AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Intel expected to unveil cable service, set-top box at CES
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Intel expected to unveil cable service, set-top box at CES - Page 2

post #41 of 92
12/31/12 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by palomine View Post

I really can't wait until Hollywood is just one tiny subset of a giant content producing universe of talent throughout the world.

Right on, as we used to say in the 60s.

(From Hollywood adjacent.)
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 92
12/31/12 at 12:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuMoo View Post

Com'on, who you kid'n!
Every one knows Apple will be 1st to this....and then ripped off...I mean copied...flattery...Ah' you know what I'm sayn'.

Problem is none of these folks know what Apple is planning so they are all scrambling around doing anything they can think of, hoping to beat Apple to what ever 'it' is. If Apple had never mentioned an interest in a new TV concept I doubt the industry would have even tried to change their concepts other than for the likes of Netflix services.
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #43 of 92
12/31/12 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBlongz View Post

The day I can subscribe to all sports for $25/mo will be the end of current cable Giants and their lazy foot.

 

That day will never occur.

Reply
Reply
post #44 of 92
12/31/12 at 1:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

[...] Cable companies get all the blame but its the content providers pushing/forcing bundling.

 

Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.

Reply
Reply
post #45 of 92
12/31/12 at 1:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I think that is partially correct. I feel the problem with today's SmartTVs isn't just a slow and convoluted UI but a lack of content that simple cant be had today without working with the cable/sat providers.
I don't want Apple to ignore cae/sat but to work with them so that the Apple TV UI is I tethered seamlessly into the content you get from your cable/sat providers.
I've envisioned a couple ways (logistically) this can be done but none of them seem like a great solution. Apple typically doesn't do partnerships like this but like most things there is an exception. They partner with telcos for the iPhone and it's their most successful product line. I don't think it would be if they were there own MVNO or only sold it unlocked at their retail price.
Whether we get Apple HDTVs or not I'm hoping Apple has inked deals with a large cae company (like they did with Cingular) to get the ball rolling with an Apple-branded cable box that has WiFi and BT.
An HD Scientific Atlanta box is in the retail iPhone and iPad prices, if memory serves. I'm not sure how much of that is profit but I have to think Apple can do it more efficiently as there is no part of the HW they don't have experience with, save the specific HW for the digital cable decoding. Apple even has experience with analog TV tuners but I would doubt that would be included in this 21st century device.
One caveat is, I think, most cable companies are still using MPEG-2 for digital cable, including HD. Not hard to support in the device since we're talking about a codec and the processing is considerably less than H.264. Having a separate backend system for just H.264 for Apple's content would be an undertaking. That said, I have faith that would be considered since a transition would have to happen and it will save them considerable bandwidth saturation, data usage, and allow for On Demand to be queued faster.
I don't think it's worth talking about H.265 until later in the year. Once it's finalized (next month?) then the re work starts.
Well if Apple's big thing in 2013 is a cable set top box count me out. I have DIRECTV so I'm guessing it wouldn't benefit me anyway. But if they find a way to bring a product to market that gets rid of the mess of cables and cords behind my TV then sign me up!
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 92
12/31/12 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.
You can replace SPC with ESPN. 1wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 92
12/31/12 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.

This is why Apple trying to force there way into this market without the cable companies seems so very difficult to me. The cable and sat companies pay a huge amounts of money for the rights to these channels.

If Apple undercuts them with access to the same content for less or in a better way they don't get enough subscribers they lose money. But it's worse than that if they are using the cable companies internet access to obtain it. Not only do they lose money with the subscribers but they have to spend more servicing their internet. I see no other solution than for the cable companies to jack up their internet rates and/or place data usage caps to make up the difference (as well as any planned differences they expect).

But it's not just the cable companies that have been against this paradigm change. It's also the content owners. They make a planned amount from the cable companies that it likely wouldn't behoove them to allow this sort of upheaval unless they were assured their profit would be increased dramatically. I wouldn't expect them to get rid of a sure thing for a risk that didn't make them turn into a cartoon character with dollar signs for eyes... but Apple usually doesn't offer that. They usually just show how a model will ultimately fail, which I don't see with studio and cable companies unless the studio and cable companies agree to it.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #48 of 92
12/31/12 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Well if Apple's big thing in 2013 is a cable set top box count me out. I have DIRECTV so I'm guessing it wouldn't benefit me anyway. But if they find a way to bring a product to market that gets rid of the mess of cables and cords behind my TV then sign me up!

I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.

