Correct. But this is already possible now, given the right technology, and payment structure.
My new apartment (from March 15th) will have a built-in optical fiber connection, theoretically with 100Mb/s speed. As well as internet access, this also features a VOIP phone, and video-on-demand TV.
On top of my rent, I will pay JPY3,500 (approx $30) per month for this service.
Do you live in a city or out in the country side? Will you get a 100Mb connection for $30? No, that isn't possible yet. Will you get 5Mb for $30? That would be great. Will that cost include your phone calls and your videos or will that be extra? Will that connection have the same upload and download speeds? I hope so.
I don't want a theoretical connection, I want the real thing.
Why do so many of you accept the idea of TV, brain off, computer, brain on?
While I agree with some of your observations about Sesame Street and internet porn. I think the general pattern is along the lines of TV == entertainment, computer == work. This is the pattern for my life...though there are exceptions to be sure. Sometimes I do catch the Discovery Channel or some such things and have my brain engaged while watching TV. Mostly though it is an entertainment machine. This is not a BAD thing. I don't always WANT to be thinking.
Quote:
I am sick of people foolishly parroting this nonsense from Steve as if they were quoting Proverbs.
Slow down. Don't accuse me of simply parroting Steve without thinking about this. I used to thing computer/TV convergence was the "thing". I just don't see the reality of it, and I believe the reason is closely related to what Steve said. Additionaly, I wasn't stating as much in that I AGREE with what he said, but more to counter the statement that "Steve hates TV." I don't know that he hates TV as much as he observes the different usage patterns of TV vs. computers.
Quote:
This is one of the most foolish things SJ has publicly said and it shows a great deal of arrogance and elitism.
Perhaps. But it also may be a simple statement of reality.
Quote:
He is just plain wrong about this
And, of course, this statement (of yours) DOESN'T "shows a great deal of arrogance and elitism."
Quote:
Steve's "We're better than you brain dead boob tubers" attitude will not serve the Mac community well as it applies to the future of TV/PC cenergy.
Once again, from when I have read/heard Steve talking about TV it is like you are characterizing it. It is more an observation of how people are behaving relative to the two devices. This behavior MAY change in the future. Maybe not.
And regarding Microsoft? Well, the jury is certainly still out on whether the "Media PC" is a hit or not. I get the impression that it is not. Just like when everyone was raving about the "Tablet PC"...Apple NEEDS to do a tablet! Microsoft will clean Apple's clock if they don't! What happened? Stave says, "we think tablets don't make much sense. We think they are toys for people with lots of money." How many have sold? Not many.
Finally, Steve (or Apple) is not PREVENTING Mac integration with TV. They are simply not producing some device to do it themselves. Maybe they just don't see a market opportunity for this.
Do you live in a city or out in the country side? Will you get a 100Mb connection for $30? No, that isn't possible yet. Will you get 5Mb for $30? That would be great. Will that cost include your phone calls and your videos or will that be extra? Will that connection have the same upload and download speeds? I hope so.
I don't want a theoretical connection, I want the real thing.
Just outside Tokyo, from week after next. 100Mb/s for $30 is available now; the cost is mentioned here, with further info here. Of course, bandwidth is 'best effort' aka theothetical. There will always be a bottleneck, somewhere.
Phone calls are extra, but generally cheaper than (or at least competitive with) copper-wire services. TV is included, although video rental is extra.
If I'm not mistaken, the thing The Steve hates about TV is the content.
Well, I've got two suggestions:
1. Make a reality show, a la "The Apprentice", with a bunch of obnoxious geeks vying for a spot as Jobs' assistant. Lots of arguments, crying, backstabbing, etc. Jobs' lack of hair is more watchable than whatever-the-hell that thing sitting on Donald's head is.
2. DanikaTV, 24/7. The Sweetpea Chronicles. Eyerolling for Fun and Profit.
But seriously, in a recent Rolling Stone interview, Jobs says that movies and whatnot do just fine. There isn't that same "I'm getting ripped off!" vibe with movies and TV that exists with music. The iTMS filled a MUCH NEEDED role (affordable music, purchased whenever the mood struck and you get to choose exactly what you want). Besides, you have that whole bandwidth issue too. A 2MB song? Fine. A gazillionGB movie? No thanks.
Maybe when every home in America has T1 or above connections?
In theory, it WOULD be cool to have a iTMMS (iTunes Multimedia Store) for videos, movies and photography and music. But I just don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever.
The music "business" is lame beyond belief, and needed to get dealt with.
