I think this thing with Apple (who doesn't really stand to make any money from it) will basically replace things like Netflix and Blockbuster. Like Not Unlike Myself said, you could easily put up the entire video catalog of every TV series ever made and have people browse and download at will. At this time, there are storage and backup issues to deal with, but what Apple did Wednesday changed everything.
I downloaded the season premier of Lost on Wednesday -- it took 35 minutes at a full 100 KB a second. Broadband needs to double before this paradigm comes into it's own. I don't usually watch TV of any kind except as a boxed set -- this saved me the time of waiting untill that set comes out. Which also means I won't be buying the boxed set -- but it also means I won't be passing it around to my parents/sister/nieghbors when I'm through with it, either.
I guess the streaming a la, the same sort of setup you have at a Hotel, could be done as well, and is on it's way -- but this system Apple has introduced can plug and unplug, regardless of cable/broadband company -- which in the end analysis makes them an 'irrelevant' player. I guess the only reason ABC, etc. wouldn't do this on their own is that Apple can control (somewhat) the interface, at least consumer headspace. Maybe Netflix will do something. At the moment, though, I think TV shows/reruns are as much pain as consumers can tolerate.
In any case, the computer will end up in our living room, to manage photos, music and movies, it's just a question of when and who is going to make it work first.
[B]Loss of picture quality is not a necessary consequence. As a matter of fact, good tuner cards can make it look better even after all the conversion dancing than it did on arrival.
There is a tremendous difference between the theoretical loss of "resolution" due to that process and a hit in real-world picture quality. There are a lot of factors that go into it and what you described is merely one of them.
If you have good, quality components it is possible to have no noticeable difference in picture quality.
'rat, that has got to be the most ass-backwards thing you've said in this entire thread.
Quality components = higher fidelity to original signal. If the original signal being fed to the display has compression artifacts, you're going to see them *MORE* the higher quality the display! Jeez. Compression artifacts almost disappear when I play the video on my 1981 19" CRT TV, but are *VERY* noticeable on a flat panel or high quality projector.
And what's this about a *tuner card*?? So you're going from wall (digital) to STB (analog) to MCE (digital) to cable to TV (analog) to tuner (digital) to screen?? Er... Good god man, just hook the MCE into the display as a direct video feed and skip the tuner. Or did you mean a hypothetical tuner card in the MCE box? In which case, let's see, that's wall (digital) to tuner card (digital) to tv (digital)... gee, that might be why it looks better. :P
Compression artifacts also build up badly - a region of video that is prone to artifacts on the first compression will, almost always, have *worse* artifacts on the second round. Repeated compression = worse quality. Period. The better the components, the *WORSE* the image in such cases.
Quote:
Further, the analog conversion is not a necessary step in the process, it is optional (though prevalent). All-digital setups exist already (granted, over-the-air only right now in MCE).
Yes, all-digital setups exist already. In small markets. For a few channels.
So you're telling me that the MCE box has a pure digital video-in as well? See, this is why I kept saying this was the relevant question, and you kept not answering it anyway.
Quote:
But MCE is going away, anyway. Windows Vista will be bringing a lot more to this, including CableCARD support. (And hey, thank Microsoft for backing HD-DVD which includes Managed Copy).
CableCARD is coming, Shuttle has already shown a potential product.
But? Vista won't be here until late 2006 at the earliest. Lots of time still for Apple to beat them to the punch.
Agreed. Look over in the other thread, and you'll see that that's where I'd like to see it go. Why? Because a CableCard slot means that you get to free yourself from your STB, and there goes a good chunk of the clunk in the current MCE system. It's stop-gap, the tech equivalent of bailing wire and duct tape, slipped into a glossy plastic skin and sold as high quality. Not impressive.
Quote:
Paid radio services exist now, yes. Some people are now paying for what was once free because it has offered improvements over the free model (or things not even available via the free model).
That is almost vaguely somewhat like what we're talking about but not really. Please clarify.
You're not this dense, 'rat. Here, let me recap the trail put down so far.
Quote:
G: I don't think people are ever going to be into the "buy per episode" thing, ever.
K: Funny, people seem to prefer buy per song over subscription.. (ie, it works fine in another on-demand media distribution system)
G: Music has always come in individual, paid-for packages.
K: And radio is...? (ie, no it hasn't, if you'd think for a second)
G: Still around and pretty strong. And completely free.
