|
|
Posted by Gary L T on 10/19/05 17:06
"Bill Van Dyk" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:q7-dnQukUNZSzcveRVn-gQ@golden.net...
> Or is there no real need or desire for wrist-watch-size TV's? Why do you
> think there are no video phones yet? The technology is there.
>
> I don't even hear people getting excited about using their computer as a
> phone-- aint gonna happen.
>
> My feeling is that iPod video will never move beyond the "novelty" stage
> of acceptance. Except, as someone else noted, as a teeny, tiny VCR that
> can play movies on your TV..... That's more intriguing. A teeny, tiny
> VCR, that you can take with you to people's houses or apartments to play
> your video on... Video Resumes? How to "books" with video. Perpetually
> updated living wills....
You could equally say that there's not much point in putting still photos on
to an iPod because it's much better to show people 6 x 4 inch prints
(or larger) or to show the pictures on a decent sized TV screen.
But when you are travelling or visiting people, I have found that the
iPod-sized screen is large enough to give people a good idea of
what your pictures are about. So the same would apply to video,
it's not entirely a novelty, it's quite useful to have this technology
when you are away from home and want to show people your pics!
So, getting back to the original theme of this thread, I think it's mean
that Apple are making people pay for an upgrade to QuickTime Pro
before they can put their home movies on to an iPOd. I think
there would have been a huge outcry if Apple had done this for the
audio files, so why do it for the video files.
All Apple has to do is to enable the "File" "Export" function in the
free version of QuickTime player. Surely this isn't too much to
ask is it?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|