1) "AppleTV should have a DVD player" Why? Don't you already own a DVD player?
Only so many plugs on a TV. Besides, isn't Apple's philosophy combining multiple devices into a single box?
Quote:
2) "AppleTV should let me import my DVDs" You would have to be living in a cave if you have never heard of HandBrake.
The problem is that 99% of iTunes users live in that cave. And besides, handbrake doesn't always work. The users want an iTunes based solution
One of the main reasons digital music caught on was because you could seamlessly import your library.
Quote:
3) "AppleTV should be a cable/sat box with DVR." Apple only wants you to buy from iTunes.
And the customers have said no thanks in its current form. So, Apple, what else you got?
Quote:
Amazing what dreams people have for a low selling product. I highly doubt that Apple spent millions on this hobby. It doesn't take much to write some software and build a cheap logic board based on an outdated Pentium processor.
"Hobby" is a complete and utter copout. It only became a "hobby" after the users rejected it. The dreaded listening to the customers thing turned a very expensive and limited device into Apple's most important product.
Not surprised. The Airport is well built and stylish, but prohibitively expensive. Knock $50 off of it and the 1TB time capsule as well as $100 off the 2TB capsule and they would sell very well.
As for AppleTV. Unless the movie studios permit Apple to give it the ability to import your DVDs, its not going to catch on, especially at $230. In a lineup of integrated multi-use devices, its a one trick pony that requires a separate DVD or Blu-ray player for your current movies, a PVR for recording your shows or games, and video game console if you want to do that. Combine one, two, or all of these features, or integrate it into TVs and it would sell much better.
totally agree Ben... the price needs to be dropped, capacity increased to at least 1tb and bluray functionality added along with FREESAT so we can move away from SKY in UK
Apple got the ipod market, phone market but are missing out on "one box under tv" market.
but unlike cheap handhelds once you have sold 1 ATV you may buy one for the bedroom but not more unless required, Apple are probably thinking how we can get more money from us.
ooops just saw above post as well... we share the same sentiments, atv is pretty crap as it is (agreed its highly polished for what it can do) but we need the above functionality to take stage under the plasma/lcd/oled whatever we have chosen as our media
In the US and many other countries it is illegal to make, sell or distribute any software/hardware that will let you circumvent copy protection systems such as the copy protection on DVD movies. In the US this is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
RealNetworks is challenging this in the courts so it might change in future; however for now, Apple is by federal law not allowed to add the ability to import a DVD to either iTunes or the AppleTV.
Macs already have HDCP in the hardware as you can run Windows on a Mac with a BRD an play at full resolution. If You say Apple won't support it on OS X then that excludes the AppleTV which happens to be the closest flavour of OS X to Mac OS.
in that case the HDCP is contained within the running Windows OS, not OS X. the only hardware aspect of HDCP is the HDMI output - which Macs don't have. yes, AppleTV is HDCP compliant, including the HDMI output. it is running a version of Tiger, OS X 10.4, which clearly has been modified accordingly.
In the US and many other countries it is illegal to make, sell or distribute any software/hardware that will let you circumvent copy protection systems such as the copy protection on DVD movies. In the US this is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
RealNetworks is challenging this in the courts so it might change in future; however for now, Apple is by federal law not allowed to add the ability to import a DVD to either iTunes or the AppleTV.
Not exactly. yes, it is illegal to copy a copyrighted DVD. but it is perfectly legal to copy any non-copyrighted DVD. like one you made yourself from your camcorder video. and making/copying DVD's of TV shows you already recorded on a DVR is a gray zone.
Roxio's Toast already has all this parsed into a specific set of options for its DVD copying functions which have been validated as legal, so i suggest you check its manual for the details.
in that case the HDCP is contained within the running Windows OS, not OS X. the only hardware aspect of HDCP is the HDMI output - which Macs don't have. yes, AppleTV is HDCP compliant, including the HDMI output. it is running a version of Tiger, OS X 10.4, which clearly has been modified accordingly.
You're forgetting DVI and DP use of HDCP. I think your confusing AACS and HDCP.
Not exactly. yes, it is illegal to copy a copyrighted DVD. but it is perfectly legal to copy any non-copyrighted DVD. like one you made yourself from your camcorder video. and making/copying DVD's of TV shows you already recorded on a DVR is a gray zone.
