or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything' - Page 6

post #201 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

He said market not industry.. Just coz a certain device exist doesn't mean there's a market for it.

That makes no sense. If there's a device and/or service being purchased by consumers no matter how small the amount there's a market for it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #202 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Oh, you mean people with half a brain?

no, not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out that the mindset is different.
post #203 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by moustache View Post

Jobs knows what he's doing.

Of course he knows exactly what he is doing.
Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!

iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!
post #204 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post

I mean, why get a beautiful new 1080p TV and feed it only 720p content? That makes absolutely no sense.

.

Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.

720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.
post #205 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist View Post

no, not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out that the mindset is different.

No need to clarify. I didn't think you were being derogatory, I was just making a poor attempt at humor?
post #206 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.

720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.

Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).
post #207 of 259
[QUOTE=cheesy mogul;1700369
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel![/QUOTE]

You can't see the difference unless you are sitting too close to the TV or you have a TV that is bigger than 55 inches. That has been proven over and over again. Steve chose the correct aspect ratio for the vast majority of buyers who care more about convenience than specs.
post #208 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).

Now you are beginning to get it.

Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.

It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!
post #209 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Now you are beginning to get it.

Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.

It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!

Still, 720p doesn't look as good as 1080p on my 92" projection screen.
post #210 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheesy mogul View Post

Of course he knows exactly what he is doing.
Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!

iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!

Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #211 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?

They are all paid big bucks by LG to sit at home all day and say bad things about Apple.
post #212 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.

The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.

Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.

Disagreement is good. But look at the specs of a Hauppauge 2250. Dual tuner HD content. And they are HDCP compliant. Mine is connected to Brighthouse and I get all the digital content - from cable, not off the air. Your information about tuner cards is a few years old.

Yes, I agree that the Internet is becoming a great source for streaming video. But I also watch streaming Netflix. The quality is acceptable, but is not really even 720p quality. If you don't care about quality, then you'll be happy with streaming video. Downloading then watching is completely different - and extremely time consuming.

I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.

My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement. Therefore, the vision is good, but the timing is not there. Now Steve does keep many things secret. H.264 is a nice codec that can give nice quality at low bitrates. He may very well have something even better up his sleeve that can reduce bitrate and achieve high video quality. But unless he can pull that rabbit out of his hat, iTV will be a nice toy - for some peope.
post #213 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.

What satellite service do you/did you use? I use DirecTV and with a properly aligned Slimline 5LNB dish, rain-fade is virtually non-existent. Totally happy with it (and have been for 12 years).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement.

True. This point is key. When a few households stream a video or TV program here and there, that's one thing, but when the time comes and every household wants to stream HD content at all hours of the day or night, they better have made some improvements with bandwidth or people will unhappy.
post #214 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

The final price is not important. As of now, you pay for lots of stations you never watch. All that is waste.

But with a la carte, you pay ONLY for what you watch, even if at the end of the month you are paying more, there is no waste, and you get exactly what you pay for.

Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.
post #215 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericblr View Post

I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.

The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.

Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

7 months ago this is how your post would have read
Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the [iPad] has a [full version of Mac OS X, USB, Ethernet and HDMI ports], it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay for a [hobbled tablet] when you can [a tablet with more ports and a full OS]? Same for the rest of the [netbook market]. [Everyone else has been doing] it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their [Windows with built-in touchscreen support] is where it's at. My [Windows tablet] can [do anything my Windows PC can]. It's got [a whole bunch of ports thatll never use] as well [. just in case. iPad] is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) [tablet]. Even if some [fanboys say reading books on it is great the Kindle is so much better,] we'll see how long that lasts. I love Apple products and own quite a few. I find Apple OS far superior to Microsoft. But the upcoming [iPad] doesn't sound like it's in the league of [tablets using Windows 7]. Granted, I tried to add some flare at an attempt at comedy and dont know you well on enough on these boards to know your feelings on the iPad then or now, so take it with a grain of salt, Cinemagic, but my point that we shouldnt judge anything so harshly before its had a chance to be tested and use (especially one that is still a rumour) stands.

