Digg founder says Apple iTV launch in September will 'change everything'

1235713

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 258
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pwj View Post


    I have never and still do not see the value in having a set-top box that can run mobile phone applications. I mean, how are you supposed to interact with an iPhone app when you don't have a capacitive touch screen, an accelerometer, etc.?



    You're missing the point. It isn't "You'll have a bunch of mobile phone apps to play with on your new TV device", it's "There will be thousands of developers creating new (and adapting existing) apps for your new TV device".
  • Reply 82 of 258
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post


    He said market not industry.. Just coz a certain device exist doesn't mean there's a market for it.



    Reread his post
  • Reply 83 of 258
    str1f3str1f3 Posts: 573member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by john galt View Post


    The wooden cabinet you may have found on Wikipedia or wherever was not made or sold by Apple. The Apple I was a single board computer. If you wanted a cabinet, you had to make it yourself.



    You may be right. The first computer I ever used was an Apple IIe/c? in 1984-85.



    I didn't do a wiki search and, from photos I assumed weren't modded later on, it was a wooden cabinet. I only heard from others about the exclusivity and value of the Apple I.



    Even so, I really do believe that the true first personal computer was the Mac/Lisa. When I used the IIe, one needed to learn the command line. With a GUI that changed.
  • Reply 84 of 258
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lepton View Post


    My set of predictions for Apple TV this year have included: Looks like the Apple TV case. Has an HDMI out and an HDNI in. You connect it between your current cable box and the TV - it passes everything through. However, it can overlay its own video on top of the video. The CPU is A4 or better, the OS is iOS 4.1 or better. I expect ethernet and WiFi.



    It can run all apps that run on the iPad, but new apps will be able to do video out with transparency, letting developers make apps that look like tickers across the video screen, widgets, and so on. Apps may also have access to video info such as the program info, closed captions, and audio.



    What I don't see: Apple selling a complete TV; A TV tuner in the device; the ability to record video.



    What I could imagine: An IR blaster for controlling the TV and/or the cable box; An IR receiver that apps can see so a remote can control the device and apps; Apps for iPhone and iPad that control the device.



    No. Hell no.
  • Reply 85 of 258
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    A whole industry of Apple-haters who are not very good at spelling, perhaps?



    I am at the beach on my iPhone not at home on my MBP or at work on my iMac
  • Reply 86 of 258
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,155member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post


    Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the iTV has a tuner and capable of connection to cable or off the air TV, it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay ABC, NBC or CBS for access through iTV when you can get it for free off the air? Same for the rest of the programming. Cable and satellite do it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their Media Center is where it's at. My Media Center can connect to off the air, cable, satellite, DVD, Blu-Ray or Internet sources. It's got a built in DVR as well for all those sources. iTV is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) box. Even if some programmers utilize advertising as a revenue stream instead of subscription fees, 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 Apply TV isn't and the upcoming iTV doesn't sound like it's in the league of Microsoft's Media Center.



    Hilarious! Delusional but hilarious!
  • Reply 87 of 258
    an iOS AppleTV / iTV definately could be successful but storage is a serious concern.

    for a rumored $99 it wouldn't include much storage. Add to that the Cloud isn't ready and wont be for 5-10 years (optimistically). One work around is for it to seamlessly connect with the Time Capsule, though I personally think it makes more since to have 1 device (apple tv + time capsule)



    Streaming videos from my imac to my apple tv is poor and not an acceptable or practical solution. If Apple is serious about iOS / iPad / iphone (and they are!) then don't tie us to a computer!



    the other suggestion I would make is Apple needs to have a universal app ready on day one that turns any smart phone (android, blackberry, windows and iphone) into a remote for apple tv - this gives the new apple tv universal appeal. imagine where apple would be today if ipod hadn't become windows compatible?
  • Reply 88 of 258
    Rose's announcement would irritate me greatly, were it my company. If it was someone inside Apple, they're obviously not following the employee handbook.



    It is possible Rose's announcement is an intentional leak.



    It is possible that Apple intentionally threw Rose some product disinformation, possibly in order to find an existing leak.