Thanks to Apple, I know I'll never buy another $15.99 store-bought CD ever again, especially when 8-10 of the 11 songs are complete and worthless shit.
Just bring back "The Prisoner" and "The Defenders" and TV would thrive. Oh, yes. "The Life of Riley," too, What was that show that starred Cleo the Beagle?
I live the video iPod idea, but only if we can project it on our soon-to-be cheaper 23" HD screens.
And regarding Microsoft? Well, the jury is certainly still out on whether the "Media PC" is a hit or not. I get the impression that it is not. Just like when everyone was raving about the "Tablet PC"...Apple NEEDS to do a tablet! Microsoft will clean Apple's clock if they don't! What happened? Stave says, "we think tablets don't make much sense. We think they are toys for people with lots of money." How many have sold? Not many.
[/B]
Frankly I have to disagree with you. Tablet computers have never had a high demand. Guess how many televisions are sold in America. Basic television capability will appear as standard in the next few years on most computers. Tivo has changed a lot of what people are doing. Jobs may not want to compete against cable set-top box providers who are in a much better position to monopolize the market. Yet I have to admit, I would consider buying a 20" iMac if I could watch TV on it as a nice bedroom computer.
The iBox rumor was one Apple should be paying a lot of attention to. People want to be able to hear their MP3s in their home stereo without dealing with an iPod. Devices like the Roku Soundbridge and Slim Squeezebox are the beginning. What will happen if the stereo media players all decide to support Windows Media only? It will literally destroy Apple.
Once you are in the living room, it only makes sense to include DVR functionality. The HTPC field, while forming, is rife with opportunities for a company with known interface expertise to come in and take over.
The battle is now. Sony's PS3, the Media Center concepts, all of these are soon coming to a living room near you. Apple is being shortsighted.
Also, television capabilities would enhance the value of desktops whose sales are visibly eroding.
Maybe it's because this is Future Hardware, not General Discussion, but this discussion is circling around an important and unanswered question: What is television?
Five years ago the answer was obvious, because there was only one kind (although which one kind varied from geography to geography). It was like radio: a clear broadcast of content paid for with advertizing money at a relatively low resolution to a simple, dumb analog receiver. You can go and play this kind of television on your 20" iMac now. It requires a third party device, but so what? The reason that doesn't matter, and the reason Apple would never want to integrate this kind of television into their computers, is that the industry is actively trying to kill it. HDTV has been coming RSN for how long now? Only now it really is beginning to appear.
But we still don't know what HDTV is, either. More precisely, the hardware's in place, but there are all kinds of provisions in place for encryption, collecting and enforcing subscriptions and playback, etc, and Microsoft is right there promising all these content companies total control if they'd just use Windows Media for everything, and Big Content is busily getting Congress to pass oppressive "copyright" laws. In other words, television is about where online music was before iTMS. So, rather than merely releasing something passive, Apple has the opportunity to help define the next generation of television, and they can point to iTMS as proof that they can do it.
Like iTMS, I imagine that an Apple solution will be triage, rather than an Ideal Solution: There would be the same sorts of DRM that iTMS/iTunes/iPod have, to keep honest people honest and to calm jittery content producers. But there would also be far more broad provisions for fair use than the industry would come up with on its own. These provisions are absolutely critical to any meaningful kind of convergence.
Steve was right when he described the difference between TV and computers. It's not exactly a difficult observation to make. Sure, you can find exceptions to his rule, but they're exceptions. So, how do you converge them? You take the opportunity created by digital TV to make it friendlier to personal computers. That includes simple things like being able to decide what you want to see when, file copies of things you like and share them between your devices, and also more complicated and interesting things like being able to load them into iMovie and play with them.
But if a basic use of this new medium will be to see what you want when you want to, that's a pretty fundamental shakeup. The whole economics of television are built around the broadcast schedule (there's a reason the industry fought TiVo tooth and nail). So actually this requires a lot of thought, and a lot of negotiation, which Steve has likely been doing.
I may be off in my own analysis, but if you take anything from the post, it's that television is reaching a crucial inflection point, and so converging TV and computers requires defining what TV is going to be. Because the HDTV foreseen by the industry would be a closed box controlled absolutely by the networks, and any attempt at meaningful convergence would be deliberately fenced off.
If this becomes a standards battle, MS will win it IMO.
