Truly one pathetic presentation: using so many keywords and phrases Apple uses, (simplifying to core elements, 5.1 surround sound emerges you into...,'which we can't demo on stage, so you'll need to..after the presentation') and so on and so forth. There's a guy (Jay jr.) in the corner whose job is to do the demo/beamer controlling, but he's looking towards the audience, which makes it look like he's watching everybody. Google core to the max.
And don't clock in at 17'20''. Really, don't.
Then there's nightmode reading and, oh, whatever. They first create a crap product, and then come out with the new and improved. Hang in there Google.
Of all the things Google copies from other companies, adding a bit of taste (or downright copy it) would make watching their presentations, well..., less revolting.
Google executives showed it picking up streaming content from both an Android and iOS phone,
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.
"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.
If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.
Nice little hardware, and good strategy too. But I refuse using it because I don't want to be in Google's hand. Great that if you already have Google services and don't mind they mined you.
For searching content on NetFlix, have you tried using the Apple Remote iOS App on iPhone/iPad. Much faster than using the IR remote. In the Netflix search field you can use your Soft keyboard on the iOS device.
as for supporting more content sources? You lost me. You can Airplay Mirror system wide already from iOS (iPhone or iPad) and Macs. Any App. How does this solution give you MORE content sources? Are you sure your Broadband Upload speed is fast enough to handle transmission of local content back to the Google Cloud?
yes, I've used the apple remote app, it's still easier to just use the netflix app that is optimized for finding netflix content using a touch UI.
And I was referring to more sources that stream directly from the web. For example, vudu. SUre, you can airplay mirror for apple tv, but you have to leave your device on. The few times I tried airplay mirroring to stream content for apps on the iPad the quality wasn't as good as streaming to the device directly. I like the idea of being able to use the netflix, vudu, HBO Go, etc. apps directly on my iPad and just push a button and the tv streams the show directly. The iPad could be the best remote ever if app video apps worked like this.
And I'm pretty certain somebody is misreading something somewhere. There really is no way mirroring involves sending your content to google to have them send it back to your tv. It has to stream directly from your device to the TV.
Certainly there are things Apple TV does that this doesn't do. But the criticism it needs a smart phone or tablet to control doesn't make much sense when people also like using their phone as the remote for apple TV. In our home, we are awful about misplacing remotes. we always know where our iPhone and iPad is.
Again, for a net price of $11.03, I found it interesting enough to try one out. I'm not replacing my AppleTV, I have a spare HDMI connector on the TV I'm going to use it on.
I also don't expect to see commercials on content I don't get commercials on now. If they put commercials on netflix, I will toss it in the trash. I suspect it's reason for existence is to get people watching more youtube content and other google streaming content on their tv. it's only a matter of time before streaming video is a viable replacement for satellite or cable tv.
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.
"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.
If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.
The UI for doing this on blu ray players is generally awful. I've tried pretty much every brand. And the supported streaming sources varies as well.
For this, the UI is your normal iPad apps. It's so simple, it's brilliant.
Actually, IIRC if you used the iOS (iPhone/iPad) YouTube App (before Apple removed it) and enabled AirPlay to the AppleTV in the App, the AppleTV would fetch the content directly from YouTube instead of your Phone. So the iOS (iPhone/iPad) app essentially became a controller. Likely the YouTube App architecture was designed by Google and not Apple, or guidelines forced down onto Apple. Anyhow, as you know that original YouTube app was dropped in iOS6.
Personally, from an engineering point of view I think its a bad design. Its inefficient and burns up your broadband for content you already have on the LAN. Just do a peer to peer transfer on the LAN like most ever OTHER AirPlay feature. Sending Local Content up to the Cloud and then receive it back is just bonkers. The only reason Google designed it like this is to gather analytics on you. Its stupid. $35.. yeah.. great deal indeed. They should be PAYING you to use this device. Not the other way around.
AppleTV can stream YouTube content directly from the Web. It does not require an iPhone, iPad, or computer to function.
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
Yes, Google NEVER targets "optimal". Their business model is to distract as many people away from valuable content and redirect towards advertisements and data mining via everytime-you-look-click-and-type. They started with successful and value added search algorithms and morphed into an ugly hit-whore monster. How is it not obvious to more people that Google does not have what it takes to create innovative/useful devices or software. It is MUCH cheaper for them to disrupt those that do innovate...throwing whatever sticks at the moment...just enough to keep competitors at bay and maintain ad revenue. Then rinse and repeat.
You can wire up several rooms in your house for 1/3 the cost of Apple TV
Apple TV is overkill for this application. Maybe if it starts supporting games and becomes a game console, but for just streaming console, the idea of using your smartphone to control a $35 streamer is a much better value proposition.
