“Maybe you have wondered, as I have, why it takes a pretty robust notebook computer to play DVD videos, while Wal-Mart will sell you a perfectly capable progressive-scan DVD player from Philips for $38? In general, the dedicated DVD player is not only a lot cheaper, it works better, too, and the simple reason is because it decodes the DVD’s MPEG-2 video stream in hardware, rather than in software. They won’t run a spreadsheet, true, but DVD players are brilliant at doing what they are designed to do over and over again. And if the expedient here is a $7 MPEG-2 decoder chip, it’s a wonder why such chips didn’t appear long ago in PCs,” Robert X. Cringely writes for PBS.
Cringely writes, “Well they are about to, after a fashion.”
“Now comes the rumor I have heard, that I believe to be a fact, that has simply yet to be confirmed. I have heard that Apple plans to add hardware video decoding [H.264] to ALL of its new computers beginning fairly soon, certainly this year,” Cringely writes.
Much more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Judge Bork” for the heads up.]
I doubt it. Now that the processor/software thing works so well with fast processors, this is added expense with minimal pay-off.
Sounds good, though.
twoddle
Yah First!!! I Love you Apple!
I remember buying a PCI video output card that had a hardware MPEG-2 decoder years ago. I believe ATI (and probably NVIDIA) was also doing MPEG2 decoding on their video cards as well. This isn’t exactly new Cringely.
I thought they already did… without a chip, it seems sort of a passover on essentials like network or audio support (although plenty of beige boxes do, lol).
I wouldn’t be so quick to say that the payoff is minimal. After all, if it’s something that people do a lot of, and since Apple is the digital hub, then it really makes sense to offload the duties to a specialized chip. This has the added benefits of reducing software failure and decreasing the demands upon the CPU, which of course frees it up to do other things, or reduces heat in the case. It would fit Apple’s KISS design zeitgeist as well.
I wonder what this could do to battery life on notebooks.
Duh! Apple TV, which runs OS-X already has this on board*, so it’s a no brainer to add it to macs too. Can be used to increase performance of consumer and pro video apps too.
*made that up, obviously
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Um, no. The handheld devices (iPhone, iPod) have such hardware for a reason: Less power for the job.
All current macs are sufficiently fast for H.264 decoding in software. Future macs will be faster, naturally.
So why adding extra hardware with no benefit ?
Remember: Modern graphics cards will gradually take over image/video processing tasks. In order to squeeze
more speed out of a video codec, why not use the graphics card instead of extra chips ?
Seems like a good idea except that Apple sells movies via download and kind of bucks its own trend.
As far as the notebook lines are concerned, it might make sense.
Could a dedicated video decoding chip use LESS power than a Core 2 Duo and allow the CPU to concentrate on other things?
If notebook battery life for DVD playback could be extended, it would certainly be worthwhile.
Bring it on!
Battery life, HD support, less heat…
It will surely be necessary in order to run Blu-ray movies from an internal drive with any kind of system efficiency.
Ya know, all this waiting is KILLING me! I got money burnin’ a hole in my pocket, already, Steve!
If it would help in any way at all for Hi-Def DVD’s to stream to the AppleTV
then hopefully we will see it.
I haven’t noticed any issues watching a DVD on my Mac, or even much issue with video. Now if they could figure out how to ENCODE H.264 faster via hardware THAT would be a benefit I’d pay extra for!
Intel and Microsoft have both long operated on a simple principle: “If all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”
Intel has promoted the use of the CPU to do what would otherwise be done by specialty processors. But for the consumer, this is not an obvious approach. Why would one want to burden a $200 general purpose CPU to do what should be done by a $5-10 custom chip? Remember the “software modems”? One who believes in appropriate technology knows this is a bad idea.
Microsoft is even worse. One-trick pony that it is (OK, two if you count Office), it complements this approach by doing everything in software – their software, of course. For them, whatever the problem, Windows is the answer. We’ve seen how well that works.
A DSP uses way less power than a CPU. Remember the early PB G3’s ? They had an option to get a DVD drive and DSP to play movies. Helped battery life and playback was smoother.
Well, I for one am in favor of the custom chip(s). It makes your product unique (try running a hacked OSX on a Dell if it requires custom chips). It makes things seem faster due to the parsing out of tasks. Remember the Amiga? Why was it able to do amazing video/audio/animation at a time when most computers had monochrome screens? Simple, custom chips for audio, video, etc…….then again, they did go out o business.
I guess nobody is actually reading the source article. The big news is not H.264 decoding – it’s H.264 ENCODING. Here’s the relevant part of the article:
“So what’s in it for Apple? Potentially a lot, because the chip Apple has chosen doesn’t cost $7, it costs more like $50, and it doesn’t just do hardware H.264 decoding, it does hardware H.264 ENCODING, too.
This will change everything. Soon even the lowliest Mac will be able to effortlessly record in background one or more video signals while the user runs TurboTax on the screen. Macs will become superb DVR machines with TiVo-like functionality yet smaller file sizes than any TiVo box could ever produce. In a YouTube world, the new Macs will be a boon to user-produced video, which will, in turn, promote the H.264 standard. By being able to encode in real time, the new Macs will have that American Idol clip up and running faster than could be done on almost any other machine. Add in Slingbox-like capability to throw your home cable signal around the world and it gets even better. Add faster video performance to the already best-of-league iChat audio/video chat client, and every new Mac becomes a webcam or a video phone.
It’s an aggressive play that fits perfectly with Apple’s traditional role as the hardware platform of choice for new media development. And I am sure the company will have at least one new service or application that will uniquely support this new chip upon which Apple is placing a $500+ million bet.
Remember, you read it here first.”
Hardware for h264 is a definite plus with Apples media moves. Think about how much faster this could make burning an iMovie in iDVD. How about converting a video clip to MP4 for the iPod. Intel can probably put these chips on the motherboard very cheaply for Apple. I find it exciting to see the technology in notebooks finally taking off. It has been a long time since weve seen anything more than just faster processors and hard drives. I hope that revolutionary battery tech is implemented soon and that 10.5 can make the best use of the multi-core processors.
Another chip means more heat, I don’t see this happening.
@ macman
It only means that if it’s a hot chip. My cell phone has chips and it runs cool.
It’s not like they would be using a G5.
As usual, the majority of readers on MDN appear to only read the MDN clips, which themselves are very badly edited, and not read the entire article…
Seriously, before spewing your widely dissenting comments left and right, read the article, and back your words up with some facts…
Remember, opinions are like assholes, which just means that MDN has more open orifices than a gay bathhouse!
Um, excuse me mr. pffftttt, but… ick!
I’m not sure about doing this on the full line, but for anyone producing/editing H.264 videos on a regular basis, this would be a HUGE.