Rumor: Apple's iMovie to receive significant (Cloud) update at Macworl


Video editors VS the Web  

10 members have voted

  1. 1. Should iMovie become web-based or stay as a separate app on the computer?

    • It should become a web application, even if it includes a few less features due to web limitations
      0
    • It should become a web application only if it's something awfully close to the real application
      1
    • It should definately remain a separate application on the computer
      7
    • I won't use it anyway, so...
      2


Recommended Posts

I've heard from reliable sources that Apple will offer a significant update to iMovie at next week's Macworld. It will largely focus on Internet video in the Cloud for the YouTube generation.

I've heard that iMovie will largely (if not entirely) be a Web Application and Apple would offer its users to "upload your movies to us and edit them there."

There are currently a few online applications that let you do video editing currently. Google's Youtube is also adding rudimentary editing features.

I am not certain if this means that iMovie is now entirely a Web Application or if Apple is offering a "Cloud" component to its iMovie application.

Read more...

Source : http://blogs.computerworld.com/rumor_apple...ate_at_macworld

What do you guys think of that?

Should an application like iMovie be used with browsers like Safari and Firefox (which would be available for Windows users then, most likely) or should it stay an application on the computer?

I really liked the way you could skim through a video with just the mouse in the latest iMovie, but totally hated that there's no effects and poor sound editing. I wish they had come up with something that was really better than the previous iMovie you know, but no. I can be an Apple fanboy at times, but I can still judge what's right and wrong, and thought that iMovie 08 was just not the app it was supposed to be.

Now, let's believe Apple created Mobile Me just to learn about how to do these web services accordingly. Do you think it is possible to come up with something good, knowing that webpages have a lot of limitations? Would you feel safe by uploading your videos to a remote server? Would you be able to upload, say, 40GB files and then edit them, or if it's possible to use these web services to edit things locally and save them locally (as I have no idea)?

Personally, the only good point I see is that your computer would probably not be used for rendering stuff like effects and transitions, it would be the server I think. But other than that, I really don't see how this could become useful.

I know Adobe wants a Photoshop on the web, Microsoft are looking towards a version of Office on the web, ... I just don't feel it.

Any thoughts?

Should an application like iMovie be used with browsers like Safari and Firefox (which would be available for Windows users then, most likely) or should it stay an application on the computer?

The proposal is that I take raw HD video from my camera - ship that across the web and then edit in a browser window? questions:

  • 1) How do I get the data off the camera
    2) How do I get it to the website (choose files and upload?)
    3) What is the benefit to having a web-based application for editing video?

Given the limits of network connections a web-based iMovie is very unlikely.

Now, let's believe Apple created Mobile Me just to learn about how to do these web services accordingly.

If that was the goal then they should have learned that the web is not a suitable platform for this sort of application.

Do you think it is possible to come up with something good, knowing that webpages have a lot of limitations?

Something good? Sure, depending on how you define "good". Something as good as a desktop application: no.

Would you feel safe by uploading your videos to a remote server?

I would die before the upload finished.

Would you be able to upload, say, 40GB files and then edit them,

Assuming it got there, you could edit it. But the whole thing would be horribly cumbersome and slow.

Average US broadband upload speed is 120 kbytes/second.

a 10-minute clip of HD video from my Panasonic SD-1 is about 1GB.

That's almost 3 hours of upload time before I can even start to edit.

If you record something like a school play (40 minutes) you're going to have to go have to leave your computer over night to do the upload.

or if it's possible to use these web services to edit things locally and save them locally (as I have no idea)?

You can send the data to a site, but the site cannot read local files. it would require a browser plugin that bypasses standard browser security. But even if you could, that data is still going to have to be uploaded to the server for actual processing, otherwise you'd just be using a local app. You wouldn't really gain anything at all.

Personally, the only good point I see is that your computer would probably not be used for rendering stuff like effects and transitions, it would be the server I think. But other than that, I really don't see how this could become useful.

rendering of special effects isn't terribly taxing. the conversion a final format (ie: converting your video to mpeg 2 to burn to DVD) is the biggest time sink.

Keep in mind that after you've uploaded your several gigabytes of video, after all the editing and processing is done you'd have to be sent back the final compressed files (ie: mpeg4 for the web, or mpeg 2 for putting on DVD) so you could look forward to another significant wait.

If that was the goal then they should have learned that the web is not a suitable platform for this sort of application.

In fact, I think MobileMe is just fine as it is, but what I meant between the lines is, let's say Apple doesn't do as much mistakes as they did with MobileMe because they learned from developing this.

You can send the data to a site, but the site cannot read local files.

That's what I thought. Just this pretty much infirms the rumour IMO.

My new HD camera for instance, which is worth 600 CAD (what I mean by this is, it's a regular cam, nothing special), has a 40GB hard drive inside of it. The data through iMovie becomes twice as big from what I've seen in my last import, so let's say 80GB. I have a really fast connection, but it would take days for me to upload even @ 1 mbits / s.

I guess I'd die too before it's uploaded ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
    • Did you see their FAQ, its quite good. Have a look in the Advanced section. https://delta.chat/en/help
    • Just install Linux Mint that is a real blessing and many times cheaper because you can continue using your old Windows computer/laptop with the latest Linux updates.
    • Interesting share -- however it does not make sense: Email messages get stored somewhere, so how is Delta Chat "based on email" and decentralized without actually storing anything? By Web3 standard practices, the various Relays would require dedicated storage to make messages available to the recipients (like a large series of message queue channels, akin to racks of traditional post office boxes)... and Contacts must be two-way confirmed in order for encryption keys to be exchanged (ostensibly every key-pair is uniquely bound between sender and recipient) and the Relays would preserve the public keys in order to facilitate message carriage... or every device stores all sorts of keys and contact info. All of this to say, decentralized messaging is like running Bluesky nodes except instead of discovering/browsing public feeds by various posters (at the given node) these Delta Chats would be relaying encrypted messages (via Relays) that only trusted recipients would have the appropriate decryption key (their own private key) to read it. But this doesn't solve the "it's like email" sales pitch. The only way it's like email is that there's encrypted binary stuff being transported from your app into the federated ether of Delta Chat Relays for others to decrypt (hopefully only the intended recipient)... but outside of this federated relays framework, it is absolutely nothing like email.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      tuben earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!