or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple readying April unveiling of new Apple TV, may partner with Time Warner
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple readying April unveiling of new Apple TV, may partner with Time Warner - Page 3

post #81 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

So, imo they stilll dont have the rights to throttle youre downloads. They do it with torrents because noone willl or could complain.

It's not necessarily your downloads but some will slow your connection if you're streaming video. If I'm not mistaken there are sites that will test if in fact that's true.
"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 #82 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Looks like Comcast is going to acquire Time Warner Cable. Will the merged company deal with Apple?

 

Depends on how much money the deal was going to make for Time Warner. If it made financial sense for Time Warner, there is a chance it would for Comcast too.

post #83 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Someone explain to me the logic of Apple making the AppleTV also an Airport Express...because I don't get it.

1. People (except me) don't plug an Ethernet cable into the AppleTV....so it cannot be a primary router for the household.

2. Since you have to have another Router, what is the purpose of the AppleTV-as-AE? I know some people think the Airport Express is supposed to be used to wirelessly extend your network...but all this does cut your speed in half (at best) and make your overall connection worse than if you had done things right in the first place.

With cable companies, the coax coming into your TV or digibox is the same coax that also goes to your cable modem. Perhaps the design is to reduce an entire device (or two) by making the the cable modem and digibox all be part of a single Apple device that also offers you WiFi. Personally, I don't see it unless the cable companies also want to distribute and service these Apple devices they way they do Motorola and Scientific Atlanta cable modems and digiboxes, which isn't Apple's known MO.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #84 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

With cable companies, the coax coming into your TV or digibox is the same coax that also goes to your cable modem. Perhaps the design is to reduce an entire device (or two) by making the the cable modem and digibox all be part of a single Apple device that also offers you WiFi. Personally, I don't see it unless the cable companies also want to distribute and service these Apple devices they way they do Motorola and Scientific Atlanta cable modems and digiboxes, which isn't Apple's known MO.

In the very near future with FiOS the STBs will work wirelessly off the modem. The only coax needed will be to the modem.
"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 #85 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

In the very near future with FiOS the STBs will work wirelessly off the modem. The only coax needed will be to the modem.

Then maybe it's something like that. Have the modem, WiFi router, and Apple TV be a single unit and let the AppleTV's UI be the portable to the cable company's content. Those boxes are pricey, large and the UIs aren't great so this could have some benefits.

This of course has plenty of other issues, like a lack of HDDs for DVRs. Perhaps they could do an off-site DVR where you sill have to choose to save the show but it is already there on their servers and your user account, much like an iTunes Library DB, keeps track of all the items, dates, plays, playback locations, etc.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #86 of 118

OK.  Comcast bought Time Warner for $45.2 Billion.

It would appear that Comcast will now have 2 sets of content contracts.

Apple may have made a deal for the TimeWarner contracts.

 

This may explain the delay in availability of the content to allow Comcast to close the deal and integrate TWC into its set of contracts.

 

If the contracts are not transferrable then they can not be transferred to Comcast which does not need them anyway.  If the contracts are transferrable them perhaps Apple could buy them outright and be done.

 

Time will tell.

post #87 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post
 

OK.  Comcast bought Time Warner for $45.2 Billion.

It would appear that Comcast will now have 2 sets of content contracts.

Apple may have made a deal for the TimeWarner contracts.

 

This may explain the delay in availability of the content to allow Comcast to close the deal and integrate TWC into its set of contracts.

 

If the contracts are not transferrable then they can not be transferred to Comcast which does not need them anyway.  If the contracts are transferrable them perhaps Apple could buy them outright and be done.

 

Time will tell.

I was just about to come in an let everyone know about the Comcast Time Warner deal,  If this in fact happen this will not be good for the Apple deal with TW if one exist. Comcast does not like Apple or Google TV idea, they have their own solution which they been working on for 5 yrs now and are attempting to roll out in select markets.

