Hello. Can someone tell me what is the benefit of this? You need an HBO subscription to watch HBO Go and you must already be a cable/satellite subscriber for ESPN. So, why would anyone watch either channel via their Apple TV (or Roku, etc.) when they can watch them on from their regular cable/satellite box that they're already paying to have?
-Thanks.
Go point. HBOGo makes sense for subscribers since they are not home or maybe lying down outside. But imagine if the Apple TV were to be able to handle the cable feeds directly, then you could have everything under one device. Now that is something I want, integration of everthing in one device, thats would be progress for the TV markets.
Then imagine you could plug in that device on a monitor, then we would have one piece of hardware, no cable mess, all merge into one ecosystem. This is, i think, where the TV should go.
Hello. Can someone tell me what is the benefit of this? You need an HBO subscription to watch HBO Go and you must already be a cable/satellite subscriber for ESPN. So, why would anyone watch either channel via their Apple TV (or Roku, etc.) when they can watch them on from their regular cable/satellite box that they're already paying to have?
-Thanks.
Think of HBO Go as Netflix for HBO content. With it, you get access to all HBO programming. So if you can watch the first season of Big Love at 2am on a Friday regardless if it's airing on the actual HBO channel or not.
For me and my fellow DirecTV subscribers .. this is just more frustrating. DTV has never had access to WatchESPN (amazingly, access is determined by your TV provider, not your internet provider) .. and they are blocking access to HBOGo via Apple TV, although they allow it via other devices.
For me and my fellow DirecTV subscribers .. this is just more frustrating. DTV has never had access to WatchESPN (amazingly, access is determined by your TV provider, not your internet provider) .. and they are blocking access to HBOGo via Apple TV, although they allow it via other devices.
It's ludicrous nonsense; agreed. Apple should be licensing this content completely independently of idiotic telecoms, not giving you a feature that you cannot even USE.
For me and my fellow DirecTV subscribers .. this is just more frustrating. DTV has never had access to WatchESPN (amazingly, access is determined by your TV provider, not your internet provider) .. and they are blocking access to HBOGo via Apple TV, although they allow it via other devices.
HBO to go works for DirecTV now!! Awesome. Thank you DirecTV for allowing this. (as it should be)
HBO to go works for DirecTV now!! Awesome. Thank you DirecTV for allowing this. (as it should be)
Just to be clear, you're saying that DirecTV users can activate Apple TV as an HBO Go device now? I wonder if they released it to work on Roku as well.
Edited to add: Yes, it appears that DirecTV and DirecTV Puerto Rico are indeed listed for the Apple TV, but still not for the Roku.
I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'prolonging the inevitable'. Why are you cheering on the stagnation of technology?
And that's all it was. The leg has been cut off. It's not going to grow back. Quit whining and start physical therapy already. If you hadn't put it off, the gangrene might not have set in and you'd have kept that side of your hip, too.
The metaphor's starting to get a bit complicated, but you know what I'm saying. Without an incentive as powerful as Hollywood media to push the expansion of cheap, uncapped bandwidth... well, we haven't had it. And so we still have the cyclical argument of "Why push 1080p content over the Internet; there's not enough bandwidth for it," and "Why build out faster and cheaper Internet for anyone? There's no content that needs it in the first place."
We'd all have 20 meg connections by now if Hollywood had decided on digital instead of the stopgap that is Blu-ray.
Hilarious.
Hilarious or delusional? Blu-ray is only stopgap because you don't like it. Blu-ray is digital and uses the same codec as digital, so who is really stagnating? Why isn't digital a stopgap until the next thing that comes along that requires us to re-buy our movies?
AT&T and Verizon have been spending billions building out and increasing bandwidth. Cheaper? Nothing is cheaper. They are answerable to shareholders.
Blu-ray is digital and uses the same codec as digital, so who is really stagnating?
People using spinning discs that operate at a fraction of the speed as NAND or even old hard drives.
14x BD-R discs (do they even exist yet, much less burners?) top out at 63 megabytes per second. An SSD writes at 500 megabytes per second. The Mac Pro writes at 1,250 megabytes per second. Blu-ray tops out at 100GB per disc. You could get a 100GB hard drive about a decade ago. You can get 4TB drives now, and while those are slower than SSDs, you can also get up to a terabyte SSD these days. RAID a few HDDs and you'll have speeds close to that of an SSD with all the extra capacity. Try RAIDing Blu-ray discs. You want to access the stuff on multiple Blu-ray discs, you either buy multiple readers or swap the discs out. Who the heck wants to swap out discs?!