Again, I think the brain off, brain on concept is absurd on the face of it. In the first place, everything engages your brain. It is just a matter of what your brain is engaged to do. The #1 use of the internet is adult entertainment and probably the #1 use for computers by people of a certain age is gaming. I don't have any stats on the gaming theory but I strongly believe it. Any computer superstore has more games in the software section than any other kind of title. Just because you are using a keyboard and mouse does not mean that you are engaging your brain for any productive use. Just read through some of these threads and you will see what I mean.
TV has done more to educate me than almost any other media type, save for books. Even entertainment can be productive. CSI never fails to instruct me about something. A good detective story is quite engaging and stimulating for the brain. Have you ever watched the Discovery or History channels? Jerry Springer, on the other hand...
Setting up this type of false antagonism between TV and computers is counterproductive. The same goes for music. I happen to think that most of today's music will rot your mind. But good classical, opera, jazz, etc. is some of the best brain food you can find. So studies seem to indicate. Apple needs to drop this line of reasoning and get into the game. Because when the game is well and truly on, Apple will have no players on the field. By any reasoning, why do they believe that integrating music with the computer is worthy of their efforts and not TV? How is one fundamentally different from the other. If one is entertainment, they both are, If one is mentally engaging, they both are. Music + computers = good. TV + computers = bad. I don't get it.
By the way, my earlier comments were not aimed at anyone in particular. That nonsense statement has irked me from the first moment I heard it. Sorry about the rant.
If this becomes a standards battle, MS will win it IMO.
Maybe and maybe not.
The wild card here is that the entertainment industry doesn't trust Microsoft at all. And it does use and trust Apple. And it probably hasn't been lost on them that Apple is going through industry standards (their industry's!) rather than foisting their own designs on people.
Quote:
Again, I think the brain off, brain on concept is absurd on the face of it.
Only because you're reading it as antagonistic to TV. It's not. You don't interact with a television - you might, but from a technological point of view it's no different from interacting with a brick wall. The television is a purely passive device. Steve made the statement in the context of "convergence," and he's pointing out that, currently, there's no meaningful basis for convergence.
Steve may hate some or all of the content on TV - I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant to what he's talking about - but then he's taken more than a few digs at his own industry, too (remember him saying that iTunes for Windows was the best Windows app ever?), and I don't think anyone has concluded that he hates computers. He's talking about usage and purpose here, and whether there's any significant intersection.
Quote:
Music + computers = good. TV + computers = bad. I don't get it.
Do you listen to music while driving? Do you watch TV while driving? That's one difference.
Do you watch a given show as often as you listen to a given song? That's another difference.
If you want a show, or a season of a show, do you go and buy it? That's another difference.
Audio and video are fundamentally different in terms of usage and engagement; music and television are different in even more ways.
It's not a matter of "TV + computers = bad." He's not saying they're antagonistic. He's saying "TV + computer" is not so much a convergence as a conglomeration. The current nature of television makes it a passive, standalone destination. There's no hook there for a computer to contribute meaningfully.
It's not a matter of "TV + computers = bad." He's not saying they're antagonistic. He's saying "TV + computer" is not so much a convergence as a conglomeration. The current nature of television makes it a passive, standalone destination. There's no hook there for a computer to contribute meaningfully.
This is IT. This is what Steve is saying, I think. It is not an evil/good thing. It is simply a difference.
The other thing in all of this is the following...Apple (under Steve's leadership) is trying to find ways to add some new value to something. Could they build iPhone? Absolutely! Should they? In their view, perhaps there is nothing really valuable they can add. Could they do Apple TiVO? Perhaps. Is there anything new they can add? Who knows. This is the one thing I really like about (the present) Apple...they really seem to be thinking things through. They are not just doing some product just to do it.
Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it. It kept coming into my mind as I was reading it, what about the raycer (sp?) technology Apple acquired a while back. I don't know alot about what raycer encompassed, but i thought the persistant thought was worth mentioning. Can anyone shed some light on what raycer did, and does it fit in with creating a home theater mac (don't much care for the article's term HTPC)?
Apple may have an opportunity here, maybe a "Pro" version that can have a rack mount look (ala xServe) in a Home Theater stack; and maybe a low end version that uses that wireless FireWire tech I've been hearing about to link up with a host mac located elsewhere in the house.
Comments
Originally posted by BenN
Correct. But this is already possible now, given the right technology, and payment structure.
My new apartment (from March 15th) will have a built-in optical fiber connection, theoretically with 100Mb/s speed. As well as internet access, this also features a VOIP phone, and video-on-demand TV.