Roxio's Toast already has all this parsed into a specific set of options for its DVD copying functions which have been validated as legal, so i suggest you check its manual for the details.
Whatever Roxio is doing, Apple could do as well.
Think about what you're saying. Where did this non-copyrighted DVD from a camcorder come from? Likely from a PC after the file was uploaded onto the HDD then edited, perhaps with iMovie. If you already have I there and you already have a media extender, then why go out of your way to burn a DVD just to play it in said media extender? It's illogical. Plus, how many ODD players does one need in their home entertainment system?
I'd like to see 3rd-party apps for the AppleTV but I think one of two things need to happen first.
1) They need to get a large enough user base in plae so developers will come.
2) They'll need to alter te iPhone SDK in some very amazing ways in order to simulate every touch screen action with a remote if you expect every game to simple work great on the AppleTV. Frankly, I don't see it.
i don't understand. if AppleTV could mirror your iPhone screen on a TV, then effectively the apps already exist for it. the only issue is the screen resolution. 480x320p won't look good on a TV.
The AppleTV could upscale iPhone apps display to better than SD quality 720x480p, which would be better than the Wii. it already has such upscaling capability built in.
that would all be compatible with iPhone 3.x.
but alternatively, if a new higher resolution optional iPhone app display spec is going to be established for the new Tablet and iPhone 4.x, like 1080x720p, that of course would look really good on your HDTV too. and the AppleTV already is optimized for 720p content display.
and the rumor is that Apple has already asked some iPhone app developers for higher resolution demos to show off this month.
and of course, the basic idea is the iPhone itself would be the remote control. the apps could be actually running just on the iPhone. all the AppleTV would need to do is "sling" the iPhone screen image to your TV. we know the iPhone screen display can be outputted already by cable (there is an app now to do that on jailbroken iPhones). so all that is needed is to do it wirelessly (blutooth or wifi).
I am sure the HDTV market gets more accepted every day, but what is the current marketshare compared to SDTV or EDTV? I?d say it?s high enough to not worry about it. You also have to consider that Apple isn?t selling the device to everyone who has a TV but to everyone who buys Apple?s premium products, which would more likely fall to people that started buying HDTV many years ago.
Is there still SDTV? When my grandmother bought her HDTV set last year, I figured the SDTV market was over.
On a side note, now that the digital transition is over, are we going to finally see the content providers paying for throughput instead of a per customer basis from the cable companies? Here in NY Food Network and HGTV were pulled because Cablevision isn't paying enough per subscriber.
Their (content providers) revenue streams are drying up because no one feels like paying for advertising on a medium that doesn't guarantee watchers. If the model would switch to network usage per broadcaster, instead of per subscriber, I think you'd see the AppleTV be a Studios favorite. Until then, the big studios aren't sure what they can make off of it, and are steering clear of contracts for it. They don't want to make the same "mistakes" as the music business did
i don't understand. if AppleTV could mirror your iPhone screen on a TV, then effectively the apps already exist for it. the only issue is the screen resolution. 480x320p won't look good on a TV.
Gotcha. You literally mean mirroring from your iPhone. Apple already allows this for videos.
Explain to me how I can play Tap Tap Revenge on my iPhone while looking only at my HDTV. There is a problem with going from the sight required touchscreen to now having to guess where your finger will likely end up. If you say you look at the iPhone screen then why have the external display except for others to watch you play the game. What about portrait v. lanscape mode on the TV? What about the length of the cable when using game that require you to move your device rapidly because it uses the accelorometer?
You're forgetting DVI and DP use of HDCP. I think your confusing AACS and HDCP.
Plus, doesn't iTS HD content use HDCP?
As i wrote earlier, the HDCP "flag" that would limit output options for protected content has never actually be activated. (the industry is worried about a consumer backlash against BluRay before it can replace DVD's as the consumer standard). so yes, right now you can output protected content via DVI to a display in some cases. but if that flag is ever triggered for a specific piece of content, then you will not be able to do that.
HDCP and AACS are the two halves of the overall DRM system. AACS is the literal DRM for the content files and their decoding. while HDCP is the pathway control after decoding, both within the OS and on the hardware, so you can't somehow hijack and copy the content post-decoding.
the fully-protected Sony PS3 for example will not allow you now to somehow convert its HDMI output to a display via DVI. has to be an HDMI display, which means the display is fully HDCP compliant and won't let you somehow hijack its image.