Or was that rhetorical? Anyway, Blu-ray are encoded in MP4? Could have sworn they were AVCHD, which is annoying as all get out. I seem to remember my early Blu-ray rips being annoying as all get out, but hey.
Why isn't digital a stopgap until the next thing that comes along that requires us to re-buy our movies?
Because you'll never have to repurchase your movies if they're not in a physical format. Wait, did you really not know the answer to that question?
AT&T and Verizon have been spending billions building out and increasing bandwidth.
HAVE THEY? I haven't noticed. I seriously haven't noticed. Nor any change from any other ISP, really. Verizon stopped their fiber rollout, if I remember right, and pushed it off in some regions to some other ISP (Frontier?), who also isn't doing it. Google wanted to do gigabit fiber, but they don't seem to be expanding anywhere beyond their testbed. Not that anyone with sense would trust Google in the first place, but I genuinely thought that if anyone could get the real ISPs out of their lull, it would be Google. NOPE!
They are answerable to shareholders.
So why aren't shareholders mentioning how speeds are the same, prices are the same, and caps have been put in place in the last, oh, five to ten years? Why aren't shareholders clamoring for gigabit speeds from their ISPs, given that Google has proven that it is possible?
People using spinning discs that operate at a fraction of the speed as NAND or even old hard drives.
14x BD-R discs (do they even exist yet, much less burners?) top out at 63 megabytes per second. An SSD writes at 500 megabytes per second. The Mac Pro writes at 1,250 megabytes per second. Blu-ray tops out at 100GB per disc. You could get a 100GB hard drive about a decade ago. You can get 4TB drives now, and while those are slower than SSDs, you can also get up to a terabyte SSD these days. RAID a few HDDs and you'll have speeds close to that of an SSD with all the extra capacity. Try RAIDing Blu-ray discs. You want to access the stuff on multiple Blu-ray discs, you either buy multiple readers or swap the discs out. Who the heck wants to swap out discs?!
Or was that rhetorical? Anyway, Blu-ray are encoded in MP4? Could have sworn they were AVCHD, which is annoying as all get out. I seem to remember my early Blu-ray rips being annoying as all get out, but hey.
Because you'll never have to repurchase your movies if they're not in a physical format. Wait, did you really not know the answer to that question?
HAVE THEY? I haven't noticed. I seriously haven't noticed. Nor any change from any other ISP, really. Verizon stopped their fiber rollout, if I remember right, and pushed it off in some regions to some other ISP (Frontier?), who also isn't doing it. Google wanted to do gigabit fiber, but they don't seem to be expanding anywhere beyond their testbed. Not that anyone with sense would trust Google in the first place, but I genuinely thought that if anyone could get the real ISPs out of their lull, it would be Google. NOPE!
So why aren't shareholders mentioning how speeds are the same, prices are the same, and caps have been put in place in the last, oh, five to ten years? Why aren't shareholders clamoring for gigabit speeds from their ISPs, given that Google has proven that it is possible?
The spinning is fast enough for top quality audio and video, better than digital. Some blu-rays are encoded with various formats - MPEG-4 AVC, VC-1, MPEG-2. Not repurchasing digital movies? Really? Original iTunes SD downloads do not need repurchasing for HD? Well, BD player still play DVD's.
Haven't notice? Maybe AppleInsider and customers really don't care and just want to complain about it? Maybe Verizon stopped their fiber rollout due to cost or just some conspiracy.
Nope. You'll want to clarify what you mean here. Throw in a "generally" or two and I'll probably agree with you, depending on how you word it.
Not repurchasing digital movies? Really? Original iTunes SD downloads do not need repurchasing for HD? Well, BD player still play DVD's.
Interesting, interesting... And these Blu-ray players magically give you a bunch of extra pixels, do they? Or do you have to buy a Blu-ray copy of the film to actually have that quality, just like a digital copy?
"But upconverting..."
Thanks for making my case for me.
Maybe AppleInsider and customers really don't care and just want to complain about it?
If I only got my news from AppleInsider, I'd think Apple was doomed.
That should be one of the site's tag lines.
Maybe Verizon stopped their fiber rollout due to cost or just some conspiracy.
At least you're open to the possibility that they haven't actually been improving anything at all. That's a good start.
You bring up Verizon fiber rollout and you want to throw out some sarcasm about not improving anything at all. Looks like we all need a good start.
Did you notice that my purpose for bringing it up at all was to state that they're no longer rolling it out? It's literally in the exact same sentence. Did you read the sentence? I want an answer to that last question. Yes or no.
Did you notice that my purpose for bringing it up at all was to state that they're no longer rolling it out? It's literally in the exact same sentence. Did you read the sentence? I want an answer to that last question. Yes or no.
