Obvious. Just look at how many negative comments on this thread have been posted by users with 30 or fewer posts. Makes you wonder how much Google pays per post. What is it, 10 cents? Anybody?
10 cents wouldn't be worth it after you guys ripped them a new one. My bummies sore, I need to go soak.
You do know that the Roku was released before the Apple TV and Linux set tops have been around since the early 00's. What is Google copying that hasn't already been done a hundreds times before?
poster said "Apple's >>>>>real<<<< TV product". Not Apple's current set-top-box AppleTV product.
Yeah and Apple sends people over to your house to watch over cats while your on holiday.
So we are clear that Apple is product company, and Google is a advertising analytics company. Right?
Therefore, If Apple could make a well thought out iCatWatch product to take care of your cat and make good margin on it, they would think about making it. If they could tie that product into premium "watch your cat" services for which would further drive the iCatWatch product sales and make it even more profitable, they may consider it.
Google on the other hand would be happy to send over people to your house to collect analytics on what type of things are in your house, look over your tax returns in your filing cabinet, see what is on your DVR, look inside your refrigerator, check out what food is in your cabinets, what type and size of underwear your wife wears, what brand of toilet paper you wipe with and in the process take care of your cat. To sweaten the deal they will even give you a free ChromeCast for every TV in your house, install it and will be happy to install the Chrome Browser on every computer you own too. Heck they might even pay you something for the honor of "watching your cat".
If Apple ever did come out with successful "iCatWatch" device, Google would no doubt would try to make a cheaper device and call it a "weCatWatch" to monitor your cat in your house along with everything else which is setup an monitored using the Chrome Browser via the Google Services cloud.
So we are clear that Apple is product company, and Google is a advertising analytics company. Right?
Therefore, If Apple could make a well thought out iCatWatch product to take care of your cat and make good margin on it, they would think about making it. If they could tie that product into premium "watch your cat" services for which would further drive the iCatWatch product sales and make it even more profitable, they may consider it.
Google on the other hand would be happy to send over people to your house to collect analytics on what type of things are in your house, look over your tax returns in your filing cabinet, see what is on your DVR, look inside your refrigerator, check out what food is in your cabinets, what type and size of underwear your wife wears, what brand of toilet paper you wipe with and in the process take care of your cat. To sweaten the deal they will even give you a free ChromeCast for every TV in your house, install it and will be happy to install the Chrome Browser on every computer you own too. Heck they might even pay you something for the honor of "watching your cat".
how about showing some respect and actually reading what the poster said.
<p id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374879476474_983" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">4. Wait for Apple to roll out their real television strategy</p>
<p id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374879476474_978" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18px;">5. Attempt to copy Apple's real television strategy without getting sued too much</p>
I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.
The scary part is all I said is not that out of bounds for Google . Think about what Google will "see" when you are wearing their Google Glass and their motivation for making such a device in the first place. Keep in mind, Google is NOT a product company, they are an advertising analytics company.
I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.
Philips
you mean like what happened with the iPad? iPad was not the first tablet. Microsoft had tablets long before and even tried to preempt iPad release with the HP Slate. Obviously Apple copied Microsoft, HP for tables and Phillips vudu TV because there were such huge success stories.. right?
you mean like what happened with the iPad? iPad was not the first tablet. Microsoft had tablets long before and even tried to preempt iPad release with the HP Slate. Obviously Apple copied Microsoft and HP.. right?
NO, that is my whole point. No one is blatantly copying, this is just progression of technology. The other poster was trying to be funny saying Google will ultimately copy Apple's, Apple TV TV, how do you say that, an Apple TV in a TV, anyway, I don't agree with these types of posts.
if you're doing what it is programmed for, it's a cool toy: streaming Youtube and Netflix to it from my computer worked easily and well. Throwing MST3K episodes from Youtube on there worked easily and the picture seemed pretty good.
Then I jumped over to Twitch.tv, a non-supported site to see if I could catch a replay of the Hearthstone stream from earlier today. There's no option to use it, so you have to throw a Chrome browser tab. No go, the video staggered and stuttered. It was not watchable.
What it does is give the services it supports a nicer interface: you can use your computer or phone to just throw it to your TV. That's pretty sweet, but it's limited.
It's a cute idea, for 35$ It was a nice try but I'll probably over time find it on one of the TVs I don't have a streaming box on yet.
DED even missed the point I find most unexplainable about the Chromecast device.
It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.
WebRTC is not just Google, it is also supported by Firefox, and it is also not WebM only. It supports H264 as well. This is a bit of pointless FUD that has nothing to do with consumer concerns (do they care about Nokia IP threats on the IETF mailing list?)
Typical of a DED bait-and-switch editorial, one, to be clueless about the underlying technology, and secondly, to pull in irrelevant tangents.
DED even missed the point I find most unexplainable about the Chromecast device.
It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.
ChromeCast is not meant to store anything, it's a web browser. Local Storage is going the way of the dodo folks, the future is in streaming. Everyone, even Apple, will eventually move to an all-streaming-with-optional-offline-caching model eventually. The delay is no different than NetFlix seeking to a random position, approximately 2-3 seconds on a Google internet connection.
If pirates want to run local content without mirroring, all they need is a URL to an H264 stream. There are already people in Plex working on an integration. Since integration means simply having an HTTP server that can send back a <video> tag pointing to an H264 stream, it takes on the order of hours to produce an integration.
Judging by the level of reaction in these forums, compared to say Nexus Q, Apple zealouts know this is a good product and are scared it could have huge adoption.
Comments
10 cents wouldn't be worth it after you guys ripped them a new one. My bummies sore, I need to go soak.