K: Sirius? XM? (ie, two paid models of radio, so no, not completely free)
So basically, your assertion that music has 'always' come in paid-for packages is wrong, your assertion that radio, ie, streaming of music, is completely free is wrong, and I would continue this to say, back to the original point, that claiming that buying per-piece for video won't work is wrong because:
Radio used to be the only distribution model worth mentioning: free streaming.
Recordings made per-piece sales possible.
Digital distribution made on-demand per-piece sales possible.
People like it. A lot. More than subscription streaming.
Video is currently subscription streaming.
Recordings have made per-piece sales possible. These sales are very good for content previously available only as subscription streaming. (ie, tv shows)
Digital distribution makes on-demand per-piece sales possible.
(x)
Solve for x.
Quote:
They will care a lot if their television and phone services are being dropped for access to broadband alone, slashing their revenue.
What will the practical upshot of that caring be? Most likely a far more rigid pricing structure than you see today.
There are a ton of people with broadband out there with bandwidth limitations already.
"You've got 4GB to do all of your Internet, TV & phone stuff this month? good luck!"
There will still be a market for folks who prefer to buy subscription. Look at Rhapsody. It's just a *smaller* market.
Besides, this is that whole free-market thing - the company that can get the biggest pipe to your house wins. We have telcos and cable competing right now, and I love it. Cable is using VoIP to steal telco revenue, telcos are going to use video to steal cable revenue. End result: everything over the pipe. Corollary: everything digital means the pipe is a commodity.
A mixture of delivery systems will be needed for folks not living in areas with access to fat pipes, but that's fine - there will still be competition among them.
Quote:
Hopefully there will be enough competition to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm even mildly hopeful companies like Verizon with services like FiOS who have no real vested interest in television won't mind pimping out their megabandwidth for potential web TV exploitation.
Now you're getting it.
Quote:
I know you think you're providing some special knowledge that my caveman brain is not grasping, but let me assure you these ideas are not new; not new to me and not new to the industry.
Then why are you wasting my time asking for explanations about every small detail? Jeez.
If the original signal being fed to the display has compression artifacts, you're going to see them *MORE* the higher quality the display! Jeez.
I said "better quality components", I didn't say a single word about the display. You were talking about the signals path, not the display.
Given the exact same components, sure, but run that very slightly degraded signal through some motion-adaptive comb filters and you could actually end up with a better picture than you might with a more complete signal.
Obviously, the better signal *and* things like motion-adaptive comb signals will be even better.
I'm not saying that MCE gives better picture quality at all. In most cases you'll be worse off picture wise. But with quality components it is possible to end up with identical or even slightly better real-world picture quality.
I would say that, for the basic TV watcher out in America, a decent setup will give them acceptable picture quality. Joe Public isn't used to watching all HD television. That's still a novelty, and they will sacrifice a minute drop in real-world picture quality for enhanced functionality.
Quote:
So you're telling me that the MCE box has a pure digital video-in as well? See, this is why I kept saying this was the relevant question, and you kept not answering it anyway.
There is no such thing as THE MCE box. There are a million different ways to build them.
Quote:
? that claiming that buying per-piece for video won't ?
I claimed that buying video per-piece wouldn't work? Do I think that VHS tapes and DVDs do not exist?
It's funny that I can say things like "The only remotely exciting part of any of these announcements is the digital delivery of TV shows through iTMS. That's all that's worth being excited about." on the first page of the thread and in your sanctimonious mind that registers as "WEB DELIVERY OF TELEVISION WILL NEVER WORK."
I call it something to be "excited about" and you act like I don't even understand what it is.
You love yourself quite a bit. Too much to even read what people say.
I said "better quality components", I didn't say a single word about the display. You were talking about the signals path, not the display.
Without a display, exactly how are you going to ascertain the quality of video, pray tell?
Quote:
Given the exact same components, sure, but run that very slightly degraded signal through some motion-adaptive comb filters and you could actually end up with a better picture than you might with a more complete signal.
Given components that need to deal with the vagaries of analog signals, and that attempt to overcome the limitations thereof, yes, feeding an analog signal through it can improve quality on the display. Here I thought we were discussing digital signals and digital video distribution. In such a case, the components that muck with the signal the *least* are better quality.
Quote:
Obviously, the better signal *and* things like motion-adaptive comb signals will be even better.
I'm not saying that MCE gives better picture quality at all. In most cases you'll be worse off picture wise. But with quality components it is possible to end up with identical or even slightly better real-world picture quality.
