a personal insult, which is against the rules. I almost got banned for calling some moron a moron (he was complaining about how he didn't care about an article, and I asked him why he clicked on it).
If that guy thinks that MACDefender (not a virus) is an issue, he would faint if he saw a Windows virus.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
Agreed. Also, "fanboy" counts as a personal insult, which is against the rules. I almost got banned for calling some moron a moron (he was complaining about how he didn't care about an article, and I asked him why he clicked on it).
If that guy thinks that MACDefender (not a virus) is an issue, he would faint if he saw a Windows virus.
firestarter
Apr 23, 05:49 PM
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
Eniregnat
Mar 18, 05:30 PM
This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn�t going to release it before it was necessary.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:01 PM
Ok, if you're SOOOOO thrilled, you've been living in a cave because you could've been doing that for years, there's nothing new here aside for an apple logo on the box... the EyeHome could do that for the last 3 years (no storage, with a remote, streaming from my mac over Wifi - the eyehome physically connected to the router, my Mac on Wifi) (http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome ). And you're right, it's great... Too bad you still have to wait 6 months :P
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
Yes, except the point is the iTunes/Movie interface with EyeHome does not have. What is cool is you can now use BOTH!!!
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
spicyapple
Sep 20, 12:31 AM
Woohoo a hard drive! :D
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Moyank24
Mar 25, 11:07 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
I agree with you here. And that is the problem. It shouldn't be a privilege. Every consenting adult that wants to get married should be allowed to.
Multimedia
Oct 31, 05:10 PM
What's funny is that the 8-core Mac Pro will be more of a stop-gap model. After all, the Clovertown is two Woodcrest CPUs on the same die, but still running off the same FSB bandwidth and the first pair of cores must utilize the FSB to transfer data to the second pair of cores and vice versa. We won't see unified quad-core CPUs until sometime next year along with the multiplexed/bonded (and faster base rate) FSB implementations. ...AMD will be shipping fully unified quad-core CPUs in mid-December to early January. Not that it matters since Apple isn't using them.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
Anyway, it's just another evolutionary step... Buy what you need when you need it and that's all there is to it.Yeah I know. So are you thinking the Dual Clovertown may be a dog 'cause both sets of four cores have to share one bus each? If it won't really run faster what's the point? I hope that isn't going to be a problem for "simple" video compression work which is all I want it for.
armandocerna
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
macridah
Oct 25, 10:33 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
bghoward
Oct 7, 05:21 PM
SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
For one, Objective-C is really a pretty elegant language once you learn it, and if you really care you can write mostly in C/C++ with a few Objective-C hooks.
Ridiculous? The majority of people with developer/programming skills are more familiar with Windows or Linux than Mac OS. The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try. I suppose Apple could solve this by allowing Mac OS to run on a virtual machine, e.g. VirtualBox, including the SDK. But they don't.
As for the sdk, That will NEVER happen. Maybe for a hobbyist having to buy a mac may be a (very) slight issue, but if you can't afford $500 for a new mac-mini than you really aren't serious about developing an app are you? Why should Apple be serious about attracting you as a developer?
I remember reading a few weeks ago that apple has 125,000 developers signed up - finding eager devs willing to learn the platform and language is not a problem.
Look, I run an iPhone development business with 8 full time employees. A single iPhone game can cost us upwards of 6 figures (or more) to develop. What's a single one time cost of a few thousand in hardware?
Brian Howard
InMotion Software (http://www.inmotionsoftware.com)
peharri
Sep 20, 11:58 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
Well, it isn't "without storage", it has storage.
It's fairly simple: it's a Set Top Box. It's another one, to add to your DVD player, cable box, and DVR. Well, I say "add to", but actually, you'll probably not need them. What is does is show whatever Quicktime will show that's accessable via iTunes.
- That means anything on the iTunes Store
- It means anything in your .Mac storage.
- It means anything on your network, if you have one, that's exported via an iTunes Library.
You'll go home after work, pick up the remote, and maybe you'll:
- Buy a movie and watch it.
- (Rent a movie and watch it, assuming Apple eventually supports the idea, or someone else finds a way to interface to it)
- Watch a new episode of a TV show you subscribe to
- Watch a free pilot of a show you're interested in.
- Listen to a streamed radio station
- Watch a subscribed-to video blog or browse other blogs, and watch them
- Watch that highly amusing rip from "America's Funniest Videos" that your friend told you to watch, from Google Video, or other Google video clips.
What will be available? Anything you want. As this becomes more and more popular, more and more content will become available. Expect CNN news to be just as available as episodes from ABC mini-serieses.
How will you get it? Over your $25/month broadband connection. Which you'd have anyway for web and email.
That's how you use it. For many people, cable, as a "just put on background noise and forget it" medium, will still rule. For others, such as myself, the prospect of TV built for me, rather than advertisers, is more compelling.
I think it's awesome.