I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.

The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.

The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.

I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.

But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.

Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #49 of 92
12/31/12 at 3:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/

A HDMI hub is a great idea, it should also act as a cross platform media server.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #50 of 92
12/31/12 at 11:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

A HDMI hub is a great idea, it should also act as a cross platform media server.

It should also mow your lawn and fix you dinner.
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
"And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about." --addabox
Reply
post #51 of 92
12/31/12 at 11:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

It should also mow your lawn and fix you dinner.

The original Apple TV could certainly cook it.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #52 of 92
1/1/13 at 6:17am
I don't think Apple is that stupid. They'd never come up with a solution that forced people to buy a new television set. There would always be a companion device (ATV) for people who already have perfectly decent TV's and aren't interested in buying a new one. But of course there will always be someone looking for a new TV. And if Apple has plans to revolutionize that space I can't see them doing it without offering their own all-in-one solution.

How much revenue and profit does Apple currently make off ATV? My guess is its not a lot. I can't see an Appe set top box being that profitable. I mean if Google thought that's where the next big thing is at would they have sold off Motorola's STB business?
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 92
1/1/13 at 6:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I hear the cable (and remote control) argument used a lot when it comes to TVs. Sure, it's not a slick design but it's not more convoluted than a Mac mini setup.
I don't want to have to buy one of 3 Apple HDTVs when all I want is a better way to control my TV and content. It's just not cost effective. And will they have a 30" model that will fit in my guest bedroom? If not, will they offer a box or will only excessively large TVs that I have to pay $1500 each for be allowed with this service? I just don't see how replacing ideal sized devices that work well with expensive devices that don't fit ones needs makes sense when all you want is a better service.
The TV is just a display. With the cable and sat boxes we've been using for decades you put the TV on a channel/input and never worry about that again. You can even put that remote in a drawer somewhere and never think about it again until you need its batteries for your cable/sat remote.
The only annoyance with that setup is that your DVD/BR players requires an input change on the TV. Same goes for the Apple TV. Which an Apple TV built into an HDTV you can eliminate a device (I guess that has its benefits until you want a newer Apple TV every couple years) but the entire UI can be controlled from that one remote. You still have your cable/sat and DVD/BR connected to the imports so you still need those remotes and to switch the input, but you have a little easier access to your Apple TV UI. I don't think that's nearly enough reason to make a TV.
I think a better solution to make a larger Apple TV that still uses the HDTV as just a dumb monitor but that has several HDMI inputs so that your cable/sat and DVD/BR devices can plug into it. Now you get the same effect of always having the Apple TV UI on the ready and can switch those inputs easy but with a fraction of the cost of buy a new TV set and having to replace the set every couple years. I'd pay $200 for this Apple TV+.
But that's still a hobby device idea if your main usage will still be from the cable/sat companies. Therefore I think that Apple needs a cable/sat box to integrate with their system so that the Apple TV UI can also be the one that works with your content providers lineup. You not only get everything from the Apple TV UI but it opens the door for plenty of other options when the Apple TV is aware of what you watch and when you watch it. You can pause a movie on one TV and start it on another. They could make the BT remote use that finger print tech to know when you've picked up the remote which will instantly adjust the settings and favorites to your viewing habits. The list goes on. You could buy this out right or rent it from your cable/sat company. I think this is the only viable option for making this a great solution. Apple can't headbutt their way into this market. It's just too complex and entrenched.
Check out Gassée's article on this: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/

I've always thought the same thing. Even if the BR/DVD or Xbox/PS3 didn't plug into it and still required the traditional input switch, those are pretty nitch usages and typically are on that input for a while. The cable to Apple TV switch I do a ton more and that would eliminate it completely.

What probably the biggest advantage that they would have is a unified search platform as well. There are apps that do this on the iPad now, and I believe roku offers this already (again- why the Apple TV doesn't yet- no clue). But I was searching for "max and ruby" for my 3 year old. Had to go to Hulu- search. Nada. Then netflix. Search. Nothing. Then input, go to cable box, search, found the time it would start.
A unified search process through all channels would be ideal, because you could see "x" is on Netflix and iTunes for purchase, or whatever. That, working in conjunction WITH cable or Internet TV would be incredible- and something no one else can offer.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #54 of 92
1/1/13 at 6:46am
My cable cord was cut 20 years ago with a HDTV antenna and EyeTV as well as a satellite dish that receives free-to-air programming. Monthly fee: $0.