I have never seen an example of that happening in real life, despite claims by manufacturers. The more digital <-> analog jumps you put in, the lower the signal quality, that's just a fact of life.
Quote:
I would say that, for the basic TV watcher out in America, a decent setup will give them acceptable picture quality. Joe Public isn't used to watching all HD television. That's still a novelty, and they will sacrifice a minute drop in real-world picture quality for enhanced functionality.
Well we know that's true from VCRs. The quality is pretty poor, but the convenience made the market. Didn't stop DVDs. Why? Better quality, even with less convenience. Then comes the PVR. Lower quality, better convenience. Digital distribution of video offers better quality, better convenience... but only if it's kept digital. The company that successfully builds the on-demand infrastructure for that is going to make big waves. I know who my bet is on.
Quote:
There is no such thing as THE MCE box. There are a million different ways to build them.
Alright then, a real answer. Finally. Sort of. *shrug* I'll look elsewhere.
Quote:
I claimed that buying video per-piece wouldn't work? Do I think that VHS tapes and DVDs do not exist?
First page. Your 6th post:
Quote:
I don't think people are ever going to be into the "buy per episode" thing, ever.
That's what I argued with that led to the above exchange.
Quote:
It's funny that I can say things like "The only remotely exciting part of any of these announcements is the digital delivery of TV shows through iTMS. That's all that's worth being excited about." on the first page of the thread and in your sanctimonious mind that registers as "WEB DELIVERY OF TELEVISION WILL NEVER WORK."
No, actually, I read your above statement.
Quote:
I call it something to be "excited about" and you act like I don't even understand what it is.
You love yourself quite a bit. Too much to even read what people say.
And you can't seem to remember what you said.
Tell you what, why don't we drop this. It's outlived its usefulness at this point, when the argument turns to a meta-argument about who said what.
I do not know if 802.11n is for longer ranges or faster speeds, but if it is for the latter then I can see the AirPort Express getting 802.11n capabilities to stream video.
Intel 802.16 WiMAX is for longer ranges (and this is NOT wifi).
wifi 802.11n is for faster speed. Due to successive delays in finalization of the standard, Intel recently pushed to the creation of EWC (Enhanced Wireless Consortium) with more than 30 major members (note that Apple is one of those, and Microsoft isn't). The interesting notes point toward a release in 2006, and speeds up to 600 Mbit/s.
The theoric data rate of wifi 802.11n is exactly 540 Mbps. The "real" rate will probably be less, about 100 to 200 Mbps in a range of 90 meters (300 feet) at 2.4 Ghz (backward compatible with wifi 802.11b/g networks). Very comfortable to stream HD video content
Moreover and related to streaming media, the standard implements QoS (Quality of Service) which gives priority to tasks. This means the movie you're watchin, wirelessy streamed from your Mac/PC to your TV, won't jerk if another big file is being downloaded from the Internet; nor you will be cut while phoning over VoIP.
It also uses two combined techniques known as "OFDM" and "MIMO":
- OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing) sends multiple signals at the same time but on different frequencies. Standard FDM like radio or TV uses the same band (range of frequencies), and "Ortogonal" FDM uses dozens of completely independant Narrowband frequencies. OFDM is very resistant to interference.
WUSB (Wireless USB, see the Wireless USB Promoter Group) uses this technique too (note that in its case bandwith is very high close to you, while dropping very quickly with distance: 480Mbps @ 3 meters, 110 Mbps @ 10m). But don't worry, WUSB and wifi 802.11n are very different otherwise.
- MIMO (Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output) uses multiple antennas to increase throughput. It can offer up to 8 times the coverage and 6 times the speed of wifi 802.11g.
Some companies already sell MIMO-equiped products, like Belkin with its "Pre-N" 802.11g devices.
You're the one acting like MCE is the neatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just trying to ground it in reality. It's just a computer being piped to a TV. That's all.
Comments
I downloaded the season premier of Lost on Wednesday -- it took 35 minutes at a full 100 KB a second. Broadband needs to double before this paradigm comes into it's own. I don't usually watch TV of any kind except as a boxed set -- this saved me the time of waiting untill that set comes out. Which also means I won't be buying the boxed set -- but it also means I won't be passing it around to my parents/sister/nieghbors when I'm through with it, either.
