Apple television expected in mid-2012 as competition is 'scrambling' - Page 7

No I have used those cords. I know what you're talking about with HDCP, but maybe it was the movie? (Lottery Ticket, lol!). I can take some pics tonight of the connections, but I'm at work right now.

Depends on the player.

If you're buying physical media you might as well buy bluray given that eventually you're going to have a HDTV. Especially if it comes with digital download or DVD. The cost delta isn't that large especially if you only buy those movies you're going to watch over and over as opposed to stream from netflix if it's still available.

Really? Both of my PS3s have composite out, and my Panasonic BD85 has component and composite, doesn't seem that though.

HDCP is digital copy protection, component, composite etc are analog, so hdcp doesn't apply when you use these inputs

Yes, you wouldn't any difference on a SDTV, but at least if you have blu-ray, when you move to a HDTV you get the full benefit. Also, remember video is only half the benefit of Blu-ray, don't forget getting HD audio.

We're talking about people who haven't upgraded to HDTV. Do you really think any of those people will have any benefit whatsoever from HD audio? Do you think their equipment is good enough to distinguish lossless from the already excellent 5.1 audio present on DVD?

Um, yes, a blu-ray player with analog audio outputs will work fine with a receiver with analog 5.1 inputs, lossless will work fine, also DD, and DTS have higher bitrates on blu-ray.

If only some of us didn't live in townhomes with loud neighboors.

You missed my point, which was not about whether it would "work".

So are you honestly saying that people wouldn't benefit from HD audio? HD audio is independant to HD video. And if I have missed the point, can you please explain it.

I'm saying there's absolutely no chance in hell someone with enough money to buy a reference audio system capable of distinguishing lossless audio from DVD quality audio would still be using a freaking sdtv. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that situation. I'm absolutely convinced that less than one person in a million still using sdtv would have that kind of audio equipment.

You gotta love how the anti Blu Ray Luddites have turned the argument to Granny still has an old 20" CRT TV, so Blu Ray is no benefit.

Given I know some audiophiles with older 4:3 36"+ tube TVs I'd say that you were wrong. TVs can last a long time and after you drop $2000 in speaker cables, $1000 on interconnects and other dumb shit like that I can imagine the budget being tight for stuff that actually makes tangible differences...

Is that less than 1 person in a million? Meh...sure overall but probably more than 1 in a million in the US. It wouldn't surprise me if there are more than 307 guys like that living in the US with more audio gear than sense (or a good HDTV).

So what exactly are the benefits of Blu-ray on a 20" SD set? Surely you aren't saying the picture quality. I guess if you have nice sound system you get that benefit, but are you honestly going to make an argument for a high-quality sound system in an HEC with a 20" SDTV? Come on! I guess you could really try to think outside the box and say that the blind care about audio quality over picture quality but then I'd ask you why they does the set even matter and why are they buying Blu-ray video just for the audio. Get real!

I didn't say there was any benefit on 20" tubes.

Just pointing out that it is ridiculous to use holdouts with old 20" Tubes to argue against progress.

My answer to that lame argument is so friggen what? US HDTV penetration is over 60% and growing, those on old 20" tubes are a dwindling minority.

It really does seem like a bunch of now obsolete/debunked arguments from 2007 are being revisited to attack Blu Ray.

You would wrong. There are plently of older systems that can handle lossless fine, and they don't have to be reference systems to handle lossless audio. There are plenty of people that value audio higher than video.

The arguments are against Blu-ray on a notebook compute when optical drives are going away, when they are still excessively expensive for a ultra-slim slot-loading machine, and when they drain power quickly. If you really want your Blu-ray movies with you on the go then copy them to your drive, but don't whine about Apple not supporting something that was clearly not a viable option for their notebooks in the first place. And claiming that "Apple doesn't need to have such thin notebooks" is not going to cut it either. Bottom line: Optical drives of any kind are not the future of personal computing.

Nice strawman you are constructing, but I didn't see anyone asking for Blu Ray on a notebook.

This was your answer to me, when I wanted Blu Ray for HTPC. Change subject, build strawman. Nice. Do these games really work for you regularly?

EDIT: This is even further removed from the current silly turn in the thread about Blu Ray not being a benefit on 20" tubes.

If Apple really is making a TV, they will make it work and make money off of it.

Yes this TV will cost a bunch of money for consumers, but since TV makers now are losing money, this makes sense. Apple does not loose money on its products.

They will do this the same way they made the iPhone and tuned iTunes into the worlds biggest music store.

With the iPhone they worked together with a carrier to produce a revolutionary product. In doing so, they maintained all control over the product and the carrier was basically just along for the ride. Now they have expanded to include all carriers worldwide.

With music they cut deals with the music labels and gave them a share of the profits.

In entering the TV market they will simply combine their strategy from these two markets.

In the TV world you have "artists" which are the TV show producers. You also have "labels" which are the TV networks. Theres your music industry analogy.

You also have "carriers" which are the cable and satellite networks. There's your mobile industry analogy.

IN this analogy, iTunes retains its function and the "iPod/iPhone" would be the Apple TV.

They create a TV with a built in set top box compatible with most cable and sat providers. Live TV would be there and the consumer would still be required to sign contacts and buy packages from the cable or sat provider. They might throw in some iAds for added revenue.

Streaming content would be provided by the "labels" i.e. the TV networks. These could be provided as flat rate services or per-episode charges. Each Network could decide for itself. Apple wouldn't need to actually make the deals, just provide the technical platform and payment infrastructure and let content provides loose and see what happens. It worked on the iPhone and 3rd party apps quite nicely.


And Apple being Apple, they would also include the features we already know from the existing Apple TV box, such as streaming from iTunes, video rentals, Netflix etc.

Add Siri, a microphone, a built in Webcam and access to apps that take advantage of these (imagine Skype or iMessage) and you've got an awesome device.

You can't use this analogy with television, though. It's a different world.


Comcast wouldn't ever allow that, I don't think.


Why would you want a webcam in your television? In what situation do you WANT to be seen as you're watching TV?