Eph

Reply

Eph

Reply
post #55 of 92
1/1/13 at 7:37am
More information on what Intel is working on. No set top box at CES though.

http://gigaom.com/video/inside-intels-tv-service-no-ces-announcement-but-plenty-of-juicy-details/
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 92
1/1/13 at 7:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

To each their own I suppose.  For me, sports is the main reason I stopped watching cable TV.  

There is more entertainment value in sticking your head out the window or going for a walk than there is following organised professional sports.  You don't learn anything, you aren't actually being entertained most of the time, and all the events end the same way.  The teams change rosters, the players start and retire over time, the teams change names, colours and cities, but other than these completely inconsequential details, every game is the same boring story over and over and over and over again.  

Every minute you are sitting in front of a TV watching some silly sporting event, is a minute of your life that you are wasting IMO.  

That is easily argued for nearly all TV content. There are exceptions, but not a lot of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.

I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.

DSL is shared too, it only shares back one step, at the DSLAM rather than on the wire. I can easily feel the difference between daytime and evening traffic. It only depends on how much the backhaul is oversold vs. how much people use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Not if you buy a fast enough package.

My only problem with the service is the "slower as you get further from the hub" thing (so people in rural areas can't get the fastest packages), but fiber fixes that, yeah? No loss over distance there, right?

If I could buy into such a system, I would. The established powers offer no way to even front the "last mile". I couldn't just pay someone a lump sum to lay fiber to the nearest fiber box if I wanted to. I even started a micro ISP to at least get broadband to the area, but the interest wasn't there yet. It was basically a mile too far out for wire roll-out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Yet.
But yes. YouTube over DSL is sometimes torture aleady.

I think that's partly YouTube's fault. Their little applet seems to have progressively gotten worse even when available bandwidth has improved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by palomine View Post

Agree with Flaneur's big -picture predictions. However, timing is everything and I wonder WHEN we will get more of Apple's coolest stuff.
It will get here when it gets here.
I really can't wait until Hollywood is just one tiny subset of a giant content producing universe of talent throughout the world.
The glass pipes are on the way regardless.

I thought DVDs and later, YouTube and Netflix were supposed to do that. Making interesting video content takes a lot of time, talent and money helps grease that wheel too. The independents have grown, but I just don't see where the established content system is going to be marginalized in the next 10 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Problem is none of these folks know what Apple is planning so they are all scrambling around doing anything they can think of, hoping to beat Apple to what ever 'it' is. If Apple had never mentioned an interest in a new TV concept I doubt the industry would have even tried to change their concepts other than for the likes of Netflix services.

That makes sense. TV devices were pretty stagnant until Roku & AppleTV showed up. Anyone that doesn't have something new to try to compete is surely out of the game. Those that do try at least have a chance to stay in the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Correct. The cable company wants to carry SPC (Super Popular Channel). The company that owns it wasted a bunch of money on the Tic-Tac-Toe Network. The content owner tells the cable company that the only way they can have SPC is if they also carry TTTN.

This wasn't always true, but no one remembers a time when it wasn't. I was able to pay $20/mo for the channels that I wanted. If C/Ku Band had enough HD content, I'd probably still be using it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithian View Post

My cable cord was cut 20 years ago with a HDTV antenna and EyeTV as well as a satellite dish that receives free-to-air programming. Monthly fee: $0.

My EyeTVs tented to cook themselves after about a year. This was maybe a couple hours a day of recording.
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 92
1/1/13 at 9:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

What probably the biggest advantage that they would have is a unified search platform as well. There are apps that do this on the iPad now, and I believe roku offers this already (again- why the Apple TV doesn't yet- no clue). But I was searching for "max and ruby" for my 3 year old. Had to go to Hulu- search. Nada. Then netflix. Search. Nothing. Then input, go to cable box, search, found the time it would start.

I've thought about the pros and cons of Apple making a box that integrates with the local cable/sat programming but I never once considered a truly unified search or how the current Apple TV OS doesn't let you search through everything to find content.

In fact, I find the Apple tV UI quite annoying in that the Movies and TV Shows on the main page are the first two buttons but completely useless buttons since I pull this info from my iTunes library which means I have to first go to Computers. No option for me to put that Library on the page as a main button or for the first drill-down to remove itself because I only have the one iTunes library attached.