I guess the streaming a la, the same sort of setup you have at a Hotel, could be done as well, and is on it's way -- but this system Apple has introduced can plug and unplug, regardless of cable/broadband company -- which in the end analysis makes them an 'irrelevant' player. I guess the only reason ABC, etc. wouldn't do this on their own is that Apple can control (somewhat) the interface, at least consumer headspace. Maybe Netflix will do something. At the moment, though, I think TV shows/reruns are as much pain as consumers can tolerate.
In any case, the computer will end up in our living room, to manage photos, music and movies, it's just a question of when and who is going to make it work first.
Originally posted by groverat
[B]Loss of picture quality is not a necessary consequence. As a matter of fact, good tuner cards can make it look better even after all the conversion dancing than it did on arrival.
There is a tremendous difference between the theoretical loss of "resolution" due to that process and a hit in real-world picture quality. There are a lot of factors that go into it and what you described is merely one of them.
If you have good, quality components it is possible to have no noticeable difference in picture quality.
'rat, that has got to be the most ass-backwards thing you've said in this entire thread.
Quality components = higher fidelity to original signal. If the original signal being fed to the display has compression artifacts, you're going to see them *MORE* the higher quality the display! Jeez. Compression artifacts almost disappear when I play the video on my 1981 19" CRT TV, but are *VERY* noticeable on a flat panel or high quality projector.
And what's this about a *tuner card*?? So you're going from wall (digital) to STB (analog) to MCE (digital) to cable to TV (analog) to tuner (digital) to screen?? Er... Good god man, just hook the MCE into the display as a direct video feed and skip the tuner. Or did you mean a hypothetical tuner card in the MCE box? In which case, let's see, that's wall (digital) to tuner card (digital) to tv (digital)... gee, that might be why it looks better. :P
Compression artifacts also build up badly - a region of video that is prone to artifacts on the first compression will, almost always, have *worse* artifacts on the second round. Repeated compression = worse quality. Period. The better the components, the *WORSE* the image in such cases.
Further, the analog conversion is not a necessary step in the process, it is optional (though prevalent). All-digital setups exist already (granted, over-the-air only right now in MCE).
Yes, all-digital setups exist already. In small markets. For a few channels.
So you're telling me that the MCE box has a pure digital video-in as well? See, this is why I kept saying this was the relevant question, and you kept not answering it anyway.
But MCE is going away, anyway. Windows Vista will be bringing a lot more to this, including CableCARD support. (And hey, thank Microsoft for backing HD-DVD which includes Managed Copy).
CableCARD is coming, Shuttle has already shown a potential product.
But? Vista won't be here until late 2006 at the earliest. Lots of time still for Apple to beat them to the punch.
Agreed. Look over in the other thread, and you'll see that that's where I'd like to see it go. Why? Because a CableCard slot means that you get to free yourself from your STB, and there goes a good chunk of the clunk in the current MCE system. It's stop-gap, the tech equivalent of bailing wire and duct tape, slipped into a glossy plastic skin and sold as high quality. Not impressive.
Paid radio services exist now, yes. Some people are now paying for what was once free because it has offered improvements over the free model (or things not even available via the free model).
That is almost vaguely somewhat like what we're talking about but not really. Please clarify.
You're not this dense, 'rat. Here, let me recap the trail put down so far.
G: I don't think people are ever going to be into the "buy per episode" thing, ever.
K: Funny, people seem to prefer buy per song over subscription.. (ie, it works fine in another on-demand media distribution system)
G: Music has always come in individual, paid-for packages.
K: And radio is...? (ie, no it hasn't, if you'd think for a second)
G: Still around and pretty strong. And completely free.
K: Sirius? XM? (ie, two paid models of radio, so no, not completely free)
So basically, your assertion that music has 'always' come in paid-for packages is wrong, your assertion that radio, ie, streaming of music, is completely free is wrong, and I would continue this to say, back to the original point, that claiming that buying per-piece for video won't work is wrong because:
Radio used to be the only distribution model worth mentioning: free streaming.
Recordings made per-piece sales possible.
Digital distribution made on-demand per-piece sales possible.
People like it. A lot. More than subscription streaming.
Video is currently subscription streaming.
Recordings have made per-piece sales possible. These sales are very good for content previously available only as subscription streaming. (ie, tv shows)
Digital distribution makes on-demand per-piece sales possible.
(x)
Solve for x.
They will care a lot if their television and phone services are being dropped for access to broadband alone, slashing their revenue.
What will the practical upshot of that caring be? Most likely a far more rigid pricing structure than you see today.
There are a ton of people with broadband out there with bandwidth limitations already.
"You've got 4GB to do all of your Internet, TV & phone stuff this month? good luck!"