On top of my rent, I will pay JPY3,500 (approx $30) per month for this service.
Do you live in a city or out in the country side? Will you get a 100Mb connection for $30? No, that isn't possible yet. Will you get 5Mb for $30? That would be great. Will that cost include your phone calls and your videos or will that be extra? Will that connection have the same upload and download speeds? I hope so.
I don't want a theoretical connection, I want the real thing.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
Why do so many of you accept the idea of TV, brain off, computer, brain on?
While I agree with some of your observations about Sesame Street and internet porn. I think the general pattern is along the lines of TV == entertainment, computer == work. This is the pattern for my life...though there are exceptions to be sure. Sometimes I do catch the Discovery Channel or some such things and have my brain engaged while watching TV. Mostly though it is an entertainment machine. This is not a BAD thing. I don't always WANT to be thinking.
I am sick of people foolishly parroting this nonsense from Steve as if they were quoting Proverbs.
Slow down. Don't accuse me of simply parroting Steve without thinking about this. I used to thing computer/TV convergence was the "thing". I just don't see the reality of it, and I believe the reason is closely related to what Steve said. Additionaly, I wasn't stating as much in that I AGREE with what he said, but more to counter the statement that "Steve hates TV." I don't know that he hates TV as much as he observes the different usage patterns of TV vs. computers.
This is one of the most foolish things SJ has publicly said and it shows a great deal of arrogance and elitism.
Perhaps. But it also may be a simple statement of reality.
He is just plain wrong about this
And, of course, this statement (of yours) DOESN'T "shows a great deal of arrogance and elitism."
Steve's "We're better than you brain dead boob tubers" attitude will not serve the Mac community well as it applies to the future of TV/PC cenergy.
Once again, from when I have read/heard Steve talking about TV it is like you are characterizing it. It is more an observation of how people are behaving relative to the two devices. This behavior MAY change in the future. Maybe not.
And regarding Microsoft? Well, the jury is certainly still out on whether the "Media PC" is a hit or not. I get the impression that it is not. Just like when everyone was raving about the "Tablet PC"...Apple NEEDS to do a tablet! Microsoft will clean Apple's clock if they don't! What happened? Stave says, "we think tablets don't make much sense. We think they are toys for people with lots of money." How many have sold? Not many.
Finally, Steve (or Apple) is not PREVENTING Mac integration with TV. They are simply not producing some device to do it themselves. Maybe they just don't see a market opportunity for this.
Originally posted by oldmacfan
Do you live in a city or out in the country side? Will you get a 100Mb connection for $30? No, that isn't possible yet. Will you get 5Mb for $30? That would be great. Will that cost include your phone calls and your videos or will that be extra? Will that connection have the same upload and download speeds? I hope so.
I don't want a theoretical connection, I want the real thing.
Just outside Tokyo, from week after next. 100Mb/s for $30 is available now; the cost is mentioned here, with further info here. Of course, bandwidth is 'best effort' aka theothetical. There will always be a bottleneck, somewhere.
Phone calls are extra, but generally cheaper than (or at least competitive with) copper-wire services. TV is included, although video rental is extra.
Once I move in, I'll advise on up/down bandwidth.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If I'm not mistaken, the thing The Steve hates about TV is the content.
Well, I've got two suggestions:
1. Make a reality show, a la "The Apprentice", with a bunch of obnoxious geeks vying for a spot as Jobs' assistant. Lots of arguments, crying, backstabbing, etc. Jobs' lack of hair is more watchable than whatever-the-hell that thing sitting on Donald's head is.
2. DanikaTV, 24/7. The Sweetpea Chronicles. Eyerolling for Fun and Profit.
But seriously, in a recent Rolling Stone interview, Jobs says that movies and whatnot do just fine. There isn't that same "I'm getting ripped off!" vibe with movies and TV that exists with music. The iTMS filled a MUCH NEEDED role (affordable music, purchased whenever the mood struck and you get to choose exactly what you want). Besides, you have that whole bandwidth issue too. A 2MB song? Fine. A gazillionGB movie? No thanks.
Maybe when every home in America has T1 or above connections?
In theory, it WOULD be cool to have a iTMMS (iTunes Multimedia Store) for videos, movies and photography and music. But I just don't see it happening anytime soon, if ever.
The music "business" is lame beyond belief, and needed to get dealt with.
Thanks to Apple, I know I'll never buy another $15.99 store-bought CD ever again, especially when 8-10 of the 11 songs are complete and worthless shit.