Yes I read the last sentence. Did you? "At least you're open to the possibility that they haven't actually been improving anything at all" [cut and paste]. If they are "no longer rolling it out", they must have started at some point and that would constitute improvement.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
Hello. Can someone tell me what is the benefit of this? You need an HBO subscription to watch HBO Go and you must already be a cable/satellite subscriber for ESPN. So, why would anyone watch either channel via their Apple TV (or Roku, etc.) when they can watch them on from their regular cable/satellite box that they're already paying to have?
-Thanks.
Go point. HBOGo makes sense for subscribers since they are not home or maybe lying down outside. But imagine if the Apple TV were to be able to handle the cable feeds directly, then you could have everything under one device. Now that is something I want, integration of everthing in one device, thats would be progress for the TV markets.
Then imagine you could plug in that device on a monitor, then we would have one piece of hardware, no cable mess, all merge into one ecosystem. This is, i think, where the TV should go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesomorphicman
Hello. Can someone tell me what is the benefit of this? You need an HBO subscription to watch HBO Go and you must already be a cable/satellite subscriber for ESPN. So, why would anyone watch either channel via their Apple TV (or Roku, etc.) when they can watch them on from their regular cable/satellite box that they're already paying to have?
-Thanks.
Think of HBO Go as Netflix for HBO content. With it, you get access to all HBO programming. So if you can watch the first season of Big Love at 2am on a Friday regardless if it's airing on the actual HBO channel or not.
It's ludicrous nonsense; agreed. Apple should be licensing this content completely independently of idiotic telecoms, not giving you a feature that you cannot even USE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tPet
For me and my fellow DirecTV subscribers .. this is just more frustrating. DTV has never had access to WatchESPN (amazingly, access is determined by your TV provider, not your internet provider) .. and they are blocking access to HBOGo via Apple TV, although they allow it via other devices.
HBO to go works for DirecTV now!! Awesome. Thank you DirecTV for allowing this. (as it should be)
Edited to add: Yes, it appears that DirecTV and DirecTV Puerto Rico are indeed listed for the Apple TV, but still not for the Roku.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The ads you don't want to watch nor pay attention to so how is that effective?
Ads are not effective? Lots of companies including Apple pay for these ads. I think these know what they are doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'prolonging the inevitable'. Why are you cheering on the stagnation of technology?
And that's all it was. The leg has been cut off. It's not going to grow back. Quit whining and start physical therapy already. If you hadn't put it off, the gangrene might not have set in and you'd have kept that side of your hip, too.
The metaphor's starting to get a bit complicated, but you know what I'm saying. Without an incentive as powerful as Hollywood media to push the expansion of cheap, uncapped bandwidth... well, we haven't had it. And so we still have the cyclical argument of "Why push 1080p content over the Internet; there's not enough bandwidth for it," and "Why build out faster and cheaper Internet for anyone? There's no content that needs it in the first place."
We'd all have 20 meg connections by now if Hollywood had decided on digital instead of the stopgap that is Blu-ray.
Hilarious.
Hilarious or delusional? Blu-ray is only stopgap because you don't like it. Blu-ray is digital and uses the same codec as digital, so who is really stagnating? Why isn't digital a stopgap until the next thing that comes along that requires us to re-buy our movies?
AT&T and Verizon have been spending billions building out and increasing bandwidth. Cheaper? Nothing is cheaper. They are answerable to shareholders.
People using spinning discs that operate at a fraction of the speed as NAND or even old hard drives.
14x BD-R discs (do they even exist yet, much less burners?) top out at 63 megabytes per second. An SSD writes at 500 megabytes per second. The Mac Pro writes at 1,250 megabytes per second. Blu-ray tops out at 100GB per disc. You could get a 100GB hard drive about a decade ago. You can get 4TB drives now, and while those are slower than SSDs, you can also get up to a terabyte SSD these days. RAID a few HDDs and you'll have speeds close to that of an SSD with all the extra capacity. Try RAIDing Blu-ray discs. You want to access the stuff on multiple Blu-ray discs, you either buy multiple readers or swap the discs out. Who the heck wants to swap out discs?!
Or was that rhetorical? Anyway, Blu-ray are encoded in MP4? Could have sworn they were AVCHD, which is annoying as all get out. I seem to remember my early Blu-ray rips being annoying as all get out, but hey.
Because you'll never have to repurchase your movies if they're not in a physical format. Wait, did you really not know the answer to that question?