There will still be a market for folks who prefer to buy subscription. Look at Rhapsody. It's just a *smaller* market.
Besides, this is that whole free-market thing - the company that can get the biggest pipe to your house wins. We have telcos and cable competing right now, and I love it. Cable is using VoIP to steal telco revenue, telcos are going to use video to steal cable revenue. End result: everything over the pipe. Corollary: everything digital means the pipe is a commodity.
A mixture of delivery systems will be needed for folks not living in areas with access to fat pipes, but that's fine - there will still be competition among them.
Hopefully there will be enough competition to make sure that doesn't happen.
I'm even mildly hopeful companies like Verizon with services like FiOS who have no real vested interest in television won't mind pimping out their megabandwidth for potential web TV exploitation.
Now you're getting it.
I know you think you're providing some special knowledge that my caveman brain is not grasping, but let me assure you these ideas are not new; not new to me and not new to the industry.
Then why are you wasting my time asking for explanations about every small detail? Jeez.
If the original signal being fed to the display has compression artifacts, you're going to see them *MORE* the higher quality the display! Jeez.
I said "better quality components", I didn't say a single word about the display. You were talking about the signals path, not the display.
Given the exact same components, sure, but run that very slightly degraded signal through some motion-adaptive comb filters and you could actually end up with a better picture than you might with a more complete signal.
Obviously, the better signal *and* things like motion-adaptive comb signals will be even better.
I'm not saying that MCE gives better picture quality at all. In most cases you'll be worse off picture wise. But with quality components it is possible to end up with identical or even slightly better real-world picture quality.
I would say that, for the basic TV watcher out in America, a decent setup will give them acceptable picture quality. Joe Public isn't used to watching all HD television. That's still a novelty, and they will sacrifice a minute drop in real-world picture quality for enhanced functionality.
So you're telling me that the MCE box has a pure digital video-in as well? See, this is why I kept saying this was the relevant question, and you kept not answering it anyway.
There is no such thing as THE MCE box. There are a million different ways to build them.
? that claiming that buying per-piece for video won't ?
I claimed that buying video per-piece wouldn't work? Do I think that VHS tapes and DVDs do not exist?
It's funny that I can say things like "The only remotely exciting part of any of these announcements is the digital delivery of TV shows through iTMS. That's all that's worth being excited about." on the first page of the thread and in your sanctimonious mind that registers as "WEB DELIVERY OF TELEVISION WILL NEVER WORK."
I call it something to be "excited about" and you act like I don't even understand what it is.
You love yourself quite a bit. Too much to even read what people say.
Originally posted by groverat
I said "better quality components", I didn't say a single word about the display. You were talking about the signals path, not the display.
Without a display, exactly how are you going to ascertain the quality of video, pray tell?
Given the exact same components, sure, but run that very slightly degraded signal through some motion-adaptive comb filters and you could actually end up with a better picture than you might with a more complete signal.
Given components that need to deal with the vagaries of analog signals, and that attempt to overcome the limitations thereof, yes, feeding an analog signal through it can improve quality on the display. Here I thought we were discussing digital signals and digital video distribution. In such a case, the components that muck with the signal the *least* are better quality.
Obviously, the better signal *and* things like motion-adaptive comb signals will be even better.
I'm not saying that MCE gives better picture quality at all. In most cases you'll be worse off picture wise. But with quality components it is possible to end up with identical or even slightly better real-world picture quality.
I have never seen an example of that happening in real life, despite claims by manufacturers. The more digital <-> analog jumps you put in, the lower the signal quality, that's just a fact of life.
I would say that, for the basic TV watcher out in America, a decent setup will give them acceptable picture quality. Joe Public isn't used to watching all HD television. That's still a novelty, and they will sacrifice a minute drop in real-world picture quality for enhanced functionality.
Well we know that's true from VCRs. The quality is pretty poor, but the convenience made the market. Didn't stop DVDs. Why? Better quality, even with less convenience. Then comes the PVR. Lower quality, better convenience. Digital distribution of video offers better quality, better convenience... but only if it's kept digital. The company that successfully builds the on-demand infrastructure for that is going to make big waves. I know who my bet is on.
There is no such thing as THE MCE box. There are a million different ways to build them.
Alright then, a real answer. Finally. Sort of. *shrug* I'll look elsewhere.
I claimed that buying video per-piece wouldn't work? Do I think that VHS tapes and DVDs do not exist?