 

Also, for those questioning the whole TW and Apple deal and how that would work, they could in theory stream connect to any where they like and you would not need your ISP permission. What most likely will happen is you would have an IPS connection sign up with TW via itunes and then pick and choose form all of TW content they distribute today. If you had VZ as your ISP VZ, they could not stop you from getting access to TW streaming content, it no different than streaming NetFlix or Hulu content to your house. The deal with Apple could open their access to subscribers anywhere you have a broad band internet access. Remember unlike cable which all channel are being send down the pipe at the same time since they operators have not idea what you may tune into at any given time, Streaming is specific to the end user requesting it.

 

I work in this industry and am pretty familiar with what the Cable Operators are doing today and into the future. The reason VZ fought so hard against Network Neutrality was for this exact reason, they did not want to become a fat dump pipe that you could choose who your content provider would be and pay as you use it verse paying for everything even though you do not watch it.


Edited by Maestro64 - 2/13/14 at 5:51am
post #88 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

I was just about to come in an let everyone know about the Comcast Time Warner deal,  If this in fact happen this will not be good for the Apple deal with TW if one exist. Comcast does not like Apple or Google TV idea, they have their own solution which they been working on for 5 yrs now and are attempting to roll out in select markets.

Also, for those questioning the whole TW and Apple deal and how that would work, they could in theory stream connect to any where they like and you would not need your ISP permission. What most likely will happen is you would have an IPS connection sign up with TW via itunes and then pick and choose form all of TW content they distribute today. If you had VZ as your ISP VZ, they could not stop you from getting access to TW streaming content, it no different than streaming NetFlix or Hulu content to your house. The deal with Apple could open their access to subscribers anywhere you have a broad band internet access. Remember unlike cable which all channel are being send down the pipe at the same time since they operators have not idea what you may tune into at any given time, Streaming is specific to the end user requesting it.

I work in this industry and am pretty familiar with what the Cable Operators are doing today and into the future. The reason VZ fought so hard against Network Neutrality was for this exact reason, they did not want to become a fat dump pipe that you could choose who your content provider would be and pay as you use it verse paying for everything even though you do not watch it.

You're wrong. TWC has been with Roku for a year or so and nobody outside of TWC's footprint can access their content.
"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 #89 of 118

Think "Cloud DVR"

post #90 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyJ View Post

Think "Cloud DVR"

Aereo already has that.
"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 #91 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You're wrong. TWC has been with Roku for a year or so and nobody outside of TWC's footprint can access their content.

Just because Roku app is limited to only TWC cable customers, who's limitation is that, TWC or Roku. As I said in theory you can live in California and become a TWC subscriber for Stream Content via itunes on ATV there is nothing barring that form happening. All TWC has to have is the rights to stream content. I am aware of some geographical limitation some operators have. But if you live near me, I have FIOS, Comcast, Directv Dish, and they all provide same content and some will stream to you anywhere you are as long as you a subscribe to them.

post #92 of 118

I was just think about how Apple could implement the DVR feature into an Apple TV without adding the expense of a drive in the unit.

 

What I would really like to see if greater support for my own content.  Sadly Apple is only interested in SELLING me content, or I should say, RENTING me content for a finite period..

post #93 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Just because Roku app is limited to only TWC cable customers, who's limitation is that, TWC or Roku. As I said in theory you can live in California and become a TWC subscriber for Stream Content via itunes on ATV there is nothing barring that form happening. All TWC has to have is the rights to stream content. I am aware of some geographical limitation some operators have. But if you live near me, I have FIOS, Comcast, Directv Dish, and they all provide same content and some will stream to you anywhere you are as long as you a subscribe to them.

It's a TWC limitation. When cable companies want to go into an area, they have to get state, city, county, and township permission. There's a lot of hurdles that they jump in order to be that area's cable provider. It's a old and archaic way of doing things but good luck trying to get rid of it. There's way too many politicians getting their palms greased in order to get rid of it. The other companies that don't have an agreement with Apple or Roku do not want it's customers accessing TWC content if TWC customers can't access their's. They'll lobby hard against it, of that you can be assured.
"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 #94 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyJ View Post

I was just think about how Apple could implement the DVR feature into an Apple TV without adding the expense of a drive in the unit.