Gotcha. You literally mean mirroring from your iPhone. Apple already allows this for videos.
Explain to me how I can play Tap Tap Revenge on my iPhone while looking only at my HDTV. There is a problem with going from the sight required touchscreen to now having to guess where your finger will likely end up. If you say you look at the iPhone screen then why have the external display except for others to watch you play the game. What about portrait v. lanscape mode on the TV? What about the length of the cable when using game that require you to move your device rapidly because it uses the accelorometer?
Right, definitely not all iPhone games would work. but SuperMonkeyBall and many others baed mainly on the accelerometer would. and a new generation of games (or revised existing games) better optimized for this setup would soon appear. i didn't mention web browsing, but that would be the other big thing that would be great.
and right, landscape mode obviously would be preferred. but apps in portrait would still work, they just won't be visually enlarged as much.
No cable. has to be wireless, wifi or blutooth connection.
(the next big leap for the digital home will be getting rid of all those damn cables and cords.)
Is there still SDTV? When my grandmother bought her HDTV set last year, I figured the SDTV market was over.
i'm sure most viewership is on SD vontnt even if they ar watching on HDTVs, but I think that most small TVs are still SD. Being higher definition doesn't do much good but evetually the cost for a small HDTV will win out. That is how these things tend to work.
Quote:
On a side note, now that the digital transition is over, are we going to finally see the content providers paying for throughput instead of a per customer basis from the cable companies? Here in NY Food Network and HGTV were pulled because Cablevision isn't paying enough per subscriber.
Their (content providers) revenue streams are drying up because no one feels like paying for advertising on a medium that doesn't guarantee watchers. If the model would switch to network usage per broadcaster, instead of per subscriber, I think you'd see the AppleTV be a Studios favorite. Until then, the big studios aren't sure what they can make off of it, and are steering clear of contracts for it. They don't want to make the same "mistakes" as the music business did
Digital content appears to be growing considerably faster than anything else. My guess is that we'll see TV subsciption packages this way they push their new and unwanted content along with popular content to help boost channel profit. They do thi now but the alÃ* carte model in the hands of the consumer will make this even more pronounced. Perhaps even moving a popular show to an affiliate to balance out popular shows to maximize subsriber numbers. It's what I'd do.
I think we'll see a lot of media extenders at CES this year. Especially ones trying to capitalize on social networking. If you recall the initial AppleTV announcemet: it was called iTV, didn't get demoed for another 6 months, and was released 2 months after that. I feel this was to curry favour with the movie studios to allow content on the device by seeing a secure method and gauging consumer reaction. If that is true, then it didn't work out as planned. I think we'll see an entirely new AppleTV HW and SW in January. They give it up and they can't keep using the antiquanted model they have.
No cable. has to be wireless, wifi or blutooth connection.
Sending 3D graphics to an HDTV over WiFi or BT? Not gonna happen. Your beat bet is hope for an AppleTV with Safari where you use your iPhone wirelessly to ONLY send text and accelorometer data like a Wii control with a virtual keyboard.
As i wrote earlier, the HDCP "flag" that would limit output options for protected content has never actually be activated. (the industry is worried about a consumer backlash against BluRay before it can replace DVD's as the consumer standard). so yes, right now you can output protected content via DVI to a display in some cases. but if that flag is ever triggered for a specific piece of content, then you will not be able to do that.
HDCP and AACS are the two halves of the overall DRM system. AACS is the literal DRM for the content files and their decoding. while HDCP is the pathway control after decoding, both within the OS and on the hardware, so you can't somehow hijack and copy the content post-decoding.
the fully-protected Sony PS3 for example will not allow you now to somehow convert its HDMI output to a display via DVI. has to be an HDMI display, which means the display is fully HDCP compliant and won't let you somehow hijack its image.
I don't understand. It seems to me that the output limitation "flag" has indeed been turned on. For instance, try outputting HDCP compliant iTunes HD content to a non-compliant external screen. It won't play. You get an error message and a blank screen.
Digital content appears to be growing considerably faster than anything else.
What I meant by digital transition was all broadcasts are in fact now digital, meaning networks can be monitored for bandwidth usage just as the internet is. It's all packets now. What I've been saying on here and other places for a while is that they should move off of a content per subscriber model, and perhaps pay for throughput per "channel." Net neutrality, by my definition. Packets are packets whether they carry TV broadcasts or internet data. Or internet TV broadcasts
Let's say a local node of Fox uses 1TB an hour. Cablevision pays Fox for the TB of content, and charges it's customers accordingly for profit. Right now, the model doesn't work that way. By using polls and such, content providers say "oh we have x amount of viewers and you need to pay us y amount for the content then." Cablevision has to charge us to make up for that. The problem now is, advertisers are not paying what they used to, but the networks want more money. Cablevision says they aren't worth it, and are trying to limit price hikes, because they are already gouging us for television subscriptions.
I would assume now that all the information coming into my house is packets, there is in fact a way to know exactly what I'm watching and for how long. By measuring exactly what people use, there is no guesswork, and rates could be established based on true usage information.
I think we'll see a lot of media extenders at CES this year. Especially ones trying to capitalize on social networking. If you recall the initial AppleTV announcemet: it was called iTV, didn't get demoed for another 6 months, and was released 2 months after that. I feel this was to curry favour with the movie studios to allow content on the device by seeing a secure method and gauging consumer reaction. If that is true, then it didn't work out as planned. I think we'll see an entirely new AppleTV HW and SW in January. They give it up and they can't keep using the antiquanted model they have.
I hope we see some news in January concerning an Apple TV upgrade.
I think Apple expected that the movie studios would be all over the Apple TV when it first came out. Kind of like how the music studios teamed up with Apple for iTunes. Apple expected there to be all this content at reasonable prices and that consumers would eat it up. Movies and TV shows would be as successful as music.
Unfortunately it didn't work out very well. The studios were/are too reluctant to give Apple as much control over their content after seeing what happened with the music makers. That left the Apple TV as a very restricted device with limited, over-priced content.
Apple needs to let consumers use their own content with a new Apple TV for it to succeed. CD ripping made the iPod what it is today. The same can happen with a new Apple TV.
Even if Apple can't let people rip their own DVDs with iTunes(due to legalities), they can at least open up iTunes/Front Row/Apple TV to more video formats so people can rip stuff themselves and upload into iTunes. Then iTunes can organize the files and gather the meta-data. The iTunes can stream the media to a new, more open Apple TV.
A lifesaver for those newbies who don't know anything about backing up. However since Time Machine isn't bootable, it's a pale solution to simply cloning your entire boot drive using Carbon Copy Cloner or other which is much superior as it also provides hardware protection as you can 'hold option' and boot from it.
This is true, in part, and because it's only partly true it can be misleading. Because there's no reason why someone can't use cloning software and tm in tandem, because time machine is not meant to be a cloner, but a versions backup. On top of that in super duper you can have a sandboxed version with everything but user files (which shouldn't be more than 20gb now with snow leopard) to boot up at any point and all your files can be catered by tm.
Having never owned an Airport router of any kind, I have to ask those with experience: Are there really any functional advantages to Apple's routers (like ease of setup) that justify the much higher prices?
Well in my own experience, I have used in identical locations: NetGear, Apple, LinkSys, and Belkin wireless routers. In all those areas the Apple routers frankly performed better. It was easier to setup, it had as good or better range than most and has provided range in places where the others didn't, and has encountered fewer issues.
For example in one place I installed a Belkin router and occasionally we just get 5-10 seconds of nothing happening as if the router is stuck. The Apple router in the same spot works flawlessly.
I know these experiences are contrary to some other people which makes me think it depends where you are and what you're doing and possibly even how you arrange the network, but for me the Apple base stations are the only choice in most cases.
I don't understand. It seems to me that the output limitation "flag" has indeed been turned on. For instance, try outputting HDCP compliant iTunes HD content to a non-compliant external screen. It won't play. You get an error message and a blank screen.
forgive the shorthand, this is a complex topic. the "flag" i referred to is for AACS protected content. Apple as you know uses its different FairPlay DRM system for iTunes, which is always in effect. but you are right, the ultimate result is the same, a blank screen. do you also get the blank screen if you use the ATV's component cable connections instead of its HDMI output?
Comments
So many stupid people.
1) "AppleTV should have a DVD player" Why? Don't you already own a DVD player?
Only so many plugs on a TV. Besides, isn't Apple's philosophy combining multiple devices into a single box?
2) "AppleTV should let me import my DVDs" You would have to be living in a cave if you have never heard of HandBrake.
The problem is that 99% of iTunes users live in that cave. And besides, handbrake doesn't always work. The users want an iTunes based solution
One of the main reasons digital music caught on was because you could seamlessly import your library.
3) "AppleTV should be a cable/sat box with DVR." Apple only wants you to buy from iTunes.
And the customers have said no thanks in its current form. So, Apple, what else you got?
Amazing what dreams people have for a low selling product. I highly doubt that Apple spent millions on this hobby. It doesn't take much to write some software and build a cheap logic board based on an outdated Pentium processor.
"Hobby" is a complete and utter copout. It only became a "hobby" after the users rejected it. The dreaded listening to the customers thing turned a very expensive and limited device into Apple's most important product.
Not surprised. The Airport is well built and stylish, but prohibitively expensive. Knock $50 off of it and the 1TB time capsule as well as $100 off the 2TB capsule and they would sell very well.
As for AppleTV. Unless the movie studios permit Apple to give it the ability to import your DVDs, its not going to catch on, especially at $230. In a lineup of integrated multi-use devices, its a one trick pony that requires a separate DVD or Blu-ray player for your current movies, a PVR for recording your shows or games, and video game console if you want to do that. Combine one, two, or all of these features, or integrate it into TVs and it would sell much better.
totally agree Ben... the price needs to be dropped, capacity increased to at least 1tb and bluray functionality added along with FREESAT so we can move away from SKY in UK
Apple got the ipod market, phone market but are missing out on "one box under tv" market.
but unlike cheap handhelds once you have sold 1 ATV you may buy one for the bedroom but not more unless required, Apple are probably thinking how we can get more money from us.
ooops just saw above post as well... we share the same sentiments, atv is pretty crap as it is (agreed its highly polished for what it can do) but we need the above functionality to take stage under the plasma/lcd/oled whatever we have chosen as our media
In the US and many other countries it is illegal to make, sell or distribute any software/hardware that will let you circumvent copy protection systems such as the copy protection on DVD movies. In the US this is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
RealNetworks is challenging this in the courts so it might change in future; however for now, Apple is by federal law not allowed to add the ability to import a DVD to either iTunes or the AppleTV.
Macs already have HDCP in the hardware as you can run Windows on a Mac with a BRD an play at full resolution. If You say Apple won't support it on OS X then that excludes the AppleTV which happens to be the closest flavour of OS X to Mac OS.
in that case the HDCP is contained within the running Windows OS, not OS X. the only hardware aspect of HDCP is the HDMI output - which Macs don't have. yes, AppleTV is HDCP compliant, including the HDMI output. it is running a version of Tiger, OS X 10.4, which clearly has been modified accordingly.
"AppleTV should let me import my DVDs"
In the US and many other countries it is illegal to make, sell or distribute any software/hardware that will let you circumvent copy protection systems such as the copy protection on DVD movies. In the US this is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
RealNetworks is challenging this in the courts so it might change in future; however for now, Apple is by federal law not allowed to add the ability to import a DVD to either iTunes or the AppleTV.
Not exactly. yes, it is illegal to copy a copyrighted DVD. but it is perfectly legal to copy any non-copyrighted DVD. like one you made yourself from your camcorder video. and making/copying DVD's of TV shows you already recorded on a DVR is a gray zone.
Roxio's Toast already has all this parsed into a specific set of options for its DVD copying functions which have been validated as legal, so i suggest you check its manual for the details.
Whatever Roxio is doing, Apple could do as well.
in that case the HDCP is contained within the running Windows OS, not OS X. the only hardware aspect of HDCP is the HDMI output - which Macs don't have. yes, AppleTV is HDCP compliant, including the HDMI output. it is running a version of Tiger, OS X 10.4, which clearly has been modified accordingly.
You're forgetting DVI and DP use of HDCP. I think your confusing AACS and HDCP.
Plus, doesn't iTS HD content use HDCP?
Not exactly. yes, it is illegal to copy a copyrighted DVD. but it is perfectly legal to copy any non-copyrighted DVD. like one you made yourself from your camcorder video. and making/copying DVD's of TV shows you already recorded on a DVR is a gray zone.
Roxio's Toast already has all this parsed into a specific set of options for its DVD copying functions which have been validated as legal, so i suggest you check its manual for the details.
Whatever Roxio is doing, Apple could do as well.
Think about what you're saying. Where did this non-copyrighted DVD from a camcorder come from? Likely from a PC after the file was uploaded onto the HDD then edited, perhaps with iMovie. If you already have I there and you already have a media extender, then why go out of your way to burn a DVD just to play it in said media extender? It's illogical. Plus, how many ODD players does one need in their home entertainment system?
I'd like to see 3rd-party apps for the AppleTV but I think one of two things need to happen first.
1) They need to get a large enough user base in plae so developers will come.
2) They'll need to alter te iPhone SDK in some very amazing ways in order to simulate every touch screen action with a remote if you expect every game to simple work great on the AppleTV. Frankly, I don't see it.
i don't understand. if AppleTV could mirror your iPhone screen on a TV, then effectively the apps already exist for it. the only issue is the screen resolution. 480x320p won't look good on a TV.
The AppleTV could upscale iPhone apps display to better than SD quality 720x480p, which would be better than the Wii. it already has such upscaling capability built in.
that would all be compatible with iPhone 3.x.
but alternatively, if a new higher resolution optional iPhone app display spec is going to be established for the new Tablet and iPhone 4.x, like 1080x720p, that of course would look really good on your HDTV too. and the AppleTV already is optimized for 720p content display.
and the rumor is that Apple has already asked some iPhone app developers for higher resolution demos to show off this month.
and of course, the basic idea is the iPhone itself would be the remote control. the apps could be actually running just on the iPhone. all the AppleTV would need to do is "sling" the iPhone screen image to your TV. we know the iPhone screen display can be outputted already by cable (there is an app now to do that on jailbroken iPhones). so all that is needed is to do it wirelessly (blutooth or wifi).
I am sure the HDTV market gets more accepted every day, but what is the current marketshare compared to SDTV or EDTV? I?d say it?s high enough to not worry about it. You also have to consider that Apple isn?t selling the device to everyone who has a TV but to everyone who buys Apple?s premium products, which would more likely fall to people that started buying HDTV many years ago.
Is there still SDTV? When my grandmother bought her HDTV set last year, I figured the SDTV market was over.
On a side note, now that the digital transition is over, are we going to finally see the content providers paying for throughput instead of a per customer basis from the cable companies? Here in NY Food Network and HGTV were pulled because Cablevision isn't paying enough per subscriber.
Their (content providers) revenue streams are drying up because no one feels like paying for advertising on a medium that doesn't guarantee watchers. If the model would switch to network usage per broadcaster, instead of per subscriber, I think you'd see the AppleTV be a Studios favorite. Until then, the big studios aren't sure what they can make off of it, and are steering clear of contracts for it. They don't want to make the same "mistakes" as the music business did
i don't understand. if AppleTV could mirror your iPhone screen on a TV, then effectively the apps already exist for it. the only issue is the screen resolution. 480x320p won't look good on a TV.
Gotcha. You literally mean mirroring from your iPhone. Apple already allows this for videos.
Explain to me how I can play Tap Tap Revenge on my iPhone while looking only at my HDTV. There is a problem with going from the sight required touchscreen to now having to guess where your finger will likely end up. If you say you look at the iPhone screen then why have the external display except for others to watch you play the game. What about portrait v. lanscape mode on the TV? What about the length of the cable when using game that require you to move your device rapidly because it uses the accelorometer?
You're forgetting DVI and DP use of HDCP. I think your confusing AACS and HDCP.
Plus, doesn't iTS HD content use HDCP?
As i wrote earlier, the HDCP "flag" that would limit output options for protected content has never actually be activated. (the industry is worried about a consumer backlash against BluRay before it can replace DVD's as the consumer standard). so yes, right now you can output protected content via DVI to a display in some cases. but if that flag is ever triggered for a specific piece of content, then you will not be able to do that.
HDCP and AACS are the two halves of the overall DRM system. AACS is the literal DRM for the content files and their decoding. while HDCP is the pathway control after decoding, both within the OS and on the hardware, so you can't somehow hijack and copy the content post-decoding.
the fully-protected Sony PS3 for example will not allow you now to somehow convert its HDMI output to a display via DVI. has to be an HDMI display, which means the display is fully HDCP compliant and won't let you somehow hijack its image.
Gotcha. You literally mean mirroring from your iPhone. Apple already allows this for videos.
Explain to me how I can play Tap Tap Revenge on my iPhone while looking only at my HDTV. There is a problem with going from the sight required touchscreen to now having to guess where your finger will likely end up. If you say you look at the iPhone screen then why have the external display except for others to watch you play the game. What about portrait v. lanscape mode on the TV? What about the length of the cable when using game that require you to move your device rapidly because it uses the accelorometer?
Right, definitely not all iPhone games would work. but SuperMonkeyBall and many others baed mainly on the accelerometer would. and a new generation of games (or revised existing games) better optimized for this setup would soon appear. i didn't mention web browsing, but that would be the other big thing that would be great.
and right, landscape mode obviously would be preferred. but apps in portrait would still work, they just won't be visually enlarged as much.
No cable. has to be wireless, wifi or blutooth connection.
(the next big leap for the digital home will be getting rid of all those damn cables and cords.)
Is there still SDTV? When my grandmother bought her HDTV set last year, I figured the SDTV market was over.
i'm sure most viewership is on SD vontnt even if they ar watching on HDTVs, but I think that most small TVs are still SD. Being higher definition doesn't do much good but evetually the cost for a small HDTV will win out. That is how these things tend to work.
On a side note, now that the digital transition is over, are we going to finally see the content providers paying for throughput instead of a per customer basis from the cable companies? Here in NY Food Network and HGTV were pulled because Cablevision isn't paying enough per subscriber.
Their (content providers) revenue streams are drying up because no one feels like paying for advertising on a medium that doesn't guarantee watchers. If the model would switch to network usage per broadcaster, instead of per subscriber, I think you'd see the AppleTV be a Studios favorite. Until then, the big studios aren't sure what they can make off of it, and are steering clear of contracts for it. They don't want to make the same "mistakes" as the music business did
Digital content appears to be growing considerably faster than anything else. My guess is that we'll see TV subsciption packages this way they push their new and unwanted content along with popular content to help boost channel profit. They do thi now but the alÃ* carte model in the hands of the consumer will make this even more pronounced. Perhaps even moving a popular show to an affiliate to balance out popular shows to maximize subsriber numbers. It's what I'd do.
I think we'll see a lot of media extenders at CES this year. Especially ones trying to capitalize on social networking. If you recall the initial AppleTV announcemet: it was called iTV, didn't get demoed for another 6 months, and was released 2 months after that. I feel this was to curry favour with the movie studios to allow content on the device by seeing a secure method and gauging consumer reaction. If that is true, then it didn't work out as planned. I think we'll see an entirely new AppleTV HW and SW in January. They give it up and they can't keep using the antiquanted model they have.
No cable. has to be wireless, wifi or blutooth connection.
Sending 3D graphics to an HDTV over WiFi or BT? Not gonna happen. Your beat bet is hope for an AppleTV with Safari where you use your iPhone wirelessly to ONLY send text and accelorometer data like a Wii control with a virtual keyboard.
As i wrote earlier, the HDCP "flag" that would limit output options for protected content has never actually be activated. (the industry is worried about a consumer backlash against BluRay before it can replace DVD's as the consumer standard). so yes, right now you can output protected content via DVI to a display in some cases. but if that flag is ever triggered for a specific piece of content, then you will not be able to do that.
HDCP and AACS are the two halves of the overall DRM system. AACS is the literal DRM for the content files and their decoding. while HDCP is the pathway control after decoding, both within the OS and on the hardware, so you can't somehow hijack and copy the content post-decoding.
the fully-protected Sony PS3 for example will not allow you now to somehow convert its HDMI output to a display via DVI. has to be an HDMI display, which means the display is fully HDCP compliant and won't let you somehow hijack its image.
I don't understand. It seems to me that the output limitation "flag" has indeed been turned on. For instance, try outputting HDCP compliant iTunes HD content to a non-compliant external screen. It won't play. You get an error message and a blank screen.
Digital content appears to be growing considerably faster than anything else.
What I meant by digital transition was all broadcasts are in fact now digital, meaning networks can be monitored for bandwidth usage just as the internet is. It's all packets now. What I've been saying on here and other places for a while is that they should move off of a content per subscriber model, and perhaps pay for throughput per "channel." Net neutrality, by my definition. Packets are packets whether they carry TV broadcasts or internet data. Or internet TV broadcasts
Let's say a local node of Fox uses 1TB an hour. Cablevision pays Fox for the TB of content, and charges it's customers accordingly for profit. Right now, the model doesn't work that way. By using polls and such, content providers say "oh we have x amount of viewers and you need to pay us y amount for the content then." Cablevision has to charge us to make up for that. The problem now is, advertisers are not paying what they used to, but the networks want more money. Cablevision says they aren't worth it, and are trying to limit price hikes, because they are already gouging us for television subscriptions.
I would assume now that all the information coming into my house is packets, there is in fact a way to know exactly what I'm watching and for how long. By measuring exactly what people use, there is no guesswork, and rates could be established based on true usage information.
I think we'll see a lot of media extenders at CES this year. Especially ones trying to capitalize on social networking. If you recall the initial AppleTV announcemet: it was called iTV, didn't get demoed for another 6 months, and was released 2 months after that. I feel this was to curry favour with the movie studios to allow content on the device by seeing a secure method and gauging consumer reaction. If that is true, then it didn't work out as planned. I think we'll see an entirely new AppleTV HW and SW in January. They give it up and they can't keep using the antiquanted model they have.
I hope we see some news in January concerning an Apple TV upgrade.
I think Apple expected that the movie studios would be all over the Apple TV when it first came out. Kind of like how the music studios teamed up with Apple for iTunes. Apple expected there to be all this content at reasonable prices and that consumers would eat it up. Movies and TV shows would be as successful as music.
Unfortunately it didn't work out very well. The studios were/are too reluctant to give Apple as much control over their content after seeing what happened with the music makers. That left the Apple TV as a very restricted device with limited, over-priced content.
Apple needs to let consumers use their own content with a new Apple TV for it to succeed. CD ripping made the iPod what it is today. The same can happen with a new Apple TV.
Even if Apple can't let people rip their own DVDs with iTunes(due to legalities), they can at least open up iTunes/Front Row/Apple TV to more video formats so people can rip stuff themselves and upload into iTunes. Then iTunes can organize the files and gather the meta-data. The iTunes can stream the media to a new, more open Apple TV.
Time Machine:
A lifesaver for those newbies who don't know anything about backing up. However since Time Machine isn't bootable, it's a pale solution to simply cloning your entire boot drive using Carbon Copy Cloner or other which is much superior as it also provides hardware protection as you can 'hold option' and boot from it.
This is true, in part, and because it's only partly true it can be misleading. Because there's no reason why someone can't use cloning software and tm in tandem, because time machine is not meant to be a cloner, but a versions backup. On top of that in super duper you can have a sandboxed version with everything but user files (which shouldn't be more than 20gb now with snow leopard) to boot up at any point and all your files can be catered by tm.
There are a lot of options.
Having never owned an Airport router of any kind, I have to ask those with experience: Are there really any functional advantages to Apple's routers (like ease of setup) that justify the much higher prices?
Well in my own experience, I have used in identical locations: NetGear, Apple, LinkSys, and Belkin wireless routers. In all those areas the Apple routers frankly performed better. It was easier to setup, it had as good or better range than most and has provided range in places where the others didn't, and has encountered fewer issues.
For example in one place I installed a Belkin router and occasionally we just get 5-10 seconds of nothing happening as if the router is stuck. The Apple router in the same spot works flawlessly.
I know these experiences are contrary to some other people which makes me think it depends where you are and what you're doing and possibly even how you arrange the network, but for me the Apple base stations are the only choice in most cases.
I don't understand. It seems to me that the output limitation "flag" has indeed been turned on. For instance, try outputting HDCP compliant iTunes HD content to a non-compliant external screen. It won't play. You get an error message and a blank screen.
forgive the shorthand, this is a complex topic. the "flag" i referred to is for AACS protected content. Apple as you know uses its different FairPlay DRM system for iTunes, which is always in effect. but you are right, the ultimate result is the same, a blank screen. do you also get the blank screen if you use the ATV's component cable connections instead of its HDMI output?