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

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.

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

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Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!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!

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.

No need to clarify. I didn't think you were being derogatory, I was just making a poor attempt at humor?

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).

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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).


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.

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 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".

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.

I read this as

'Digg founder wants publicity, makes educated guesses based on existing rumours'

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.

.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

and purchasing/renting movies, tv shows, etc.

What doesn't he get? A currently non-product that people are speculating about?

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.

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.

I see your point but that's not the same issue

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.

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.

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).:


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.

.

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

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

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.

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.

.

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