I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/1/13 at 9:17am

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #58 of 92
1/1/13 at 10:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've thought about the pros and cons of Apple making a box that integrates with the local cable/sat programming but I never once considered a truly unified search or how the current Apple TV OS doesn't let you search through everything to find content.
In fact, I find the Apple tV UI quite annoying in that the Movies and TV Shows on the main page are the first two buttons but completely useless buttons since I pull this info from my iTunes library which means I have to first go to Computers. No option for me to put that Library on the page as a main button or for the first drill-down to remove itself because I only have the one iTunes library attached.
I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.
I agree with you on all fronts of your complaints. The only time I use "movies" is when my imac isn't waking up for some random reason and I have to go to "purchased" movies from digital copies I have redeemed from Blu ray purchases.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #59 of 92
1/1/13 at 11:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.

 

I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.

 

LOL, it never ceases to amuse me how you can blithely reject reality because you don't like it.

 

Yes, classic DSL is dying.  Subscriber numbers are down.  Yes, classic DSL speeds are slow in comparison to cable broadband.  5-8 Mbps ADSL/ADSL2+ is about as fast as you can expect and only if you're within a few miles (18,000 ft) of the CO.  And while the bandwidth isn't "shared" if there are too many other DSL subscribers in your cable bundle you will suffer reduced speeds from crosstalk issues.

 

As far as VDSL goes, it is faster but it's that evil shared bandwidth you wish to avoid because most VDSL deployments are FTTN like uVerse.  Likewise high speed ADSL2+ deployments are FTTN because the max distances are even shorter (around 5,000 ft).  Also "shared" bandwidth.  And frankly, all bandwidth is "shared" anyway whether that happens at the node or at the CO.

Reply
Reply
post #60 of 92
1/1/13 at 12:38pm
  • hmm
  • Keylogger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

No, and no, and that doesn't excuse how it's not at all the cable he's disconnecting.

 

I refuse to ever move to a cable or any other "shared" bandwidth system.


Notice how they all say "up to" when advertising bandwidth?

Reply
Reply
post #61 of 92
1/1/13 at 12:38pm
Here we are more rumors of a TV from Apple but now Intel is predicted to compete wow
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 92
1/1/13 at 12:57pm
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
Notice how they all say "up to" when advertising bandwidth?

 

DSL, cable, satellite, even dial-up says that. However I have at no time received less than for which I have paid while on DSL. Coupled with downtimes only coinciding with local overarching power outages, I'd say that it's the right way to go.

 

And hey, if what you say is actually true, it's really the right way to stay, since fewer users means more bandwidth for those left behind. Tee hee.

 

Who knows: maybe someday the telecoms will be forced to actually, you know, lay fiber everywhere, replacing copper. But I'll probably be on my first self-grown organ replacement by then.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #63 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

DSL, cable, satellite, even dial-up says that. However I have at no time received less than for which I have paid while on DSL. Coupled with downtimes only coinciding with local overarching power outages, I'd say that it's the right way to go.

And hey, if what you say is actually true, it's really the right way to stay, since fewer users means more bandwidth for those left behind. Tee hee.

Who knows: maybe someday the telecoms will be forced to actually, you know, lay fiber everywhere, replacing copper. But I'll probably be on my first self-grown organ replacement by then.

Some were actually given billions to do just that and they squandered the money.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" - Winston Churchill
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #64 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:12pm
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
Some were actually given billions to do just that and they squandered the money.

 

1000

 

Every time I'm reminded of that.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #65 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:20pm
What about wireless broadband? With the ever increasing speed and availability of wireless broadband, at what point do the cable companies become worried and either provide better quality of service and content? Or do they simply whore themselves out as the dumb pipe through which content is provided?

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #66 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:23pm
Originally Posted by diplication View Post
What about wireless broadband?

 

Do you mean cellular data or something else?

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #67 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

What about wireless broadband?

Do you mean cellular data or something else?
Cellular. Obviously not in the near future, but definitely I can see it within my lifetime.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #68 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:33pm
Originally Posted by diplication View Post
Cellular. Obviously not in the near future, but definitely I can see it within my lifetime.

 

I hope you plan to live as long as I do, then. I did the math a few years back. Even with my near-extortionate price for DSL, it's 968x cheaper than the same data sent to me over a cellular data plan.

 

NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT TIMES CHEAPER.


Take into consideration caps, throttling, and banned behaviors and we're looking at something akin to the American Revolution in scale to actually enact any change in this regard. Landline ISPs sleep soundly knowing that their wireless counterparts (and in some cases, halves of the same company) have agreed not to give people anything good.

PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #69 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I hope you plan to live as long as I do, then. I did the math a few years back. Even with my near-extortionate price for DSL, it's 968x cheaper than the same data sent to me over a cellular data plan.

NINE HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT TIMES CHEAPER.


Take into consideration caps, throttling, and banned behaviors and we're looking at something akin to the American Revolution in scale to actually enact any change in this regard. Landline ISPs sleep soundly knowing that their wireless counterparts (and in some cases, halves of the same company) have agreed not to give people anything good.
Yes but that is now. Things do change. Look at how much convergence has happened in the last ten years. Also after thinking about it, my unlimited data plan on my iPad is about 45 percent cheaper than my cable modem, the only difference I see is that my cable modem is about 15 times faster.
Edited by diplication - 1/1/13 at 1:50pm

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #70 of 92
1/1/13 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

Yes but that is now. Things do change. Look at how much convergence has happened in the last ten years.

Sure, cellular data will likely get much cheaper, but cabled ISP rates will also likely get much cheaper. You also have to consider data usage growth. If AT&T will give you 100GB per month of LTE data at $20 but by that time iTunes Store HD content is 4K at 15GB per 1 hour of video then it might not look so great if that is the average user's needs.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #71 of 92
1/1/13 at 6:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Making interesting video content takes a lot of time, talent and money helps grease that wheel too. The independents have grown, but I just don't see where the established content system is going to be marginalized in the next 10 years.

True for video content, but I was talking about communication content. People are showing themselves to be more interested in connectiong with each other than in watching canned entertainment. In other words, TV watching is down, social networking is up, varying according to generation and probably by class and education.

The "entertainment industry" is plateauing or losing share. The Internet and various participatory networks and nodes, like the one we're on right now, are gaining. But I was also talking about a form of world social communication not yet available: live point-to-point asymmetric 3-D FaceTime. Low bandwidth but highly compelling. When combined with some kind of wearable stereo eyeglass-screens, the most compelling form of communication yet invented. It will really be reality TV.
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 92
1/1/13 at 7:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I also dislike that I can't choose what media I can share to the device. I need to have Home Sharing turned on but then I can't select with content is available. If it's in my iTunes library that AppleTV will have access to it. If there is a better solution I don't know what it is.

There is a preference for specifying selected playlists for home sharing in iTunes. Is this not sufficient for what you want to do?
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 92
1/1/13 at 7:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

There is a preference for specifying selected playlists for home sharing in iTunes. Is this not sufficient for what you want to do?

I originally thought this would do it but it still shows (for example) Music, even if Music isn't checked so long as there is at least one song in my Music library. If I remove all the music from my Music library it will go away. Same for TV Shows and Movies.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #74 of 92
1/1/13 at 8:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

There is a preference for specifying selected playlists for home sharing in iTunes. Is this not sufficient for what you want to do?

I originally thought this would do it but it still shows (for example) Music, even if Music isn't checked so long as there is at least one song in my Music library. If I remove all the music from my Music library it will go away. Same for TV Shows and Movies.


I haven't tried it, so I will take your word for it. It almost seems like a bug that you can intentionally deselect something and it still gets shared.
I don't understand Apple's logic in this instance.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 92
1/1/13 at 8:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I haven't tried it, so I will take your word for it. It almost seems like a bug that you can intentionally deselect something and it still gets shared.
I don't understand Apple's logic in this instance.

It does seem like a bug to me but since there is that line between Share my library on my local network and Home Sharing... which has me wondering if they are, in fact, different services. I can't say I fully understand Home Sharing compared to the Library sharing we had previously. I just want to have certain content accessible from the Apple TV and I want it to be simple. Except for the ease of AirPlay I wondered if perhaps a Roku might have been a better fit for me.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #76 of 92
1/1/13 at 8:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I haven't tried it, so I will take your word for it. It almost seems like a bug that you can intentionally deselect something and it still gets shared.
I don't understand Apple's logic in this instance.

It does seem like a bug to me but since there is that line between Share my library on my local network and Home Sharing... which has me wondering if they are, in fact, different services. I can't say I fully understand Home Sharing compared to the Library sharing we had previously. I just want to have certain content accessible from the Apple TV and I want it to be simple. Except for the ease of AirPlay I wondered if perhaps a Roku might have been a better fit for me.

Does the Roku have a way of selecting what gets shared from your library? For such a low price, I was thinking of buying one just for HBOGo, since the iPad HBOGo app doesn't support AirPlay video and I don't have a Mac which supports AirPlay mirroring yet.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 92
1/1/13 at 8:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Does the Roku have a way of selecting what gets shared from your library? For such a low price, I was thinking of buying one just for HBOGo, since the iPad HBOGo app doesn't support AirPlay video and I don't have a Mac which supports AirPlay mirroring yet.