Airplay is NOT the main reason I have an ATV (x3)
In fact, I never use airplay at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
You do know that the Roku was released before the Apple TV and Linux set tops have been around since the early 00's. What is Google copying that hasn't already been done a hundreds times before?
poster said "Apple's >>>>>real<<<< TV product". Not Apple's current set-top-box AppleTV product.
Really, it's quite nice, since the Lightning HDMI connector for the iPad is kind of crappy I use the Apple TV just for Airplay.
Oh, wait the latter doesn't exist, how can you copy something that isn't there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Yeah and Apple sends people over to your house to watch over cats while your on holiday.
So we are clear that Apple is product company, and Google is a advertising analytics company. Right?
Therefore, If Apple could make a well thought out iCatWatch product to take care of your cat and make good margin on it, they would think about making it. If they could tie that product into premium "watch your cat" services for which would further drive the iCatWatch product sales and make it even more profitable, they may consider it.
Google on the other hand would be happy to send over people to your house to collect analytics on what type of things are in your house, look over your tax returns in your filing cabinet, see what is on your DVR, look inside your refrigerator, check out what food is in your cabinets, what type and size of underwear your wife wears, what brand of toilet paper you wipe with and in the process take care of your cat. To sweaten the deal they will even give you a free ChromeCast for every TV in your house, install it and will be happy to install the Chrome Browser on every computer you own too. Heck they might even pay you something for the honor of "watching your cat".
If Apple ever did come out with successful "iCatWatch" device, Google would no doubt would try to make a cheaper device and call it a "weCatWatch" to monitor your cat in your house along with everything else which is setup an monitored using the Chrome Browser via the Google Services cloud.
Ugh, that's scary, I think I'm getting a dog now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Oh, wait the latter doesn't exist, how can you copy something that isn't there?
how about showing some respect and actually reading what the poster said.
4. Wait for Apple to roll out their real television strategy
5. Attempt to copy Apple's real television strategy without getting sued too much
I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.
Philips
Samsung
Sony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Ugh, that's scary, I think I'm getting a dog now.
The scary part is all I said is not that out of bounds for Google . Think about what Google will "see" when you are wearing their Google Glass and their motivation for making such a device in the first place. Keep in mind, Google is NOT a product company, they are an advertising analytics company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I did read it and your right I don't have respect for such posts, especially for a hypothetical product. This kind of thing goes on way to often here. If Apple does come out with a TV with an integrated Apple TV wouldn't they be copying Sony or Philips or one of the many other manufactures who have already integrated such services into their TV's or is Apple exempt. See, not cool is it.
Philips
you mean like what happened with the iPad? iPad was not the first tablet. Microsoft had tablets long before and even tried to preempt iPad release with the HP Slate. Obviously Apple copied Microsoft, HP for tables and Phillips vudu TV because there were such huge success stories.. right?
NO, that is my whole point. No one is blatantly copying, this is just progression of technology. The other poster was trying to be funny saying Google will ultimately copy Apple's, Apple TV TV, how do you say that, an Apple TV in a TV, anyway, I don't agree with these types of posts.
I got a chromecast on a lark.
if you're doing what it is programmed for, it's a cool toy: streaming Youtube and Netflix to it from my computer worked easily and well. Throwing MST3K episodes from Youtube on there worked easily and the picture seemed pretty good.
Then I jumped over to Twitch.tv, a non-supported site to see if I could catch a replay of the Hearthstone stream from earlier today. There's no option to use it, so you have to throw a Chrome browser tab. No go, the video staggered and stuttered. It was not watchable.
What it does is give the services it supports a nicer interface: you can use your computer or phone to just throw it to your TV. That's pretty sweet, but it's limited.
It's a cute idea, for 35$ It was a nice try but I'll probably over time find it on one of the TVs I don't have a streaming box on yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
NO, that is my whole point. No one is blatantly copying, this is just progression of technology.
Wow. Really? Hope no one you know has the pleasure of getting electrocuted in their bathrooms using progressive technology.
To late, been their done that, on the bright side it saved me a trip to my electrologist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
To late, been their done that, on the bright side it saved me a trip to my electrologist.
plus it appears to have given you a talent for creative alternate viewpoints.
Yeah, it was my own personal Dead Zone but without the weird haircut.
It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.
WebRTC is not just Google, it is also supported by Firefox, and it is also not WebM only. It supports H264 as well. This is a bit of pointless FUD that has nothing to do with consumer concerns (do they care about Nokia IP threats on the IETF mailing list?)
Typical of a DED bait-and-switch editorial, one, to be clueless about the underlying technology, and secondly, to pull in irrelevant tangents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
DED even missed the point I find most unexplainable about the Chromecast device.
It has one major design flaw, which makes it very handicapped, even for its little intended purpose: only 4 GB storage! In other words: many 720p movies won't fit onto the device, so buffering is limited to available capacity and scrolling to a random position within a movie will only happen with a fairly significant delay. It is even worse for people with slow internet connections: they might have to view such a movie in two sessions, as the remaining / missing content can only be loaded once the start of the movie has been watched to that point.
ChromeCast is not meant to store anything, it's a web browser. Local Storage is going the way of the dodo folks, the future is in streaming. Everyone, even Apple, will eventually move to an all-streaming-with-optional-offline-caching model eventually. The delay is no different than NetFlix seeking to a random position, approximately 2-3 seconds on a Google internet connection.
If pirates want to run local content without mirroring, all they need is a URL to an H264 stream. There are already people in Plex working on an integration. Since integration means simply having an HTTP server that can send back a <video> tag pointing to an H264 stream, it takes on the order of hours to produce an integration.
Judging by the level of reaction in these forums, compared to say Nexus Q, Apple zealouts know this is a good product and are scared it could have huge adoption.