I appreciate comedy. And as far as the iPad, I did post my disappointment at it's lack of Flash and Jobs comment that it would do the "real internet". "Real Internet" my a**. Flash is part of the Internet - a large part of it. No I don't want to get into a Flash discussion. Flash will not run well on iOS. It does fine on my MacBook Pro, but iOS is different. Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".
post #216 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by demitri View Post

Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.

I wish DirecTV would offer an a la carte package. Not saying I would pay more for it, just that I'd much prefer to weed out all the crap. If anything, I'd love an HD only package at some kind of savings because all the channels I watch are available in HD. I never watch any of the SD channels and would just assume not have to pay the $10 HD access fee as I would only have HD channels and would be paying specifically for an HD package. Hey, a $10 savings would be better than nothing.
post #217 of 259
I read this as

'Digg founder wants publicity, makes educated guesses based on existing rumours'
post #218 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

Actually, also a "game changer" in the sense that when it came out no one did stuff like this, and now the most popular way to share iPods outside of sharing earbuds is to plug one into the top of some mini stereo system like this.

So while the product failed, the concept was ahead of it's time and caught on like wildfire (a few years later), actually.

There were tons of similar products when the hifi came out. That's a big part of the reason it failed.

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply

iPod, iPad, iPad2, iPad 3, iPad Mini, iPhone, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, AppleTV (1,2 & 3), 13" MacBook Pro, 24" Cinema Display, Time Capsule, 21.5" iMac (Mid 2011)

Reply
post #219 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post

There were tons of similar products when the hifi came out. That's a big part of the reason it failed.

I don't believe there were any portable products similar to the iPad Hi-Fi -- ones that could be used as a portable Boom Box.

When I bought mine, I had 2 Boses and a B&O. I was/am able to stream audio to these from a Mac via AirPort Express.

But, the iPod Hi-Fi filled a, then, unique niche -- portable iPod Boom Box.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #220 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".

This is a for a different article but since this thread I a day old I'll respond to it. What defines the full Internet? If we include propritary plugins do we include all plugins? What about Real or ActiveX, etc? If we include propritary plugins that have x% marketshare do we than not have to exclude every mobile device at the time of the iPad announcement and launch as Flash I now only out for Android if it's version 2.2 and if it's on a few select Android phones?

It seems to me that the definition of open web standards is more than adequate for Jobs definition of a mobile device.

PS: I returned my iPad because it did not suit my needs, but I think it's a brilliant device that meets the computing needs of a great many users... Just not 'us' in its current form.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #221 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by aplnub View Post

What is the chance that existing AppleTV owners get the software update?

Can Apple dare ditch the existing customers? But if coming revision is completely different from the existing version, will just a software update push older hardware to get the infamous Apple Approved tag?
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #222 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.

720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.

To achieve the "correct viewing angle", based on any guide created by a home cinema professional, requires a screen size and view distance where the difference between 720 and 1080 can be resolved by anyone with normal vision.

It doesn't matter how you much you twist words and focus on irrelevant numbers, you can't weasel your way out of cold hard facts.


What you could try to focus on is how much people care, or more precisely how much people value the > 2x pixel advantage of 1080 compared to 720... at least you might be able to sustain some kind of reasonable argument that way.
post #223 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post


... iTV is a great idea, but the infrastructure necessary in most parts of the country, which is out of Apple's control, is not ready for it to become a replacement for conventional cable or satellite. But time will tell who's right.

As an Apple shareholder you know how much money they're making out of other markets right...

Even with the infrastructure issues aside, the other thing is the US cable market is much harder for an iTV box to crack because the cable penetration rate is already something like 85%. In other markets cable TV is far, far smaller. So it means there's more of an opportunity there to use good infrastructure and to really do something magical that many people won't have had before.
post #224 of 259
I have cable. Last night I watched a documentary on the South Pacific ocean. I liked it.

So why am I telling you this? Well, if I would have been browsing through iTunes, and came across it, I would have had to make a purchase decision. Is this going to be worth $2 or $3? Probably not and would have moved on. That is, even if the show is available on iTunes.

Having cable means you can browse and find all sorts of things - even while you are watching something else. When every show you watch becomes a purchase decision, you aren't going to experiment and find new shows to watch - you'll stick to what you know.