    Rose may spend a lot of time hanging out with investors who might be occasionally let in on a secret but don't play by the Apple guidelines regarding company confidential data.



    I don't have any reason to doubt the accuracy of Rose's description of the new product, although the iTV trademark seems to be thoroughly spoken for. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...009:25864l.2.1



    Apple can engineer its own video processors (ala Sigma Designs), the presence for which may explain why such a service might not be 100% interchangeably available for iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and Mac.



    Apple is probably interested in redirecting customer interest away from Youtube.



    Emperor Gregor Vorbarra might say, "Let's just see what happens."
  • Reply 89 of 258
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post


    Are you even aware of what an ignorant response this is? Let me count the ways:



    1) Computers before the Apple and Mac were geek toys.

    2) He didn't start with flash, he started with a hard drive. The iPod owned the space before flash was added.

    3) The iPhone is not relevant as a phone, it is a smartphone. Again, the RIMs of the world were great for businesses, for Mom and the rest of us? Not so much.

    4) I think iPad outsold the cumulative sales of all those laptops without hinges in the first day. Why is that do you think?

    5) Online bookstores existed before Amazon, and Search Engines before Google, and cars before Ford. Get the point?



    There is more to creating a new industry than being the first one to get a product up and running. In truth, very few revolutionary and dominant products appeared sui generis.



    If you're going to challenge and be critical, at least do it intelligently.



    X



    There is no doubt that SJ revolutionized various markets, that is undeniable.



    However, the assertion was that SJ created new industries and your comments do not change the fact that the industries that SJ jobs revoluionized presaged SJ and would still exist without SJ. They oils not look the same nor would they be as profitable. But SJ did not create the personal computer industry nor did he create the smart phone industry
  • Reply 90 of 258
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,294member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 2992 View Post


    every time every each iWhatever will change everything. Gimme a brake now...



    But so far they all have !
  • Reply 91 of 258
    rtm135rtm135 Posts: 310member
    How so? Everything Cinemagic said is correct. Even Apple fanbois have to admit that Windows Media Center > Front Row.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


    Hilarious! Delusional but hilarious!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Cinemagic View Post


    Steve Jobs still doesn't get it. Unless the iTV has a tuner and capable of connection to cable or off the air TV, it's not going to be mainstream. Why pay ABC, NBC or CBS for access through iTV when you can get it for free off the air? Same for the rest of the programming. Cable and satellite do it better and probably cheaper. This is one area where Microsoft is far superior. Their Media Center is where it's at. My Media Center can connect to off the air, cable, satellite, DVD, Blu-Ray or Internet sources. It's got a built in DVR as well for all those sources. iTV is simply an iTunes pay per view (or subscription) box. Even if some programmers utilize advertising as a revenue stream instead of subscription fees, 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 Apply TV isn't and the upcoming iTV doesn't sound like it's in the league of Microsoft's Media Center.



  • Reply 92 of 258
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,223moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aplnub View Post


    What is the chance that existing AppleTV owners get the software update?



    I'd say not likely. The existing ATV is an x86 device whereas iOS is designed for ARM chips. None of the apps would run without translation. I think most ATV users will ditch their box when they see how small the new one is anyway. The old one will be a tough resell when the new one is so cheap - in fact, if anyone here has one, I'd say sell it right now. You can put OS X onto it of course and use it as a cheap server/Mac.



    If you think about the components needed to do this, they can fit inside a plug. Imagine a plug like the iPhone charger with an HDMI port coming out. It can be wifi or have an ethernet port.



    The subsidy model they can use is interesting because if you think about normal TV, you get ads that can be skipped through. For each programme on this, they can show you an iAd or a standard ad that you can't bypass, which means they don't need to use so many ads.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando


    If it includes a web browser then the answer is yes.



    That's going to be a huge selling point. Porn companies don't really have a way to get explicit porn direct to your TV. Not only will they have one now but they'll all have to adopt HTML 5 video.



    TV channels will be websites or Youtube channels. In many ways not having content control or standards can be a bad thing but after a few years of cable TV, you start to see how bad their content is anyway.