I live the video iPod idea, but only if we can project it on our soon-to-be cheaper 23" HD screens.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And regarding Microsoft? Well, the jury is certainly still out on whether the "Media PC" is a hit or not. I get the impression that it is not. Just like when everyone was raving about the "Tablet PC"...Apple NEEDS to do a tablet! Microsoft will clean Apple's clock if they don't! What happened? Stave says, "we think tablets don't make much sense. We think they are toys for people with lots of money." How many have sold? Not many.
[/B]
Frankly I have to disagree with you. Tablet computers have never had a high demand. Guess how many televisions are sold in America. Basic television capability will appear as standard in the next few years on most computers. Tivo has changed a lot of what people are doing. Jobs may not want to compete against cable set-top box providers who are in a much better position to monopolize the market. Yet I have to admit, I would consider buying a 20" iMac if I could watch TV on it as a nice bedroom computer.
The iBox rumor was one Apple should be paying a lot of attention to. People want to be able to hear their MP3s in their home stereo without dealing with an iPod. Devices like the Roku Soundbridge and Slim Squeezebox are the beginning. What will happen if the stereo media players all decide to support Windows Media only? It will literally destroy Apple.
Once you are in the living room, it only makes sense to include DVR functionality. The HTPC field, while forming, is rife with opportunities for a company with known interface expertise to come in and take over.
The battle is now. Sony's PS3, the Media Center concepts, all of these are soon coming to a living room near you. Apple is being shortsighted.
Also, television capabilities would enhance the value of desktops whose sales are visibly eroding.
Originally posted by TKN
The battle is now. Sony's PS3, the Media Center concepts, all of these are soon coming to a living room near you. Apple is being shortsighted.
Also, television capabilities would enhance the value of desktops whose sales are visibly eroding.
I dont think Apple is being short sighted, since you dont know what they are working on.
Five years ago the answer was obvious, because there was only one kind (although which one kind varied from geography to geography). It was like radio: a clear broadcast of content paid for with advertizing money at a relatively low resolution to a simple, dumb analog receiver. You can go and play this kind of television on your 20" iMac now. It requires a third party device, but so what? The reason that doesn't matter, and the reason Apple would never want to integrate this kind of television into their computers, is that the industry is actively trying to kill it. HDTV has been coming RSN for how long now? Only now it really is beginning to appear.
But we still don't know what HDTV is, either. More precisely, the hardware's in place, but there are all kinds of provisions in place for encryption, collecting and enforcing subscriptions and playback, etc, and Microsoft is right there promising all these content companies total control if they'd just use Windows Media for everything, and Big Content is busily getting Congress to pass oppressive "copyright" laws. In other words, television is about where online music was before iTMS. So, rather than merely releasing something passive, Apple has the opportunity to help define the next generation of television, and they can point to iTMS as proof that they can do it.
Like iTMS, I imagine that an Apple solution will be triage, rather than an Ideal Solution: There would be the same sorts of DRM that iTMS/iTunes/iPod have, to keep honest people honest and to calm jittery content producers. But there would also be far more broad provisions for fair use than the industry would come up with on its own. These provisions are absolutely critical to any meaningful kind of convergence.
Steve was right when he described the difference between TV and computers. It's not exactly a difficult observation to make. Sure, you can find exceptions to his rule, but they're exceptions. So, how do you converge them? You take the opportunity created by digital TV to make it friendlier to personal computers. That includes simple things like being able to decide what you want to see when, file copies of things you like and share them between your devices, and also more complicated and interesting things like being able to load them into iMovie and play with them.
But if a basic use of this new medium will be to see what you want when you want to, that's a pretty fundamental shakeup. The whole economics of television are built around the broadcast schedule (there's a reason the industry fought TiVo tooth and nail). So actually this requires a lot of thought, and a lot of negotiation, which Steve has likely been doing.
I may be off in my own analysis, but if you take anything from the post, it's that television is reaching a crucial inflection point, and so converging TV and computers requires defining what TV is going to be. Because the HDTV foreseen by the industry would be a closed box controlled absolutely by the networks, and any attempt at meaningful convergence would be deliberately fenced off.
Again, I think the brain off, brain on concept is absurd on the face of it. In the first place, everything engages your brain. It is just a matter of what your brain is engaged to do. The #1 use of the internet is adult entertainment and probably the #1 use for computers by people of a certain age is gaming. I don't have any stats on the gaming theory but I strongly believe it. Any computer superstore has more games in the software section than any other kind of title. Just because you are using a keyboard and mouse does not mean that you are engaging your brain for any productive use. Just read through some of these threads and you will see what I mean.