I know it's simpler. I assume it more like the old MP3 players that basically just accessed stuff from folders. That's how I was storing all my videos but now that I have a gen 3 Apple TV and the iVI app ($10 and worth every penny) I've been using imetadata data, convert container or codecs (if needed), and adding to iTunes. CPU has been at 100% for over a week straight and still have a few days to go.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #78 of 92
1/1/13 at 9:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Does the Roku have a way of selecting what gets shared from your library? For such a low price, I was thinking of buying one just for HBOGo, since the iPad HBOGo app doesn't support AirPlay video and I don't have a Mac which supports AirPlay mirroring yet.

I know it's simpler. I assume it more like the old MP3 players that basically just accessed stuff from folders. That's how I was storing all my videos but now that I have a gen 3 Apple TV and the iVI app ($10 and worth every penny) I've been using imetadata data, convert container or codecs (if needed), and adding to iTunes. CPU has been at 100% for over a week straight and still have a few days to go.

Well, after all that effort let's hope Apple updates its AppleTV home sharing setup to be aware of your sharing preferences.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 92
1/1/13 at 11:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Well, after all that effort let's hope Apple updates its AppleTV home sharing setup to be aware of your sharing preferences.

There are certainly a lot of little things they could do to increase the usability and UX considerably. I hop that the increased success of the Apple TV HW sales has been enough to get them to invest more heavily in the product category. As Steve Jobs once said, "No one has succeeded yet."



PS: Here is the full quote...
Quote:
No one has succeeded yet. We tried with Apple TV. Apple TV was designed to be an accessory for iTunes and your computer. That's not what people wanted.

And here is another one from All Things D that I love (full disclosure: I love it because it mirrors what I had been saying for years)....
Quote:
"The problem with innovation in the television industry is the go to market strategy. The television industry fundamentally has a subsidized business model that gives everybody a set top box for free, or for $10 a month. And that pretty much squashes innovation because no one is willing to buy a set top box. Ask TiVo. Ask Replay TV. Ask Roku, Ask Vudu, Ask us, Ask Google in a few months. Sony's tried, Panasonic's tried, we've all tried. So, all you can do is add a box onto the TV system. You can say … I'll add another little box with another one You end up with a table full of remotes, cluster full of boxes, bunch of UIs. The only way that's ever gonna change is if you really go back toy square one and you tear up the set top box and design it with a consistent UI and deliver it to the customer in a way they're willing to pay for it. Right now there's no way to do that. So that's the problem with the TV market.
We decided, do we want a better tv or a better phone? The phone won out because there was no way to get it to market. What do we want more? A better tablet or a better tv? Well, probably a better tablet. But it doesn't matter because there's no way to get a tv to market. The TV is going to lose until there is a viable go to market strategy, otherwise you're just making another TiVo.
That make sense?
It's not a problem of technology, it's not a problem of vision, it's a fundamental go-to-market problem.
There isn't a cable operator that's national, there's a bunch of operators. And it's not like there's GSM, where you build a phone and it works in all these other countries. No every single country has different standards. It's very 'tower of babble-is', not that's not the right word. Balkanized. I'm sure smarter people than us will figure this out. But when we say Apple TV is a hobby, that's why we use that phrase.

I do hope they have something for us in the next couple months.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #80 of 92
1/2/13 at 1:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I originally thought this would do it but it still shows (for example) Music, even if Music isn't checked so long as there is at least one song in my Music library. If I remove all the music from my Music library it will go away. Same for TV Shows and Movies.

 

 

Is the illustration above the way you have it set? With those options it will, of course, allow the ATV access to anything on that computer because it's set to share the entire library. The way you would exclude items would be to select "Share selected playlists:" and check the ones you want the ATV to access and uncheck the ones you don't. Maybe I missed something earlier in the thread or misunderstood the problem you're having.

 

As I'm sure has crossed your mind, the issue you're experiencing may not result from anything you're doing. iTunes 11 is doing all kinds of weird things here, like not recognizing episodes of a TV show as being part of a season, losing the artwork for various items and a couple other strange behaviours I can't remember off the top of my head, none of which have anything to do with us or the files. I think the term you folks use to describe the condition is "buggy."

Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Intel expected to unveil cable service, set-top box at CES