That may work for you, but not for others. I don't see cable and satellite companies shaking in their boots quite yet.
post #225 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.

720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.

The fact that you can't even use the correct terms shows you don't know what you're talking about. You're basically making it up.
post #226 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by SendMe View Post

Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.

I don't think it matters what the scientist say about this. If I am going to pay for it (buy or rent), I am going to pay for 1080 over 720, unless it was a lot cheaper. Also, if I didn't care about picture quality, I would just go with 480 which is good enough.
post #227 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by msuberly View Post

Goodbye monthly cable bill. You have just been replaced by an equally expensive monthly Internet bill.

and purchasing/renting movies, tv shows, etc.
post #228 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Steve Jobs still doesn't get it.

What doesn't he get? A currently non-product that people are speculating about?
post #229 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

I have cable. Last night I watched a documentary on the South Pacific ocean. I liked it.

So why am I telling you this? Well, if I would have been browsing through iTunes, and came across it, I would have had to make a purchase decision. Is this going to be worth $2 or $3? Probably not and would have moved on. That is, even if the show is available on iTunes.

Having cable means you can browse and find all sorts of things - even while you are watching something else. When every show you watch becomes a purchase decision, you aren't going to experiment and find new shows to watch - you'll stick to what you know.

That may work for you, but not for others. I don't see cable and satellite companies shaking in their boots quite yet.

Totally agree with this. While I like choice and not paying for too much junk TV channel, I too appreciate the element of randomness you can get with always-on TV channels. If every bit of TV and movie we watch becomes a '1-click app to buy' the way iTunes is set up now it takes away the joy of discovering unexpected things and the idea that a night on the couch can still be cheap entertainment sometimes.
post #230 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice View Post

Totally agree with this. While I like choice and not paying for too much junk TV channel, I too appreciate the element of randomness you can get with always-on TV channels. If every bit of TV and movie we watch becomes a '1-click app to buy' the way iTunes is set up now it takes away the joy of discovering unexpected things and the idea that a night on the couch can still be cheap entertainment sometimes.

That's why I think pay-per-minute solutions work. Subscriptions make it difficult for the content providers to get the revenue they deserve but if a publisher is only paid for the minutes of their shows being watched then it makes it fair.

If a documentary was on iTunes for example, it would start playing just like on TV but you'd be charged 3c per minute. If after 5 minutes, you decided it wasn't for you, you'll only get charged 15c. If you keep watching, you would only be paying as much as the show would be to rent - i.e you pay about 90c for a TV show.

The pay-per-minute rate can drop the more you watch so that by the time you have consumed 10 hours of media, it drops to 1.5c per minute. The first 10 hours would cost you $18. This would perhaps be 5 days of TV.

The subsequent 10 days would cost $18 and the rate can drop further. Hopefully to a point where you could consume as much content as you wanted within $50 per month.

The rate drops may have to be done per network/publisher though as it wouldn't be fair for one publisher to be charged at a higher rate and another at a lower rate. Ideally the system would reduce rates based on repeat business for a given publisher.

In the worst case, the highest pay-per-minute rate of 3c per minute would give you just under 28 hours per month, which is close to 1 hour per day.

The US average is something like 4.5 hours per day or 140 hours per month so that $50 plan falls short but advertisements wouldn't be counted on iTunes unlike a TV, which could be as much as 25% of the viewing time. Also, depending on how many ads were shown, that could affect the rates of some TV shows - in fact, many shows could be broadcast on iTunes for free. This is much more possible with the Netflix, Hulu etc apps for the iOS.

If Apple could even manage to cover 3 hours per day within a $50 per month price bracket (around 1c per minute average), that would have a significant impact on the way people consume media.
post #231 of 259
What the naysayers are failing to realize is potential of this type of product. Because you can purchase apps, the possibilities are as boundless as the app creator's imagination. Also, the integration with iOS is important. Imagine this:

A consumer owns: iPhone, iPad, AppleTV but doesn't have cable subscription. Now he can buy the ABC app and watch on demand ABC's tv shows at home in HD on the tv via AppleTV. But now he has to leave and wants to watch on his iPhone later. That same app on the iPhone could allow him to start up where he left off streaming over 3G. Also critical is that it won't matter if my 3G service is from AT&T while my wired home internet is through Verizon, TWC, or Comcast. I can get the content to any of my devices whenever I want, wherever I am.