What I would really like to see if greater support for my own content.  Sadly Apple is only interested in SELLING me content, or I should say, RENTING me content for a finite period..

Unfortunately that seems to be true the way the Apple TV UI has separate buttons/apps/channels* for Movies and TV Shows right at the top-left for you to rent content.

I pretty much only ever use the button to connect to a networked PC that I use as my iTunes Server. Unfortunately that when other Macs have their ITunes opened these show up in the list. I'd much prefer for this iTunes Server to be its own button on the Apple TV "home screen."

At least with Parental Controls we can hide buttons we don't want to see.



* what's the proper terminology?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #95 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's a TWC limitation. When cable companies want to go into an area, they have to get state, city, county, and township permission. There's a lot of hurdles that they jump in order to be that area's cable provider. It's a old and archaic way of doing things but good luck trying to get rid of it. There's way too many politicians getting their palms greased in order to get rid of it. The other companies that don't have an agreement with Apple or Roku do not want it's customers accessing TWC content if TWC customers can't access their's. They'll lobby hard against it, of that you can be assured.

You know why they have to get approval, it is because they have to put cables in and use public access and right aways to do so, and states like to tax this stuff.  However, the fiber and coax is already installed and you and your IPS already pay these fees and taxes, the government does not tax the content you watch or method you use to get that content. I have DirecTV and they did not have to get approval to allow me to install my dish, grant it states attempted to block it since they want them to pay a franchising tax like the cable operators but the court threw that out since Satellite do not use any government own resources.

 

I would agree that you IPS who is also a TV cable operator would not want you turning off your service and getting you content from their competitor and streaming over you internet connection. That would create real competition between providers, image that you could call and provider in the market and negotiate a better deal and only pay for internet connect, turning your ISP into dumb fat pipe. 

 

As apple did with AT&T, (Cingular) they got one provider to see things their way and the house of cards begin to fall. If TWC is that one provider and everyone drops their local provide for the TWC/Apple solutions it will not be long before they all give in like VZ and TMobile did with the cell phones.


Edited by Maestro64 - 2/13/14 at 9:04am
post #96 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrankyJ View Post
 

I was just think about how Apple could implement the DVR feature into an Apple TV without adding the expense of a drive in the unit.

 

What I would really like to see if greater support for my own content.  Sadly Apple is only interested in SELLING me content, or I should say, RENTING me content for a finite period..

it is call network DVR, it is being done today, the content will no longer be stored in your house on a drive but in a server farm with lots of storage.

post #97 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

it is call network DVR, it is being done today, the content will no longer be stored in your house on a drive but in a server farm with lots of storage.

I have yet to see a great solution. So far they are all way too slow. Even Dish's LAN-based system has too much lag.
Edited by SolipsismX - 2/13/14 at 10:39am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #98 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

You know why they have to get approval, it is because they have to put cables in and use public access and right aways to do so, and states like to tax this stuff.  However, the fiber and coax is already installed and you and your IPS already pay these fees and taxes, the government does not tax the content you watch or method you use to get that content.

While that's true, it's not always the case. Take Verizon, they were able to install the fiber network, and offer phone and internet without any additional approval because they've gotten approval for that years ago but in order to offer TV they had to get a whole other set of approvals from the local governments. In some areas there were so many agencies to deal with and it became so tedious that they stopped rolling out FiOS anywhere that they didn't already have an agreement with.
"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 #99 of 118
When Comcast finishing the purchase of Time Warner this app will mean nothing. If you want that content you will have to subscribe to Comcast cable TV as well as their Internet service to receive it.
post #100 of 118
Cant wait to get me and fam new Apple TVs! Not sure it will replace Dish Network just yet but getting there!
post #101 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


It's not necessarily your downloads but some will slow your connection if you're streaming video. If I'm not mistaken there are sites that will test if in fact that's true.