First page. Your 6th post:
I don't think people are ever going to be into the "buy per episode" thing, ever.
That's what I argued with that led to the above exchange.
It's funny that I can say things like "The only remotely exciting part of any of these announcements is the digital delivery of TV shows through iTMS. That's all that's worth being excited about." on the first page of the thread and in your sanctimonious mind that registers as "WEB DELIVERY OF TELEVISION WILL NEVER WORK."
No, actually, I read your above statement.
I call it something to be "excited about" and you act like I don't even understand what it is.
You love yourself quite a bit. Too much to even read what people say.
And you can't seem to remember what you said.
Tell you what, why don't we drop this. It's outlived its usefulness at this point, when the argument turns to a meta-argument about who said what.
Originally posted by groverat
I'd say it's evolved into yet another practice session in your tireless efforts to become an even more condescending know-it-all.
Hey...that's MY job.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Hey...that's MY job.
Uhm... did i miss something
(The two a probably out for a good pps)
Originally posted by troberts
I do not know if 802.11n is for longer ranges or faster speeds, but if it is for the latter then I can see the AirPort Express getting 802.11n capabilities to stream video.
Intel 802.16 WiMAX is for longer ranges (and this is NOT wifi).
wifi 802.11n is for faster speed. Due to successive delays in finalization of the standard, Intel recently pushed to the creation of EWC (Enhanced Wireless Consortium) with more than 30 major members (note that Apple is one of those, and Microsoft isn't). The interesting notes point toward a release in 2006, and speeds up to 600 Mbit/s.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
The interesting notes point toward a release in 2006, and speeds up to 600 Mbit/s.
Holy monkey.
Originally posted by Cosmos 1999
Intel 802.16 WiMAX is for longer ranges (and this is NOT wifi).
wifi 802.11n is for faster speed.. [/B]
Generally though, each new standard does brings about increased range, if only a slight increase.
Re: 600Mbps, wow!
Originally posted by danielctull
Re: 600Mbps, wow!
The theoric data rate of wifi 802.11n is exactly 540 Mbps. The "real" rate will probably be less, about 100 to 200 Mbps in a range of 90 meters (300 feet) at 2.4 Ghz (backward compatible with wifi 802.11b/g networks). Very comfortable to stream HD video content
Moreover and related to streaming media, the standard implements QoS (Quality of Service) which gives priority to tasks. This means the movie you're watchin, wirelessy streamed from your Mac/PC to your TV, won't jerk if another big file is being downloaded from the Internet; nor you will be cut while phoning over VoIP.
It also uses two combined techniques known as "OFDM" and "MIMO":
- OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing) sends multiple signals at the same time but on different frequencies. Standard FDM like radio or TV uses the same band (range of frequencies), and "Ortogonal" FDM uses dozens of completely independant Narrowband frequencies. OFDM is very resistant to interference.
WUSB (Wireless USB, see the Wireless USB Promoter Group) uses this technique too (note that in its case bandwith is very high close to you, while dropping very quickly with distance: 480Mbps @ 3 meters, 110 Mbps @ 10m). But don't worry, WUSB and wifi 802.11n are very different otherwise.
- MIMO (Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output) uses multiple antennas to increase throughput. It can offer up to 8 times the coverage and 6 times the speed of wifi 802.11g.
Some companies already sell MIMO-equiped products, like Belkin with its "Pre-N" 802.11g devices.
You're the one acting like MCE is the neatest thing since sliced bread, I'm just trying to ground it in reality. It's just a computer being piped to a TV. That's all.
Windows Media Thing. I've 'tried' to use it.
It s*cks.
Lemon Bon Bon
I have seen it it running on a PowerBook 867, thanks to a clever friend who purchased the new iMac..
It can be done, so surely it eventually will be done. That's all I'm saying.
Originally posted by Trans9B
I'd just like to stir the pot a bit, since this is supposed to be a thread about Front Row...
I have seen it it running on a PowerBook 867, thanks to a clever friend who purchased the new iMac..
It can be done, so surely it eventually will be done. That's all I'm saying.
Does he have an iSight? If so, could he use the remote with the iSight to control it?
Originally posted by Trans9B
I'd just like to stir the pot a bit, since this is supposed to be a thread about Front Row...
I have seen it it running on a PowerBook 867, thanks to a clever friend who purchased the new iMac..
It can be done, so surely it eventually will be done. That's all I'm saying.
Does he have an iSight? If so, could he use the remote with the iSight to control it?