    TV needs a shake-up and this is the best way to do it. The pricing model concerns me a bit but if they do pay-per-minute up to a cap then it should be ok. Pay-per-movie will relegate it to the status of an electronic Blockbuster and people will only use it to add to their cable viewing and use it infrequently.
  • Reply 93 of 258
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rezisluh View Post


    Streaming videos from my imac to my apple tv is poor and not an acceptable or practical solution. If Apple is serious about iOS / iPad / iphone (and they are!) then don't tie us to a computer!



    Why isn't streaming from a computer any good?
  • Reply 94 of 258
    Probably won't work for Canadian consumers.



    We are still dealing with 60GB/200GB monthly data caps .
  • Reply 95 of 258
    19841984 Posts: 955member
    I don't buy the "replace your cable box with it" idea when iTunes will never have close to the amount of programming as cable. At any moment there are over 400 programs airing on my cable service, over 10,000 a day. Some are new, some are repeats. Some are popular and others unheard of. National news. Local news. What about live events like sports or award shows like the Grammys that are NEVER released? How about soaps that air every day? What about music rights in shows which are not an issue when broadcast live but face lots of red tape (and are often cut) when released on DVD or for download?
  • Reply 96 of 258
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alandail View Post


    the frist personal computer was the Apple 1



    No it was the commodore PET
  • Reply 97 of 258
    Whooooohaaaa I can't wait...I along with a lot of others would love to see this happen. I just hope there's an update that would let some of these features work with the apple tv that's out now too would be a shame to let those who did purchase be left out to dry :?)
  • Reply 98 of 258
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post


    You may be right. The first computer I ever used was an Apple IIe/c? in 1984-85.



    I didn't do a wiki search and, from photos I assumed weren't modded later on, it was a wooden cabinet. I only heard from others about the exclusivity and value of the Apple I.



    Even so, I really do believe that the true first personal computer was the Mac/Lisa. When I used the IIe, one needed to learn the command line. With a GUI that changed.



    No the first personal computer was the commodore pet released in January of 1977
  • Reply 99 of 258
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,268member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by grking View Post


    X



    There is no doubt that SJ revolutionized various markets, that is undeniable.



    However, the assertion was that SJ created new industries and your comments do not change the fact that the industries that SJ jobs revoluionized presaged SJ and would still exist without SJ. They oils not look the same nor would they be as profitable. But SJ did not create the personal computer industry nor did he create the smart phone industry



    The original comment was not limited to "industry." It included products and markets. You seem to be creating a straw argument by focusing only on the term industry, and construing it in the most narrow way possible. Of course you are right, no one was really arguing that point in the first place. Can you think of any revolutionary products that are associated with one person that didn't have some kind of precursors? Or even an industry out of which they grew?
  • Reply 100 of 258
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post


    How so? Everything Cinemagic said is correct. Even Apple fanbois have to admit that Windows Media Center > Front Row.



    For starters, The AppleTV doesn't use FrontRow, that is only on Mac OS X. I don't understand why you'd jump from the AppleTV to the Mac so I'm going to ignore that and assume you were referring to BackRow.



    WMC has things that are better and thing that aren't. The features and options you find important depends on the type of user you are. For instande, WMC has a virtually infinite number of configurations and options available but it doesn't have the ease of use that even the first AppleTV had. But you're comparing a PC OS and an appliance, which is far from accurate for any comparison. No other media extender OS I've seen matches the look, feel and ease of use of the AppleTV UI. Even now with YouTube access being common on many appliances acting as media extenders the AppleTV has a mug easier to use YouTube player.



    Can you really see the average user choosing to build or buying a desktop and then configuring it (with a mouse and keyboard) before being able to use it? That notion is silly on the face of it. And that's before we take into account variances in HW with go beyond the basic specs. For instance, I'd be concerned with the fan or ODD noise interfering with my "home theater" experience, a common occurrence with buying cheap budget HW, but I doubt many would consider the dB levels when building or buying a device.



    There will always be features and options that companies like Apple can't touch but does not mean there is no value in the products they offer.
Sign In or Register to comment.