 

Actually throttling is very file specific.  I have unlimited downloads but if I let a torrent go to full bandwidth capacity, Bell is going to halt it in a matter of seconds. If I then do a speed test, it will show full download/upload limits.  Also, if I stop the torrent, change its bandwidth to 1/3 of my total capacity, it will start up again and Bell will let it go because it wont trigger there monitors.

 

Malicious Cable operators could set throttling triggers on Apple streams, making the service unreliable.

post #102 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


While that's true, it's not always the case. Take Verizon, they were able to install the fiber network, and offer phone and internet without any additional approval because they've gotten approval for that years ago but in order to offer TV they had to get a whole other set of approvals from the local governments. In some areas there were so many agencies to deal with and it became so tedious that they stopped rolling out FiOS anywhere that they didn't already have an agreement with.

Yeah I lived in a town in PA which we were the absolute last place to get FIOS because the town want them to sign the same Franchise agreement that Comcast signed on the 90's. It had a tax provision on internet access which the telecom act of 1996 out laws so no state and local government were not allow to tax your internet connection like they do for cable TV. This has to go to court since the town believe FIOS was no different than Cable. Also, VZ is kind of a special case, since they were installing fiber and using no government funds to do that, they were not subject to various regulations like copper wire and cable. both of these were regulated by state and fed governments so they had to seek their permission to do things and charge consumers, FIOS is not subject to those regulation nor is Satellite TV.

 

This is not simple matter, but content streamed over your internet connection is not subject to all the rule for cable access, so you can get you connect over the internet as you like and the local government has no say over it due to the telecom act of 1996. Now you local cable company and content owner feel differently about it as does you local government since if you turn off cable and stream content over you ISP connect they loose money.

post #103 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I have yet to see a great solution. So far they are all way too slow. Even Dish's LAN-based system has too much lag.

yeah they all suck, but they do not care, the Cost of the DVR in your home is too high for them so they want it gone. They claim to have a solution, but it filled with issues. I have Netflix and it nice during the week, get high quality, come the weekend and i can see them drop the quality down since the bandwidth drops so they give you a low grade stream to ensure it does not stop. The network DVR will do the same things, when it records it actually records multiply version of the same content at various compression ration so they can stream lower quality on slower connections.

post #104 of 118
The Next Apple tv box is going to have a built in TV Tuner , support a usb antenna similar to the MOHU and will also have hdmi passthrough so you can attach some input devices to it. This will be in a very small device. Apple already has the license to use Rovi tv guide interface and program guide data. What apple is going to do will be more than worth the wait. It will be somewhat similar to Comcast's X1 but will integrate into iTunes and Macintosh environments such that Every Mac in the house also becomes a TV. This device will support an app store which will initially focus on Games. Game Center will no longer be just a place to keep scores. Game Center will become Apples Gaming platform which runs of Apple TV. It will be the world's smallest game system with an integrated App Store , TV Tuner and cloud DVR Technology. Very nice indeed.
post #105 of 118
Originally Posted by nycnikato View Post
The Next Apple tv box is going to have a built in TV Tuner , support a usb antenna similar to the MOHU and will also have hdmi passthrough so you can attach some input devices to it.

 

Zero of that makes sense. That’s not Apple.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #106 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

Yeah I lived in a town in PA which we were the absolute last place to get FIOS because the town want them to sign the same Franchise agreement that Comcast signed on the 90's. It had a tax provision on internet access which the telecom act of 1996 out laws so no state and local government were not allow to tax your internet connection like they do for cable TV. This has to go to court since the town believe FIOS was no different than Cable. Also, VZ is kind of a special case, since they were installing fiber and using no government funds to do that, they were not subject to various regulations like copper wire and cable. both of these were regulated by state and fed governments so they had to seek their permission to do things and charge consumers, FIOS is not subject to those regulation nor is Satellite TV.