TV has done more to educate me than almost any other media type, save for books. Even entertainment can be productive. CSI never fails to instruct me about something. A good detective story is quite engaging and stimulating for the brain. Have you ever watched the Discovery or History channels? Jerry Springer, on the other hand...
Setting up this type of false antagonism between TV and computers is counterproductive. The same goes for music. I happen to think that most of today's music will rot your mind. But good classical, opera, jazz, etc. is some of the best brain food you can find. So studies seem to indicate. Apple needs to drop this line of reasoning and get into the game. Because when the game is well and truly on, Apple will have no players on the field. By any reasoning, why do they believe that integrating music with the computer is worthy of their efforts and not TV? How is one fundamentally different from the other. If one is entertainment, they both are, If one is mentally engaging, they both are. Music + computers = good. TV + computers = bad. I don't get it.
By the way, my earlier comments were not aimed at anyone in particular. That nonsense statement has irked me from the first moment I heard it. Sorry about the rant.
Originally posted by Mac Voyer
If this becomes a standards battle, MS will win it IMO.
Maybe and maybe not.
The wild card here is that the entertainment industry doesn't trust Microsoft at all. And it does use and trust Apple. And it probably hasn't been lost on them that Apple is going through industry standards (their industry's!) rather than foisting their own designs on people.
Again, I think the brain off, brain on concept is absurd on the face of it.
Only because you're reading it as antagonistic to TV. It's not. You don't interact with a television - you might, but from a technological point of view it's no different from interacting with a brick wall. The television is a purely passive device. Steve made the statement in the context of "convergence," and he's pointing out that, currently, there's no meaningful basis for convergence.
Steve may hate some or all of the content on TV - I don't know, and I don't think it's relevant to what he's talking about - but then he's taken more than a few digs at his own industry, too (remember him saying that iTunes for Windows was the best Windows app ever?), and I don't think anyone has concluded that he hates computers. He's talking about usage and purpose here, and whether there's any significant intersection.
Music + computers = good. TV + computers = bad. I don't get it.
Do you listen to music while driving? Do you watch TV while driving? That's one difference.
Do you watch a given show as often as you listen to a given song? That's another difference.
If you want a show, or a season of a show, do you go and buy it? That's another difference.
Audio and video are fundamentally different in terms of usage and engagement; music and television are different in even more ways.
It's not a matter of "TV + computers = bad." He's not saying they're antagonistic. He's saying "TV + computer" is not so much a convergence as a conglomeration. The current nature of television makes it a passive, standalone destination. There's no hook there for a computer to contribute meaningfully.
Originally posted by Amorph
...
Brilliant post! Thanks for that!
Originally posted by Amorph
It's not a matter of "TV + computers = bad." He's not saying they're antagonistic. He's saying "TV + computer" is not so much a convergence as a conglomeration. The current nature of television makes it a passive, standalone destination. There's no hook there for a computer to contribute meaningfully.
This is IT. This is what Steve is saying, I think. It is not an evil/good thing. It is simply a difference.
The other thing in all of this is the following...Apple (under Steve's leadership) is trying to find ways to add some new value to something. Could they build iPhone? Absolutely! Should they? In their view, perhaps there is nothing really valuable they can add. Could they do Apple TiVO? Perhaps. Is there anything new they can add? Who knows. This is the one thing I really like about (the present) Apple...they really seem to be thinking things through. They are not just doing some product just to do it.
Why is Apple MIA from the Living Room?
Originally posted by lungaretta
I was going to start a separate thread about this article but it seems pertinent to this discussion:
Why is Apple MIA from the Living Room?
Thanks for the article, I enjoyed it. It kept coming into my mind as I was reading it, what about the raycer (sp?) technology Apple acquired a while back. I don't know alot about what raycer encompassed, but i thought the persistant thought was worth mentioning. Can anyone shed some light on what raycer did, and does it fit in with creating a home theater mac (don't much care for the article's term HTPC)?
Apple may have an opportunity here, maybe a "Pro" version that can have a rack mount look (ala xServe) in a Home Theater stack; and maybe a low end version that uses that wireless FireWire tech I've been hearing about to link up with a host mac located elsewhere in the house.
Just toss'n ideas around
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
They are not just doing some product just to do it.
Yes, buddy, that's the secret of Apples product quality. And I think they will be right with that attitude -- at least on the long run.