or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TheOtherGeoff

Again, I posit that it won't sell enough to justify the a HW product management team... therefore it's a non-starter.     Also, you're not thinking power supply.  Makes no sense to make a 'stick' where the wall wart is bigger than the device. 
  a $99 box makes for a tighter upgrade cycle than a $900 TV...  people will spend $99 every couple years to get new 'STB' and pair with my 5 year old $900 TV, than spend $900 every 2 years to get a compliant system.   With Optical and HDMI 1.4, you're able to drive speakers in multiple modalities.   HDMI1.4a can run upstream signaling, and should allow poweron and controls.   Again, 'iOS on the TV(Receiver') logic is probably the best solution, where you control the...
  I think it's gonna be 'iOS for the TV'  (like iOS in the Car, only in reverse)  less than licensing the HW into TVs... a Bad TV with AppleTV built in will be a black eye on Apple.  A TV with a bad code to let Apple TV talk to it, that's a bad TV manufacturer.   What the consumer wants (not the videophile), is a point/click/drool interface to fully engage all your componentry and the hidden information. a very dumb TV that is turned on when the Apple TV is activated,...
It's like iTunes Genius.  Match... no.
'need'?     TV is not full body gaming... Not for the mass market... at least not yet.  See xBox for the profit... it's not a growth market. 
The thunderbolt stick makes little sense in that space.   just a HDMI/mDP adapter off of the current AppleTV would do.   The challenge (unless Apple has already come up with a effective means to get all Local TV stations and cable companies to broadcast livestream via the Apple cloud), is local and live content through non-Internet inputs (and/or Apple Competitors [e.g. cable companies])   The ISSUE with Apple TV now is the seamless integration with all the variations of...
Didn't Phil Schiller say that's a given in the Apple Launch Math (this is iPhone math I guess)... ...Each new generation sold approximately equal to all previous generations combined. We'll see if the iPad market equates to this....
If the screens were better they would.   That's the same logic that people use when they ask for 5" iPhones (a few people want them), and we know how apple considers that modality..   And the math for a 17" Retina display would be around 3456x2160, which would be pretty computationally heavy.   Sounds like someone loved his 17" at one time.
Defining the future of the market.       The old world view was you needed to be the market leader to be comfortable in the computer world.  IBM, Sun, MS, HP, DELL all sought to have 51% of the market, and ideally, 67% or more of a niche.   That was old world thinking a) selling to IT/business/procurement types who wanted large vendors who would survive until the decision cycle retired.  (I can't remember how many... "Look at MSFT's Market Cap" arguments I had arguing for...
The question is can apple support 3 versions of hardware and still be considered a 'unified experience'   My guess is that iOS7 is a 'major' OS upgrade, and they want to eliminate the the '4' line to differentiate apples 'low end' against everyone elses who are running 3-10 versions behind on Android.      Part of this is user experience (iOS7 is driving a very different UX, likely driving a new compute profile), and given that the .99 and 99 versions of their phone sell...
New Posts  All Forums: