Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!
Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.
720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.
Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel![/QUOTE]
You can't see the difference unless you are sitting too close to the TV or you have a TV that is bigger than 55 inches. That has been proven over and over again. Steve chose the correct aspect ratio for the vast majority of buyers who care more about convenience than specs.
Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).
Now you are beginning to get it.
Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.
It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!
Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.
It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!
Still, 720p doesn't look as good as 1080p on my 92" projection screen.
Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!
Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?
Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?
They are all paid big bucks by LG to sit at home all day and say bad things about Apple.
I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.
The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.
Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.
Disagreement is good. But look at the specs of a Hauppauge 2250. Dual tuner HD content. And they are HDCP compliant. Mine is connected to Brighthouse and I get all the digital content - from cable, not off the air. Your information about tuner cards is a few years old.
Yes, I agree that the Internet is becoming a great source for streaming video. But I also watch streaming Netflix. The quality is acceptable, but is not really even 720p quality. If you don't care about quality, then you'll be happy with streaming video. Downloading then watching is completely different - and extremely time consuming.
I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.
My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement. Therefore, the vision is good, but the timing is not there. Now Steve does keep many things secret. H.264 is a nice codec that can give nice quality at low bitrates. He may very well have something even better up his sleeve that can reduce bitrate and achieve high video quality. But unless he can pull that rabbit out of his hat, iTV will be a nice toy - for some peope.
I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.
What satellite service do you/did you use? I use DirecTV and with a properly aligned Slimline 5LNB dish, rain-fade is virtually non-existent. Totally happy with it (and have been for 12 years).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinemagic
My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement.
True. This point is key. When a few households stream a video or TV program here and there, that's one thing, but when the time comes and every household wants to stream HD content at all hours of the day or night, they better have made some improvements with bandwidth or people will unhappy.
The final price is not important. As of now, you pay for lots of stations you never watch. All that is waste.
But with a la carte, you pay ONLY for what you watch, even if at the end of the month you are paying more, there is no waste, and you get exactly what you pay for.
Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.
I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.
The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.
Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
7 months ago this is how your post would have read?
Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the [iPad] has a [full version of Mac OS X, USB, Ethernet and HDMI ports], it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay for a [hobbled tablet] when you can [a tablet with more ports and a full OS]? Same for the rest of the [netbook market]. [Everyone else has been doing] it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their [Windows with built-in touchscreen support] is where it's at. My [Windows tablet] can [do anything my Windows PC can]. It's got [a whole bunch of ports that?ll never use] as well [. just in case. iPad] is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) [tablet]. Even if some [fanboys say reading books on it is great the Kindle is so much better,] we'll see how long that lasts. I love Apple products and own quite a few. I find Apple OS far superior to Microsoft. But the upcoming [iPad] doesn't sound like it's in the league of [tablets using Windows 7].
Granted, I tried to add some flare at an attempt at comedy and don?t know you well on enough on these boards to know your feelings on the iPad then or now, so take it with a grain of salt, Cinemagic, but my point that we shouldn?t judge anything so harshly before it?s had a chance to be tested and use (especially one that is still a rumour) stands.
I appreciate comedy. And as far as the iPad, I did post my disappointment at it's lack of Flash and Jobs comment that it would do the "real internet". "Real Internet" my a**. Flash is part of the Internet - a large part of it. No I don't want to get into a Flash discussion. Flash will not run well on iOS. It does fine on my MacBook Pro, but iOS is different. Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".
Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.
I wish DirecTV would offer an a la carte package. Not saying I would pay more for it, just that I'd much prefer to weed out all the crap. If anything, I'd love an HD only package at some kind of savings because all the channels I watch are available in HD. I never watch any of the SD channels and would just assume not have to pay the $10 HD access fee as I would only have HD channels and would be paying specifically for an HD package. Hey, a $10 savings would be better than nothing.
Actually, also a "game changer" in the sense that when it came out no one did stuff like this, and now the most popular way to share iPods outside of sharing earbuds is to plug one into the top of some mini stereo system like this.
So while the product failed, the concept was ahead of it's time and caught on like wildfire (a few years later), actually.
There were tons of similar products when the hifi came out. That's a big part of the reason it failed.
Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".
This is a for a different article but since this thread I a day old I'll respond to it. What defines the full Internet? If we include propritary plugins do we include all plugins? What about Real or ActiveX, etc? If we include propritary plugins that have x% marketshare do we than not have to exclude every mobile device at the time of the iPad announcement and launch as Flash I now only out for Android if it's version 2.2 and if it's on a few select Android phones?
It seems to me that the definition of open web standards is more than adequate for Jobs definition of a mobile device.
PS: I returned my iPad because it did not suit my needs, but I think it's a brilliant device that meets the computing needs of a great many users... Just not 'us' in its current form.
What is the chance that existing AppleTV owners get the software update?
Can Apple dare ditch the existing customers? But if coming revision is completely different from the existing version, will just a software update push older hardware to get the infamous Apple Approved tag?
Comments
Oh, you mean people with half a brain?
no, not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out that the mindset is different.
Jobs knows what he's doing.
Of course he knows exactly what he is doing.
Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!
I mean, why get a beautiful new 1080p TV and feed it only 720p content? That makes absolutely no sense.
.
Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.
720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.
no, not trying to be derogatory, just pointing out that the mindset is different.
No need to clarify. I didn't think you were being derogatory, I was just making a poor attempt at humor?
Nobody can see any difference between 1080 and 720. All the best scientists agree.
720 is just like a retina display at the correct viewing angle.
Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel![/QUOTE]
You can't see the difference unless you are sitting too close to the TV or you have a TV that is bigger than 55 inches. That has been proven over and over again. Steve chose the correct aspect ratio for the vast majority of buyers who care more about convenience than specs.
Well anything can be "just like a retina display" at the correct viewing angle or distance as long as you're beyond the threshold of being able to differentiate the pixels (or resolution).
Now you are beginning to get it.
Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.
It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!
Now you are beginning to get it.
Steve gave us the best aspect ratio for normal viewing angles. If you want to sit right on top of the TV, then maybe you might notice some slight difference, but normal customers will enjoy the benefits and won't care that if they misuse the equipment, they might see something different.
It just like those people who think that if you hold the iPhone wrong, it doesn't work right. Well hold it right then. Sitting too close to the TV ruins your eyes!
Still, 720p doesn't look as good as 1080p on my 92" projection screen.
Of course he knows exactly what he is doing.
Trying to sell inferior, outdated, highly compressed picture and sound quality to millions of visually challenged iDiots, by wowing them with convenience and a pretty user interface!
iPhones and iPads are good enough for crappy download content, but there is no way I will infest my home theater with such low bitrate drivel!
Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?
Gotta love the posters that try to spin convenience and a user friedly UI as bad things. But that's not all... then he implies that the only content you an use on an Apple device is from the iTunes Store. Where do these people come from?
They are all paid big bucks by LG to sit at home all day and say bad things about Apple.
I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.
The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.
Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.
Disagreement is good. But look at the specs of a Hauppauge 2250. Dual tuner HD content. And they are HDCP compliant. Mine is connected to Brighthouse and I get all the digital content - from cable, not off the air. Your information about tuner cards is a few years old.
Yes, I agree that the Internet is becoming a great source for streaming video. But I also watch streaming Netflix. The quality is acceptable, but is not really even 720p quality. If you don't care about quality, then you'll be happy with streaming video. Downloading then watching is completely different - and extremely time consuming.
I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.
My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement. Therefore, the vision is good, but the timing is not there. Now Steve does keep many things secret. H.264 is a nice codec that can give nice quality at low bitrates. He may very well have something even better up his sleeve that can reduce bitrate and achieve high video quality. But unless he can pull that rabbit out of his hat, iTV will be a nice toy - for some peope.
I used to like satellite, but rain kills the signal. I agree that it's not perfect. Cable is not without its problems either. But both satellite and cable offer far superior video quality and neither can match the quality of a BluRay DVD.
What satellite service do you/did you use? I use DirecTV and with a properly aligned Slimline 5LNB dish, rain-fade is virtually non-existent. Totally happy with it (and have been for 12 years).
My problem is not with Steve Jobs' vision. My problem with AppleTV and iTV is that the current Internet infrastructure will not allow for streaming HD quality to every household as a cable replacement.
True. This point is key. When a few households stream a video or TV program here and there, that's one thing, but when the time comes and every household wants to stream HD content at all hours of the day or night, they better have made some improvements with bandwidth or people will unhappy.
The final price is not important. As of now, you pay for lots of stations you never watch. All that is waste.
But with a la carte, you pay ONLY for what you watch, even if at the end of the month you are paying more, there is no waste, and you get exactly what you pay for.
Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.
I couldn't disagree with you more. First off TV Tuner cards are not HDCP compliant, they have no HDMI inputs and they can only record digital TV off of the air. If you want to pass through a cable box, you are limited to analog. Secondly, the internet is becoming vastly rich with streaming television and movies. ATT Uverse and Verizon FIOS both use a version of IPTV which is television streamed through the internet to a special receiver. I have a ROKU box for netflix streaming and I use it so much, I dumped my cable. ROKU actually has a vast library of channels now (not just netflix) that cover the gamut of everything I want to watch. People have been screaming for alacarte television for quite some time now, and the cable companies have not wanted to spend the resources to make it happen. Now it is finally happening through technology like ROKU and this new Apple TV. This is going to be something people will buy, and for $99, you cant beat it.
The way I read it, networks will be streaming shows to the Apple TV box either free, or with a small subscription fee. Sure, cable is not going away tomorrow, but unless they keep up with the growing trend of network services, they are going to go the way of the transistor radio, and 8-tracks. Cable television is a relic of the past and satellite goes out everytime the wind blows.
Thats my 2 cents worth of opinion. Take it or leave it.
7 months ago this is how your post would have read?Granted, I tried to add some flare at an attempt at comedy and don?t know you well on enough on these boards to know your feelings on the iPad then or now, so take it with a grain of salt, Cinemagic, but my point that we shouldn?t judge anything so harshly before it?s had a chance to be tested and use (especially one that is still a rumour) stands.
I appreciate comedy. And as far as the iPad, I did post my disappointment at it's lack of Flash and Jobs comment that it would do the "real internet". "Real Internet" my a**. Flash is part of the Internet - a large part of it. No I don't want to get into a Flash discussion. Flash will not run well on iOS. It does fine on my MacBook Pro, but iOS is different. Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".
Am sorry but that sounds a bit retarded. Am sure am not the only one who will rather pay for a lot of garbage i dont watch than pay more for only what i want.
Final price might not be important to you since you obviously have a lot of money to throw around but for the average person its the determining factor.
I wish DirecTV would offer an a la carte package. Not saying I would pay more for it, just that I'd much prefer to weed out all the crap. If anything, I'd love an HD only package at some kind of savings because all the channels I watch are available in HD. I never watch any of the SD channels and would just assume not have to pay the $10 HD access fee as I would only have HD channels and would be paying specifically for an HD package. Hey, a $10 savings would be better than nothing.
'Digg founder wants publicity, makes educated guesses based on existing rumours'
Actually, also a "game changer" in the sense that when it came out no one did stuff like this, and now the most popular way to share iPods outside of sharing earbuds is to plug one into the top of some mini stereo system like this.
So while the product failed, the concept was ahead of it's time and caught on like wildfire (a few years later), actually.
There were tons of similar products when the hifi came out. That's a big part of the reason it failed.
There were tons of similar products when the hifi came out. That's a big part of the reason it failed.
I don't believe there were any portable products similar to the iPad Hi-Fi -- ones that could be used as a portable Boom Box.
When I bought mine, I had 2 Boses and a B&O. I was/am able to stream audio to these from a Mac via AirPort Express.
But, the iPod Hi-Fi filled a, then, unique niche -- portable iPod Boom Box.
.
Jobs was right not to put Flash on the iPad. My objection is that, to me, he misrepresented the iPad's Internet ability. The iPad's ability is better than the iPhone, but not close to a computer. I purchased an iPad in spite of my objections. It was fine for a while, but I fell back to using my MacBook Pro 95% of the time. I can see how the iPad can be a "game changer" in a number of aspects. But it wasn't a "game changer" for me. It's useful and I like it, but not a "game changer".
This is a for a different article but since this thread I a day old I'll respond to it. What defines the full Internet? If we include propritary plugins do we include all plugins? What about Real or ActiveX, etc? If we include propritary plugins that have x% marketshare do we than not have to exclude every mobile device at the time of the iPad announcement and launch as Flash I now only out for Android if it's version 2.2 and if it's on a few select Android phones?
It seems to me that the definition of open web standards is more than adequate for Jobs definition of a mobile device.
PS: I returned my iPad because it did not suit my needs, but I think it's a brilliant device that meets the computing needs of a great many users... Just not 'us' in its current form.
What is the chance that existing AppleTV owners get the software update?
Can Apple dare ditch the existing customers? But if coming revision is completely different from the existing version, will just a software update push older hardware to get the infamous Apple Approved tag?