The average number of TVs per household seems to be about 3 and I doubt people will rush out to put a streaming device on each one. The biggest problem I see is the use of phones and tablets as the remote. You'd set it up to watch a Netflix movie with a tablet and then put it to sleep, the phone rings and you need to pause it so you have to slide to unlock and pause the thing and then the same when you get back off the phone. Same every time you want to adjust volume or fast forward or change the content. Having a dedicated remote where you watch the big screen while navigating just seems like it would be less hassle and more efficient.
For heavy media streaming, the Apple TV has more support too and a more stable ethernet connection. Chromecast mirroring is also just the browser:
This means no game streaming or keynotes like the Apple TV can do. Chromecast has its uses and the price is attractive but I'd still opt for the Apple TV for the extra functionality and dedicated remote or even a WD box that can stream content from a standalone hard drive.
If you have all Apple products including a Mac why not just use the free Chrome browser on OS X to stream to Chromecast? No need to buy an Android device.
Why not just stream to the AppleTV.
People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.
Most web videos are low resolution and suck. (including most of YouTube)
People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.
ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.
More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?
You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you? LOL.
People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.
Most web videos are low resolution and suck. (including most of YouTube)
People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.
ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.
More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?
You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you? LOL.
I'm assuming you missed the post I was replying to where the guy said he was going to buy a Chromecast and also thought he needed to buy a Nexus tablet as well.
I'll stick with Apple TV knowing I'll get updated content that is licensed and updated and software that will make the Apple TV even better than it already is. I don't have mixed platforms so I really don't give a darn about Android compatibility anyways.
Comments
Thanks for that link.
Truly one pathetic presentation: using so many keywords and phrases Apple uses, (simplifying to core elements, 5.1 surround sound emerges you into...,'which we can't demo on stage, so you'll need to..after the presentation') and so on and so forth. There's a guy (Jay jr.) in the corner whose job is to do the demo/beamer controlling, but he's looking towards the audience, which makes it look like he's watching everybody. Google core to the max.
And don't clock in at 17'20''. Really, don't.
Then there's nightmode reading and, oh, whatever. They first create a crap product, and then come out with the new and improved. Hang in there Google.
Of all the things Google copies from other companies, adding a bit of taste (or downright copy it) would make watching their presentations, well..., less revolting.
In short, spec-sheet whores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trd105
From what I understand, the Chromecast is actually powered by USB. The powercord is just in case there is no USB available on the TV.
This.
For what it is, it is a nice little device. Does it compete with Apple TV? not really in my opinion.
Quote:
Google executives showed it picking up streaming content from both an Android and iOS phone,
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.
"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.
If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.
Nice little hardware, and good strategy too. But I refuse using it because I don't want to be in Google's hand. Great that if you already have Google services and don't mind they mined you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova
For searching content on NetFlix, have you tried using the Apple Remote iOS App on iPhone/iPad. Much faster than using the IR remote. In the Netflix search field you can use your Soft keyboard on the iOS device.
as for supporting more content sources? You lost me. You can Airplay Mirror system wide already from iOS (iPhone or iPad) and Macs. Any App. How does this solution give you MORE content sources? Are you sure your Broadband Upload speed is fast enough to handle transmission of local content back to the Google Cloud?
yes, I've used the apple remote app, it's still easier to just use the netflix app that is optimized for finding netflix content using a touch UI.
And I was referring to more sources that stream directly from the web. For example, vudu. SUre, you can airplay mirror for apple tv, but you have to leave your device on. The few times I tried airplay mirroring to stream content for apps on the iPad the quality wasn't as good as streaming to the device directly. I like the idea of being able to use the netflix, vudu, HBO Go, etc. apps directly on my iPad and just push a button and the tv streams the show directly. The iPad could be the best remote ever if app video apps worked like this.
And I'm pretty certain somebody is misreading something somewhere. There really is no way mirroring involves sending your content to google to have them send it back to your tv. It has to stream directly from your device to the TV.
Certainly there are things Apple TV does that this doesn't do. But the criticism it needs a smart phone or tablet to control doesn't make much sense when people also like using their phone as the remote for apple TV. In our home, we are awful about misplacing remotes. we always know where our iPhone and iPad is.
Again, for a net price of $11.03, I found it interesting enough to try one out. I'm not replacing my AppleTV, I have a spare HDMI connector on the TV I'm going to use it on.
