Yeah, but you can always sell it, take a loss and buy something else. You still have time to redeem yourself. LOL. I'm sure people will forgive you for buying a Samsung labeled product. Just tell people you had a were temporarily insane, that usually works, or some commissioned rep forced you to buy it. That usually works. :-)
Fair play to LG for not just using Android. WebOs is still open source and LG make phones so maybe we'll see it rise again. Anything that isn't Android is good by me.
The future is NOT in a OS Powered TV monitor. The problem is that people don't buy TV monitors frequently. They buy them about every 10 years. Thus the hardware (including CPU and GPU) is going to age and get slower compared to the competitions.
The Competition is Apple TV. Apple TV is inexpensive and can be replaced every 1-2 years. Its hardware will always be competitive with the competition. Once it gets gaming and downloadable apps capabilities, it will KILL the competition.
One can always hope that Apple actually does something innovative with the Apple TV. Jailbreakers are the ones who are innovating in this area. it is too bad that they haven't cracked the ATV3. Unless Apple does something or a jailbreak shows up for the ATV3, the world is going to move on to different hardware.
They already had their own OS - Bada - so they didn't need to spend money to acquire WebOS.
I guess the only question there would be which would be the better choice and how much it would have cost them to pick up WebOS. Maybe they did look at it and determined it wasn't worth it. I think they would have been one of the only companies to actually take it and turn it into a full ecosystem ala Apple.
Is Samsung really moving forward yet with Bada (I haven't followed it at all) or does it seem to be more of a failsafe in case Google/Android turn on them?
I am in the market for a second tv box and I'm patiently waiting for Apple to do something with their hobby. Right now, beyond itunes rentals, the ATV doesn't do anything more than my smart TV does.
Wasn't meant as a bait at all.
I am in the market for a second tv box and I'm patiently waiting for Apple to do something with their hobby. Right now, beyond itunes rentals, the ATV doesn't do anything more than my smart TV does.
Wasn't meant as a bait at all.
I am in the market for a second tv box and I'm patiently waiting for Apple to do something with their hobby. Right now, beyond itunes rentals, the ATV doesn't do anything more than my smart TV does.
Needing, no. Using vertically integrated solutions to make you interaction between device more natural and fluid, yes.
I really can't believe that you're scoffing Apple's AirPlay as a failure of technology. Shame on you. :no:
Interactions is one thing, if you have photos, videos, or music that you'd like to show on a TV then AirPlay is an elegant solution. What i don't think is a elegant solution is having to stream media to one device and then sending it to another.
You're confusing needing with having and full with optional.
How do you figure? I know that Apple TV has many features and functions on it's own but for it to function at it's fullest potential a second device is needed.
What i don't think is a elegant solution is having to stream media to one device and then sending it to another.
I have no idea what you mean by this and how using the remote that came with your SmartTV is better than being able to have all the increased features and usability options that occur between the Apple TV, Mac and iDevices.
How do you figure? I know that Apple TV has many features and functions on it's own but for it to function at it's fullest potential a second device is needed.
Function at its fullest potential? A second device is needed? Don't imply that it's a hobbled device that can't function unless you buy other products. So the iPhone can't function to its fullest unless you have an Apple TV because otherwise AirPlay goes unused. You're talking like a shill that is trying to slam Apple for actually making devices that work much better when paired with ecosystem. None of the devices are crap on their own but they are all much, much better when paired. Can't say the same for other vendors.
I have no idea what you mean by this and how using the remote that came with your SmartTV is better than being able to have all the increased features and usability options that occur between the Apple TV, Mac and iDevices.
I don't need the remote, I can go to the TV and change channels, adjust the volume, choose a different input, etc but if I want to watch HBO GO on my TV I have to first stream it to a iDevice and then stream the stream to Apple TV via AirPlay. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that render the iDevice useless to anyone that might want to use it?
I don't need the remote, I can go to the TV and change channels, adjust the volume, choose a different input, etc but if I want to watch HBO GO on my TV I have to first stream it to a iDevice and then stream the stream to Apple TV via AirPlay. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that render the iDevice useless to anyone that might want to use it?
You're talking about HBO GO, the most desired feature that the Apple TV doesn't natively support. That doesn't prove that the Apple TV or hobbled or any other pejorative comment simply because it's better when added to a rich ecosystem.
Also, you haven't proven that the stream from HBO, goes to your iDevice, and then to the Apple TV. I don't use that app but network data I've grabbed from pushing other data via AirPlay have shown that the Apple TV doesn't get the data routed to it from the iDevice or Mac, but gets it directly from the internet with the iDevice acting as a controller (note the included remote is also a working remote during this). It's much more inline with VoIP which uses SIP for initiation and control and using RTP for connecting the two end points for data.
I never thought I'd see the day where people claim that an interconnected, easy to use ecosystem of connected devices is bad for computing. This is what I've always want since a child as sci-fi stories made the future of tech more seamless. Now I am reading people want their options to be fewer and more complex. :no:
Yes i have both. If you're thinking about airplay. Yes i have used it but can't say i'm happy with that approach.
Not happy with that approach? It's better to have to use a simple remote control to then plug away at a directional controller to type in the name of something you already have seen on your Mac or iDevice and can load on your Apple TV with a whooping 2 seconds of gestures?