This is not simple matter, but content streamed over your internet connection is not subject to all the rule for cable access, so you can get you connect over the internet as you like and the local government has no say over it due to the telecom act of 1996. Now you local cable company and content owner feel differently about it as does you local government since if you turn off cable and stream content over you ISP connect they loose money.

Another thing about FiOS is that VZ doesn’t have to allow CLECs on the network. One had a choice of companies to get dial tone and/or dsl over the copper, not so over the fiber.
"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 #107 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


I looked into this and the Apple TV is already doing better than Roku. And the Apple TV has potential global reach.


EDIT: here
http://gigaom.com/2013/07/16/apple-tv-roku-sales-stats/

Apples hobby is 50% of the market.


I wouldn't hold too much store by the rumoured 50%.  Whilst it sounds impressive it translates to 6.5m sales throughout the period and doesn't take into account the myriad of other streaming devices such as smart TVs, STBs and games consoles (which quite frankly would dwarf Apple TV) .

 

Frankly I am not sure that AppleTv does have potential global reach. The discussions thus far have been very US centric and the American TV consumption model may well be very different from the rest of the world. In the UK, for example, the bulk of real time viewing is via Yagi roof top aerials and the lion's share of IP streaming is time shifting the free to view channels.


Edited by hungover - 2/16/14 at 4:16pm
post #108 of 118
The months-long gap does make this rumor really suspect.

And the reason that there was a long gap in the case of the iPhone launch doesn't hold up. That was primarily because a lot of testing was necessary for FCC certification, and carrier performance tuning. Apple believed (correctly it would seem) that it would be impossible to keep iPhone secret with that much outside exposure with so many people. So it was announced five months before availability.

I can't see any such compelling reason for Apple TV. This sounds entirely bogus.
post #109 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

The months-long gap does make this rumor really suspect.

And the reason that there was a long gap in the case of the iPhone launch doesn't hold up. That was primarily because a lot of testing was necessary for FCC certification, and carrier performance tuning. Apple believed (correctly it would seem) that it would be impossible to keep iPhone secret with that much outside exposure with so many people. So it was announced five months before availability.

I can't see any such compelling reason for Apple TV. This sounds entirely bogus.

Yes and no. Jobs statement about the FCC was technically truthful in that it had to be done and they didn't want it to be leaked, but Apple deals with the FCC with any device that has BT or WiFi. I also don't recall any leaks coming from the FCC and if you look at the filing dates compared to when the FCC finally releases the info as per law and along with customer's requests it doesn't take 6 months.

Additional cellular testing could be a reason but I think they could have done that in secret either way. I believe the main reasons were 1) so Apple could get a jump on courting additional carriers, and 2) to allow customers time to not get into new contracts which in the US are usually 24 months.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #110 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Yes and no. Jobs statement about the FCC was technically truthful in that it had to be done and they didn't want it to be leaked, but Apple deals with the FCC with any device that has BT or WiFi. I also don't recall any leaks coming from the FCC and if you look at the filing dates compared to when the FCC finally releases the info as per law and along with customer's requests it doesn't take 6 months.

Additional cellular testing could be a reason but I think they could have done that in secret either way. I believe the main reasons were 1) so Apple could get a jump on courting additional carriers, and 2) to allow customers time to not get into new contracts which in the US are usually 24 months.

True. The FCC seems to have been very good with keeping details secure - to its considerable credit.

 

My understanding was that that, as well as the closed-lab testing, there was also a lot of necessarily-outside testing that had to be done (not sure if that was carrier-only or carrier+FCC).

 

Whatever the reason, I don't see a similar scenario with Apple TV. This story seems to me more like a click-seeker.

post #111 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by plovell View Post

True. The FCC seems to have been very good with keeping details secure - to its considerable credit.

My understanding was that that, as well as the closed-lab testing, there was also a lot of necessarily-outside testing that had to be done (not sure if that was carrier-only or carrier+FCC).

Whatever the reason, I don't see a similar scenario with Apple TV. This story seems to me more like a click-seeker.