I also don't expect to see commercials on content I don't get commercials on now. If they put commercials on netflix, I will toss it in the trash. I suspect it's reason for existence is to get people watching more youtube content and other google streaming content on their tv. it's only a matter of time before streaming video is a viable replacement for satellite or cable tv.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
I just bought a blue-ray player, and it can stream Rokio, Youtube, Netflix and a few others if you just make an internet connection to it's ethernet port. Though it's a bit more than $35 -- it highlights the problem with another "me too" device that doesn't really solve anything. Do I need to stream a stream from a streaming device? As a $35 adapter, it's got value, and I'm sure there will be a lot of hacker uses with a Chrome or Android OS on it. But this isn't going to affect the market one bit. People will scratch their heads and buy a device that actually manages content and does more than "stream" from something else.
"No, we've got to stop the movie--- I'm no the phone at the moment." So you grab it and have that 4' cable around your neck or you disconnect. I'm frankly tired of sysOp support like this on multifunction or more precisely "mutli-failure" devices.
If Apple includes wireless networking in their next iTV device, that would remove another barrier for adoption.
The UI for doing this on blu ray players is generally awful. I've tried pretty much every brand. And the supported streaming sources varies as well.
For this, the UI is your normal iPad apps. It's so simple, it's brilliant.
AppleTV can stream YouTube content directly from the Web. It does not require an iPhone, iPad, or computer to function.
You mean you didn't find a use for the yellow and red buttons on Blu-ray players?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
I think that this is a bit late in the game to add a cool device on the end of some tethered cell phone -- it's really not optimal, although worth it I suppose for just those who need a cable and a connection... but entirely the wrong nitch.
Yes, Google NEVER targets "optimal". Their business model is to distract as many people away from valuable content and redirect towards advertisements and data mining via everytime-you-look-click-and-type. They started with successful and value added search algorithms and morphed into an ugly hit-whore monster. How is it not obvious to more people that Google does not have what it takes to create innovative/useful devices or software. It is MUCH cheaper for them to disrupt those that do innovate...throwing whatever sticks at the moment...just enough to keep competitors at bay and maintain ad revenue. Then rinse and repeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
The TV turns on automatically when you start streaming from your iDevice. Assuming your iPad/phone is already on, there's nothing to turn on.
Most TVs don't automagically turn on.
The average number of TVs per household seems to be about 3 and I doubt people will rush out to put a streaming device on each one. The biggest problem I see is the use of phones and tablets as the remote. You'd set it up to watch a Netflix movie with a tablet and then put it to sleep, the phone rings and you need to pause it so you have to slide to unlock and pause the thing and then the same when you get back off the phone. Same every time you want to adjust volume or fast forward or change the content. Having a dedicated remote where you watch the big screen while navigating just seems like it would be less hassle and more efficient.
For heavy media streaming, the Apple TV has more support too and a more stable ethernet connection. Chromecast mirroring is also just the browser:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/24/4554130/google-chromecast-vs-apple-airplay-how-do-they-compare
This means no game streaming or keynotes like the Apple TV can do. Chromecast has its uses and the price is attractive but I'd still opt for the Apple TV for the extra functionality and dedicated remote or even a WD box that can stream content from a standalone hard drive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
Most TVs don't automagically turn on.
If they support HDMI CEC then they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
If you have all Apple products including a Mac why not just use the free Chrome browser on OS X to stream to Chromecast? No need to buy an Android device.
Why not just stream to the AppleTV.
People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.
Most web videos are low resolution and suck. (including most of YouTube)
People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.
ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.
More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?
You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you? LOL.
downside: more YouTube delivered commercials?
Nah%u2026%u2026%u2026.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Why not just stream to the AppleTV.
People buy AppleTVs for much more unique stuff than AirPlay: LiveBroadcasts, iTunesU, Podcasts, iTunes, Home Media Streaming.
Most web videos are low resolution and suck. (including most of YouTube)
People buy HD TVs to watch mostly HD content.
ChromeCast won't sell because it is very much for geeks only and a $45 Roku box offers so much more.
More importantly, what kind of security does this thing have?
You don't want your neighbor casting their porn on your kid's TV do you? LOL.
I'm assuming you missed the post I was replying to where the guy said he was going to buy a Chromecast and also thought he needed to buy a Nexus tablet as well.
Flinging crap - ads to yer tv
Sounds as if old Squirter himself has been transmogrified into some kind of new nerd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
And it can stream from iTunes servers - including PCs, Network Attached Storage devices, Macs and iOS devices.
NAS? Are you sure? Without a computer or other device to act as a conduit between the NAS and the ATV?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I suspect that the next AppleTV will have HDMI in as well as HDMI out -- so it can connect between the cable STB and the TV,
From your keyboard to Tim Cook's eyes... PLEASE let it be so!
NOPE.
But that's number negative infinity on my list of priorities Apple needs to actually do with Apple TV.
Already is one.