I never thought I'd see the day where people claim that an interconnected, easy to use ecosystem of connected devices is bad for computing. This is what I've always want since a child as sci-fi stories made the future of tech more seamless. Now I am reading people want their options to be fewer and more complex.
Not happy with that approach? It's better to have to use a simple remote control to then plug away at a directional controller to type in the name of something you already have seen on your Mac or iDevice and can load on your Apple TV with a whooping 2 seconds of gestures?
Maybe rather than flapping your gums you should check out what a jailbroke ATV2 is capable of. If the hackers can add that much functionality, why the HL can't apple.
Comments
It was the wife!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
WebOS is definitely going to die now.
The future is NOT in a OS Powered TV monitor. The problem is that people don't buy TV monitors frequently. They buy them about every 10 years. Thus the hardware (including CPU and GPU) is going to age and get slower compared to the competitions.
The Competition is Apple TV. Apple TV is inexpensive and can be replaced every 1-2 years. Its hardware will always be competitive with the competition. Once it gets gaming and downloadable apps capabilities, it will KILL the competition.
One can always hope that Apple actually does something innovative with the Apple TV. Jailbreakers are the ones who are innovating in this area. it is too bad that they haven't cracked the ATV3. Unless Apple does something or a jailbreak shows up for the ATV3, the world is going to move on to different hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
They already had their own OS - Bada - so they didn't need to spend money to acquire WebOS.
I guess the only question there would be which would be the better choice and how much it would have cost them to pick up WebOS. Maybe they did look at it and determined it wasn't worth it. I think they would have been one of the only companies to actually take it and turn it into a full ecosystem ala Apple.
Is Samsung really moving forward yet with Bada (I haven't followed it at all) or does it seem to be more of a failsafe in case Google/Android turn on them?
Originally Posted by tjwal
One can always hope that Apple actually does something innovative with the Apple TV.
3/10; this is terrible baiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
3/10; this is terrible baiting.
Wasn't meant as a bait at all.
I am in the market for a second tv box and I'm patiently waiting for Apple to do something with their hobby. Right now, beyond itunes rentals, the ATV doesn't do anything more than my smart TV does.
Do you not own an iPad or iPhone?
What? You have a TV with Optical out?
Because of course needing a second device for full functionality is an elegant solution.
Needing, no. Using vertically integrated solutions to make you interaction between device more natural and fluid, yes.
I really can't believe that you're scoffing Apple's AirPlay as a failure of technology. Shame on you. :no:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Because of course needing a second device for full functionality is an elegant solution.
You're confusing needing with having and full with optional.
Interactions is one thing, if you have photos, videos, or music that you'd like to show on a TV then AirPlay is an elegant solution. What i don't think is a elegant solution is having to stream media to one device and then sending it to another.
How do you figure? I know that Apple TV has many features and functions on it's own but for it to function at it's fullest potential a second device is needed.
I have no idea what you mean by this and how using the remote that came with your SmartTV is better than being able to have all the increased features and usability options that occur between the Apple TV, Mac and iDevices.
Function at its fullest potential? A second device is needed? Don't imply that it's a hobbled device that can't function unless you buy other products. So the iPhone can't function to its fullest unless you have an Apple TV because otherwise AirPlay goes unused. You're talking like a shill that is trying to slam Apple for actually making devices that work much better when paired with ecosystem. None of the devices are crap on their own but they are all much, much better when paired. Can't say the same for other vendors.
I don't need the remote, I can go to the TV and change channels, adjust the volume, choose a different input, etc but if I want to watch HBO GO on my TV I have to first stream it to a iDevice and then stream the stream to Apple TV via AirPlay. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that render the iDevice useless to anyone that might want to use it?
Yes i have both. If you're thinking about airplay. Yes i have used it but can't say i'm happy with that approach.
You're talking about HBO GO, the most desired feature that the Apple TV doesn't natively support. That doesn't prove that the Apple TV or hobbled or any other pejorative comment simply because it's better when added to a rich ecosystem.
Also, you haven't proven that the stream from HBO, goes to your iDevice, and then to the Apple TV. I don't use that app but network data I've grabbed from pushing other data via AirPlay have shown that the Apple TV doesn't get the data routed to it from the iDevice or Mac, but gets it directly from the internet with the iDevice acting as a controller (note the included remote is also a working remote during this). It's much more inline with VoIP which uses SIP for initiation and control and using RTP for connecting the two end points for data.
Not happy with that approach? It's better to have to use a simple remote control to then plug away at a directional controller to type in the name of something you already have seen on your Mac or iDevice and can load on your Apple TV with a whooping 2 seconds of gestures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I never thought I'd see the day where people claim that an interconnected, easy to use ecosystem of connected devices is bad for computing. This is what I've always want since a child as sci-fi stories made the future of tech more seamless. Now I am reading people want their options to be fewer and more complex.
Not happy with that approach? It's better to have to use a simple remote control to then plug away at a directional controller to type in the name of something you already have seen on your Mac or iDevice and can load on your Apple TV with a whooping 2 seconds of gestures?
Maybe rather than flapping your gums you should check out what a jailbroke ATV2 is capable of. If the hackers can add that much functionality, why the HL can't apple.