With the Apple TV the issue might be with partners, not with HW. A couple things come to mind: Does Apple want a lead time so that they can increase the number of partners hey by the time the *new* Apple TV launches? For instance, so they can capture more of the market in less time. Does Apple need to work with more than just a few high-level officials to make a deal for content streaming and services? Remember that AT&T née Cingular signed the deal with Apple without ever seeing the iPhone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #112 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post

Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).

You are ripping them wrong.  AppleTV has supported 5.1 sound since the first generation.  If you are using Handbrake, click the audio tab and make sure 5.1 is selected, as well as 5.1 pass thru on the second option.  Then your receiver will decode the 5.1 sound.

post #113 of 118

This article is complete dogshit.  With Comcast trying to buy out Time Warner, whatever deals they are trying to make would go straight in the toilet.  They are not going to introduce a product in April and have it ship at Christmas.  Tell your writers to pull their heads out of their fucking asses.

post #114 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Another thing about FiOS is that VZ doesn’t have to allow CLECs on the network. One had a choice of companies to get dial tone and/or dsl over the copper, not so over the fiber.

True. But it can't pull out the copper. As ILEC it still has to support those services.

 

AT&T's recent FCC filing is an attempt to undo this, and some other things such as switch ti IP-based backbone. I'm OK with the IP backbone but we need to complain loudly about ILECs being to dump their responsibilities by switching from copper to something else (fiber, wireless, etc).

post #115 of 118
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post
With Comcast trying to buy out Time Warner, whatever deals they are trying to make would go straight in the toilet.

 

Cingular became AT&T at the iPhone’s announcement. That deal kept going.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #116 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungover View Post


I wouldn't hold too much store by the rumoured 50%.  Whilst it sounds impressive it translates to 6.5m sales throughout the period and doesn't take into account the myriad of other streaming devices such as smart TVs, STBs and games consoles (which quite frankly would dwarf Apple TV) .

Frankly I am not sure that AppleTv does have potential global reach. The discussions thus far have been very US centric and the American TV consumption model may well be very different from the rest of the world. In the UK, for example, the bulk of real time viewing is via Yagi roof top aerials and the lion's share of IP streaming is time shifting the free to view channels.

Free to view or pay to view, aka Sky Go. I think the Apple TV would work in the UK in a way it could never work in the US. I don't even understand what I'm reading here - it seems American cable companies are also ISP providers and have regional monopolies protected by the state. That's horrendous.

In the UK Apple just have to publish an SDK which will allow the already existing apps to publish their schedules onto an EPG app and , voila, I can watch all the UK TV I need on the Apple TV.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #117 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Free to view or pay to view, aka Sky Go. I think the Apple TV would work in the UK in a way it could never work in the US. I don't even understand what I'm reading here - it seems American cable companies are also ISP providers and have regional monopolies protected by the state. That's horrendous.

In the UK Apple just have to publish an SDK which will allow the already existing apps to publish their schedules onto an EPG app and , voila, I can watch all the UK TV I need on the Apple TV.


Fair point about Sky Go, I am not a customer so I hadn't considered it. I can see that it would be of benefit in a multi TV house with only one Sky box but I can see Sky being concerned about losing out on all those subscriptions in multi TV/ multi Sky box homes.

post #118 of 118
Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryA View Post

Need 5.1 sound. Even with optical cable and Digutal Audio enabled I am only seeing stereo from ripped DVDs where I specify 5.1 during encoding (yes, I accept I may be doing something wrong, but it should be more straightforward).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones View Post
 

You are ripping them wrong.  AppleTV has supported 5.1 sound since the first generation.  If you are using Handbrake, click the audio tab and make sure 5.1 is selected, as well as 5.1 pass thru on the second option.  Then your receiver will decode the 5.1 sound.

I've found the "Apple TV 3" preset correctly sets up 5.1

 

Although, IIRC I had to change something in the settings (from Automatic to Dolby Logic Pro or something) to get the 5.1 to start working

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple readying April unveiling of new Apple TV, may partner with Time Warner