quinney wrote: »
Does the Roku have a way of selecting what gets shared from your library? For such a low price, I was thinking of buying one just for HBOGo, since the iPad HBOGo app doesn't support AirPlay video and I don't have a Mac which supports AirPlay mirroring yet.
solipsismx wrote: »
It does seem like a bug to me but since there is that line between Share my library on my local network and Home Sharing... which has me wondering if they are, in fact, different services. I can't say I fully understand Home Sharing compared to the Library sharing we had previously. I just want to have certain content accessible from the Apple TV and I want it to be simple. Except for the ease of AirPlay I wondered if perhaps a Roku might have been a better fit for me.
andysol wrote: »
Yes- it does have a way to view library, but not sure if you can delegate what- you might pop on a roku forum for clarification.
It not only has HBO go, but also Amazon instant video. I've thought about trying one too for when I travel. If I like it enough I might switch. Have 3 ATV 3s right now- but I keep holding out getting a roku because I think they'll add HBO and amazon as soon as I leave. A radio streamer (roku has pandora) would be great too as opposed to the terrible "stations" we get with ATV. Doses anybody even use those?
dasanman69 wrote: »
I love my Roku and Amazon has the top one on sale for $79.99.
solipsismx wrote: »
I won't give up the Apple TV because of AirPlay but the Roku is a solid device for the price. I like that they have a Pandora app unlike the AppleTV. They also have a nifty app to let you use your iDevice as a remote control.
dasanman69 wrote: »
There's no reason you can't diversify. No need to give one up for the other.
solipsismx wrote: »
I don't have any more free HDMI ports, but even if I did I wouldn't want both.
the same could be said about the Mobile industry. I pay WAAAAY more for my Voice plan than i use. I did the math and of my ATT voice plan (450min. base plan) I actually use only 178 minutes per month on average (and most of that is telemarketers, which I can't seem to shake, even when registering to DNC list). Plus I have free mobile to mobile and about 5000 roll-over minutes built-up that I never use! ATT should be refunding me each month since I have so many free minutes rolled over, but they don't and I have probably a couple years worth of minutes I'll never get back that I've already paid for.
Point is, apple didn't change the way the service providers charge it's customers, and it's very likely that this "rumored" TV system won't change the way your TV providers do business either. They would never agree to partnering with Apple if they lost some of at free money they get back with all these bogus channels they add in the bundled packages. And I think that's the #1 reason we haven't seen a full-fledged Apple TV service yet.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is intentionally smoking out the competition. My theory behind this speculation is this:
Apple has been [rumored] trying to lobby and sweet-talk the media companies to allow content contracts with [whatever this new TV is] and getting nowhere. My thought is that since everybody and their uncle is trying to one-up Apple before they release something, they too are trying to shoe-horn a deal with the same media companies. With all this interest in penning deals with the Media Companies, they (big Media) will finally see a possible market in licensing out content to the Tech Industry...waiting for that sweet deal. And finally realizing that Apple's proposals were probably the best deal to be had, given the resounding acceptance of the Apple Ecosystem. So while all the other Tech companies try and fail to ink contracts with Big Media, Apple will squeeze in after they've smoked-out the competition and emerge with "Le Grande Travaux".
Now, whether this is Comcast to start with or the Major Networks is the real question. IMO, I think for Apple to ink any partnership (which let's face it, this will have to happen at the beginning...a la, AT&T), it will have to start with the Service Providers and not the Media Giants. The Cellular Model they used for the iPhone is probably the most likely scenario for TV/Cable. They provide the fastest signals and are the most wide reaching. But, I don't see this as a TiVO model though, since I think that business model has already proved to be less than stellar. I see it more as as Apple Providing the Box (like Motorola currently does) and making this model a "Premium" service for the Cable companies to offer as an Alternative. Therein lies the problem for Apple. They still don't have control over the content and Customer Experience...hence why we probably still haven't seen an Apple Television yet.
Whatever and whenever it happens, I see it as this...but something tells me that TV isn't going to be the entire focus of this [rumored] product. I see it as much more than just a TV. I see it more at a home network that links your TV and your devices to a central system...a home server or even a "Home Automation" system that's accessible from any Apple device, be it an iOS and/or OSX device. That's really the 2nd most important feature I believe will be the success of an Apple Television...I still think this idea of an "iPanel" will be what makes it stand out from the competition.
They already are talking to the Content Providers. Cook met with Time Warner a while back, as well as CEOs of Big Media.
We have seen this (the 2nd part of your quote) happen with Cellular as well. Most Smartphone users use much more Data than Voice already, yet pay huge fees for Voice. Same as Cable. You watch a few key channels but the rest if just crap you never watch...yet pay out the wazzoo for only a few channels.
What I'd like to see, is a all the Major Networks (HBO, NBC, CBS, Disney, etc...) provide Apps for the Apple TV STB where you can watch the "over-Air" content for free, then offer "In App" subscriptions to their other networks that you normally see on Cable for subscription fee. That would be the exact model of traditional Cable, but with A-La-Carte subscriptions.
I'm really shocked they haven't done this already. Seems to me like a really Winning Model.
Someone else posted this link, but I think it's exactly along the lines of some of my thinking: http://www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/
The problem is content. There is not enough quality content available. Unfortunately the arts have not been a priority and even if they were there just aren't that many talented people around, at least enough to provide the entertainment some want for next to nothing. People do not want to pay for content. Content owners don't want to give it away. The path in between is the least of the problems. The current cable companies have done nothing interesting for over 50 years. Tweaking their systems with a nice GUI is not going to get you better programming. Having a la carte pay structures will only lead to an increase in the cost of the better offerings and the death of the poor ones which provide a support structure for the artists. The whole thing is a mess. You've got government, huge companies, media content owners and struggling artists. Does anyone really think that rearranging some electronics is going to fix anything?