As pointed out before, many content providers will not be happy with this model as they (like HGTV TLC at least as far as I can tell) are types where you only watch it because it is on. However, other high demand stations like ESPN could like make more money off a subscription than they do now through cable. Also, targeted ads will generate more income per subscriber.
post #232 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

For many of the same reasons that that they allow you (and me) to post to these forums.

.

I see your point but that's not the same issue
post #233 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

Not even close. Some might argue that the Altair 8800 was the first personal computer (it appeared in the January 1975 issue of Popular Science -- this was before the 6502 used in the Apple I was even created). However, there were various 8008 kits you could buy before that (circa 1974). Some might even argue that the first "personal" computers were PDP-8 systems, as several well-off enthusiasts had these machines sitting at home prior to the microcomputer explosion.

The Apple I appeared in the middle of a bunch of microcomputer system introductions. About the only thing really unique about the Apple I (other than its $666 price tag) was the fact that it incorporated on-board video. The Apple II, which followed shortly thereafter, introduced on-board bit-mapped color graphics that could connect to a TV set (quite rare at the time).

I didn't say the first hobbyist computer or first microcomputer, I said the first personal computer. A personal computer needs to be affordable, have a keyboard and a display. The Apple 1 connected to a display was the first.
post #234 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Disagreement is good. But look at the specs of a Hauppauge 2250. Dual tuner HD content. And they are HDCP compliant. Mine is connected to Brighthouse and I get all the digital content - from cable, not off the air. Your information about tuner cards is a few years old.

Yes, I agree that the Internet is becoming a great source for streaming video. But I also watch streaming Netflix. The quality is acceptable, but is not really even 720p quality. If you don't care about quality, then you'll be happy with streaming video. Downloading then watching is completely different - and extremely time consuming.

I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.

My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement. Therefore, the vision is good, but the timing is not there. Now Steve does keep many things secret. H.264 is a nice codec that can give nice quality at low bitrates. He may very well have something even better up his sleeve that can reduce bitrate and achieve high video quality. But unless he can pull that rabbit out of his hat, iTV will be a nice toy - for some peope.

Ok, let me rephrase that, you can watch over the air and QAM delivered through cable. 2 problems... even that card you showed me (I just looked it up on new egg) has zero HD inputs aside from the coax inputs. My problem is I dont get QAM in Houston, with Comcast. HD channels are only available through the Digital Cable service. Which leads me back to TV tuner cards that still dont have anyway of hooking up a box and displaying channels in HD (to this day).

Believe me, I have been patiently awaiting for them to arrive.
post #235 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail View Post

I didn't say the first hobbyist computer or first microcomputer, I said the first personal computer. A personal computer needs to be affordable, have a keyboard and a display. The Apple 1 connected to a display was the first.



http://oldcomputers.net/applei.html

Under no stretch of the imagination was the Apple 1 a "personal computer"-- it was a motherboard for hobbyists to build as part of a computer-- see below (emphasis mine).:

Quote:
On April 1, 1976, Jobs and Wozniak formed Apple Computer. Wozniak quit his job at Hewlett-Packard and became the vice president in charge of research and development at Apple. Their first product, the Apple I computer, was similar to the Altair 8800, the first commercially available personal computer, except it had no provision for internal expansion cards. With the addition of these cards, the Altair could be attached to a computer terminal and could be programmed in BASIC. The Apple I was purely a hobbyist machine, a $25 microprocessor (MOS 6502) on a single-circuit board with 256 bytes of ROM, 4K or 8K bytes of RAM and a 40 character by 24 row display controller. It lacked a case, power supply, keyboard, or display, which had to be provided by the user. The Apple I was priced at $666.66. (Wozniak later said he had no idea about the correlation between the number and the mark of the beast, and "I came up with [it] because I like repeating digits." It was $500 plus a 33% markup.) Jobs and Wozniak sold their first 100 computers to Paul Terrell, who was starting a new computer shop, called the Byte Shop, in Mountain View, California. Terrell bought just the circuit board for the Apple I; he had to supply the keyboard, monitor, transformer, and even the case in which to put the computer.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Wozniak


You can ignore the facts, and keep claiming that the Apple 1 was a personal computer-- but it was not! Repeatedly insisting it was so does not make it true.