HAVE THEY? I haven't noticed. I seriously haven't noticed. Nor any change from any other ISP, really. Verizon stopped their fiber rollout, if I remember right, and pushed it off in some regions to some other ISP (Frontier?), who also isn't doing it. Google wanted to do gigabit fiber, but they don't seem to be expanding anywhere beyond their testbed. Not that anyone with sense would trust Google in the first place, but I genuinely thought that if anyone could get the real ISPs out of their lull, it would be Google. NOPE!
So why aren't shareholders mentioning how speeds are the same, prices are the same, and caps have been put in place in the last, oh, five to ten years? Why aren't shareholders clamoring for gigabit speeds from their ISPs, given that Google has proven that it is possible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
People using spinning discs that operate at a fraction of the speed as NAND or even old hard drives.
14x BD-R discs (do they even exist yet, much less burners?) top out at 63 megabytes per second. An SSD writes at 500 megabytes per second. The Mac Pro writes at 1,250 megabytes per second. Blu-ray tops out at 100GB per disc. You could get a 100GB hard drive about a decade ago. You can get 4TB drives now, and while those are slower than SSDs, you can also get up to a terabyte SSD these days. RAID a few HDDs and you'll have speeds close to that of an SSD with all the extra capacity. Try RAIDing Blu-ray discs. You want to access the stuff on multiple Blu-ray discs, you either buy multiple readers or swap the discs out. Who the heck wants to swap out discs?!
Or was that rhetorical? Anyway, Blu-ray are encoded in MP4? Could have sworn they were AVCHD, which is annoying as all get out. I seem to remember my early Blu-ray rips being annoying as all get out, but hey.
Because you'll never have to repurchase your movies if they're not in a physical format. Wait, did you really not know the answer to that question?
HAVE THEY? I haven't noticed. I seriously haven't noticed. Nor any change from any other ISP, really. Verizon stopped their fiber rollout, if I remember right, and pushed it off in some regions to some other ISP (Frontier?), who also isn't doing it. Google wanted to do gigabit fiber, but they don't seem to be expanding anywhere beyond their testbed. Not that anyone with sense would trust Google in the first place, but I genuinely thought that if anyone could get the real ISPs out of their lull, it would be Google. NOPE!
So why aren't shareholders mentioning how speeds are the same, prices are the same, and caps have been put in place in the last, oh, five to ten years? Why aren't shareholders clamoring for gigabit speeds from their ISPs, given that Google has proven that it is possible?
The spinning is fast enough for top quality audio and video, better than digital. Some blu-rays are encoded with various formats - MPEG-4 AVC, VC-1, MPEG-2. Not repurchasing digital movies? Really? Original iTunes SD downloads do not need repurchasing for HD? Well, BD player still play DVD's.
Haven't notice? Maybe AppleInsider and customers really don't care and just want to complain about it? Maybe Verizon stopped their fiber rollout due to cost or just some conspiracy.
Nope. You'll want to clarify what you mean here. Throw in a "generally" or two and I'll probably agree with you, depending on how you word it.
Interesting, interesting... And these Blu-ray players magically give you a bunch of extra pixels, do they? Or do you have to buy a Blu-ray copy of the film to actually have that quality, just like a digital copy?
"But upconverting..."
Thanks for making my case for me.
If I only got my news from AppleInsider, I'd think Apple was doomed.
That should be one of the site's tag lines.
At least you're open to the possibility that they haven't actually been improving anything at all. That's a good start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That should be one of the site's tag lines.
At least you're open to the possibility that they haven't actually been improving anything at all. That's a good start.
You bring up Verizon fiber rollout and you want to throw out some sarcasm about not improving anything at all. Looks like we all need a good start.
LOLZ
Did you notice that my purpose for bringing it up at all was to state that they're no longer rolling it out? It's literally in the exact same sentence. Did you read the sentence? I want an answer to that last question. Yes or no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Did you notice that my purpose for bringing it up at all was to state that they're no longer rolling it out? It's literally in the exact same sentence. Did you read the sentence? I want an answer to that last question. Yes or no.
Yes I read the last sentence. Did you? "At least you're open to the possibility that they haven't actually been improving anything at all" [cut and paste]. If they are "no longer rolling it out", they must have started at some point and that would constitute improvement.
That's the stupidest "argument" I've read in the last month, and I'm on an Apple website inundated with anti-Apple trolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the stupidest "argument" I've read in the last month, and I'm on an Apple website inundated with anti-Apple trolls.
I think the "20 meg connections by now if Hollywood had decided on digital instead of the stopgap that is Blu-ray" was more stupid.
'Kay, so how would we have pushed 720/1080 over dial-up?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
'Kay, so how would we have pushed 720/1080 over dial-up?
Dial up Amazon and get the blu-ray.