I had the opportunity to discuss the Apple 1 with Woz at some length (about 5 minutes). Paraphrasing, Woz said that he built the original computer that became the Apple 1 (it wasn't named that yet) to have something to show off to the Homebrew Computer Club -- a hobbyist group.


I especially resent people who glibly rewrite history to fit their own pre-judged opinion, without expending any effort to research the facts-- or ignoring the facts when they don't jibe with the opinion.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #236 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the iTV has a tuner and capable of connection to cable or off the air TV, it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay ABC, NBC or CBS for access through iTV when you can get it for free off the air? Same for the rest of the programming. Cable and satellite do it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their Media Center is where it's at. My Media Center can connect to off the air, cable, satellite, DVD, Blu-Ray or Internet sources. It's got a built in DVR as well for all those sources. iTV is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) box. Even if some programmers utilize advertising as a revenue stream instead of subscription fees, we'll see how long that lasts. I love Apple products and own quite a few. I find Apple OS far superior to Microsoft. But the Apply TV isn't and the upcoming iTV doesn't sound like it's in the league of Microsoft's Media Center.

MAYBE we should wait for it to be a real product to see what it can do before condemning or praising it. just saying...

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." Douglas Adams

Reply
post #237 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

But, the iPod Hi-Fi filled a, then, unique niche -- portable iPod Boom Box.

.

Not really, any portable stereo that had audio inputs at the time could do exactly the same as the iPod Hi-Fi, the only unique thing about it was the fact it was white and had a dock in it
post #238 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post

Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the iTV has a tuner and capable of connection to cable or off the air TV, it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay ABC, NBC or CBS for access through iTV when you can get it for free off the air? Same for the rest of the programming. Cable and satellite do it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their Media Center is where it's at. My Media Center can connect to off the air, cable, satellite, DVD, Blu-Ray or Internet sources. It's got a built in DVR as well for all those sources. iTV is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) box. Even if some programmers utilize advertising as a revenue stream instead of subscription fees, we'll see how long that lasts. I love Apple products and own quite a few. I find Apple OS far superior to Microsoft. But the Apply TV isn't and the upcoming iTV doesn't sound like it's in the league of Microsoft's Media Center.

Your only argument is that you will have to pay for stuff that you can get for free elsewhere. That is nothing more than an assumption. We have free, ad supported apps for iOS. We have free, ad supported streaming for various tv shows on their networks website. Why do you suddenly assume that every video streaming app on iTV would be paid? Many ad supported apps have shown to be more proffitable than paid ones, so I also wouldn't assume that any free ones would quickly disappear.

PS: iOS supports third party hardware through the dock connector. There isn't a rule stating that someone couldn't make a TV tuner and an app for it. You simply lack imagination, I'd wait for the product to be launched before being so critical based on some very poor assumptions.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #239 of 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Not really, any portable stereo that had audio inputs at the time could do exactly the same as the iPod Hi-Fi, the only unique thing about it was the fact it was white and had a dock in it

I think you are mistaken!

At the time there was no easy way (available adapter) to interface the iPod connector to RCA jacks, etc.

Sure you could use the earphone adapter-- but then there would be no synchronization of the volume controls-- you would have to fiddle with the volume control on both the iPod and the Boom Box.

The iPod Hi-Fi came with the same remote as the AppleTV. With it, you could remotely control volume, play/pause, next song, previous song-- all this was not possible with a 3rd-party Boom Box.

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #240 of 259
Hmmm, $99 iTV with a $99 external camera, nice optical zoom, iTV app to adjust the camera so it is pointing right at the family on the sofa. Then... Facetime with the kid in college on her iPod Touch. Or grandma who got a nice iPad for Christmas. Or Dad on a trip with his iPhone. All "free" over wireless.

Maybe combine features. Watch the game, with your brother on the other side of the country watching the same game, and visible picture in picture.

TOTAL game changer.

Gordon
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything'