TV watchers use TV to watch TV. How many nights a week do you sit down, and watch a photo-disk for two hours? Comparatively the television is going to be used 99% of the time for watching television shows and movies for a long time to come. There is no getting around that. iTV isn't going to turn the world into a bunch of families that sit down to still picture viewers for hours of enjoyment, and relaxation at the end of their hectic days.
How often are you going to do it? You are going to lose a lot of friends if all you do is have them over to look at your photos. Unless your Annie Liebowitz, or something. Then maybe some people would be interested, but how many times can even Annie Liebowitz do that until it gets old? Is she going to want to sit around and watch her photos all the time when she is alone? Or is she maybe interested in catching the last few episodes of 24 because she was away snapping a photo-shoot for the Rolling Stones on tour?
My family frequently wants to look at pictures/home movies, and now we just huddle around the computer. I often download funny videos from youtube that I want to show my wife. Not every day, and not much for friends, but often enough to make this iTV an attractive option. Don't exaggerate this into "making friends watch hours and hours of your photos." More and more media content is coming into our computers, and it makes great sense to watch it on a TV rather than the computer.
I really don't understand why people don't get this. Complain about the price, and I'm with you. Say it should have more functions - fine. But it's just silly to suggest that no one wants to view their computer content on their TVs.
My family frequently wants to look at pictures/home movies, and now we just huddle around the computer. I often download funny videos from youtube that I want to show my wife. Not every day, and not much for friends, but often enough to make this iTV an attractive option. Don't exaggerate this into "making friends watch hours and hours of your photos." More and more media content is coming into our computers, and it makes great sense to watch it on a TV rather than the computer.
I really don't understand why people don't get this. Complain about the price, and I'm with you. Say it should have more functions - fine. But it's just silly to suggest that no one wants to view their computer content on their TVs.
Which really is a point I'm making, but on a remote level. But I do think for real penetration it needs the PVR to succeed in making big waves. I'm only interested in the success of this product. I know it will sell as it is, but it will be very limited comparatively, and then without the PVR Apple is going to come out worse than BIG BROTHER with their stance on selling free TV to the masses when they are a hardware company that was, or seemed like one of us. And now having a politician on their board who's whole career is about sucking the life out of the public. They are quickly looking worse than Microsoft ever was. With their DRM thing, iPod only stance on iTunes compatibility, and now this. (selling free TV without the option to PVR) The only thing that was that all that bad about MS was their shoddy programming. This is plain old milking the consumer. They are starting to look like turncoats. Does anyone remember the 1984 superbowl add? What happened to the Apple we counted on?
Whatever, but why don't you read the rest of the post and tell me if you think it matters. How often is a person going to use it in comparison to the way they use their TV today?
I forgot to put that in. PVR software can easily feed recorded shows into iTunes. It's not even hard to do.
If anyone actually still reads 8 pages before they get to this one maybe. BUt I like to make sure it gets on every page so I can keep addressing it. It's valid.
Which really is a point I'm making, but on a remote level. But I do think for real penetration it needs the PVR to succeed in making big waves. I'm only interested in the success of this product. I know it will sell as it is, but it will be very limited comparatively, and then without the PVR Apple is going to come out worse than BIG BROTHER with their stance on selling free TV to the masses when they are a hardware company that was, or seemed like one of us. And now having a politician on their board who's whole career is about sucking the life out of the public. They are quickly looking worse than Microsoft ever was. With their DRM thing, iPod only stance on iTunes compatibility, and now this. (selling free TV without the option to PVR) The only thing that was that all that bad about MS was their shoddy programming. This is plain old milking the consumer. They are starting to look like turncoats. Does anyone remember the 1984 superbowl add? What happened to the Apple we counted on?
Well that's quite a rant, including referring to Gore "sucking the life out of the public." Don't blame your readers for thinking you're being a bit irrational.
I have no doubt that Elgato and others will make PVRs for this thing. It's the perfect opportunity for them, and some people will buy them.
Well that's quite a rant, including referring to Gore "sucking the life out of the public." Don't blame your readers for thinking you're being a bit irrational.
How irrational is it to know that politics, and politicians are all about big business. Weather they are smart enough to know it or not.
I have no doubt that Elgato and others will make PVRs for this thing.
What might that PVR be and where would it be located?
If the tuner is hooked directly to iTV would captured content be stored locally or remotely? The former seems easiest and most obvious, but undesirable if you want your media library archive stored remotely. The latter seems more technically challenging, but desirable if you want iTV to remain a relatively light-weight client device.
I can imagine an iTV-based PVR scenario similar to my current EyeTV/EyeHome configuration: hook the tuner to a computer with access to the storage library and stream content to iTV. What iTV would need, which EyeHome doesn't support with EyeTV, is interactive tuner control (for lack of a better term). There's no ability to schedule programs, stream and time-shift live TV, and other EyeTV PVR-like functions through EyeHome.
I'm sure I'm not the only current EyeTV customer hoping Apple/Elgato will somehow integrate it with iTV in a way that makes it a more complete PVR solution than the EyeTV/EyeHome combination.
I just got distracted/rushed to post this a bit sooner than I'd like. The basic idea is considering ways a PVR requirement might be satisfied with iTV as one of its components -- I'm curious what other ideas people have in mind.
If anyone actually still reads 8 pages before they get to this one maybe. BUt I like to make sure it gets on every page so I can keep addressing it. It's valid.
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
Vinea
You tell 'em. I think the whole "I want a PVR/DVR in it" is a very short-sighted thing, and limiting. We have that already, why should Apple compete there? My cable's version works just fine, or, I can do as a friend, and add a DVD burner to it if I want something more permanent. From everything I'm hearing round town, Apple's trying to change the dynamics and distribution, not just with iTunes but in our methodology of watching TV via the Internet (and whatever's beyond that) as opposed to broadcast or cable/satellite. It becomes an incremental change. Cable changed the viewing habits of America and changed the ad dollars distribution out there (the Big 4 networks had to change their whole viewing/ad monetization ratios over the years). I think Apple's trying for another change. And it takes awhile. Small well-placed steps.
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
Vinea
I believe all they would have to do is have a hard drive, and HDV decoding in the unit. Doesn't seem that extreme. Now how does it compete? I think it explains itself. the extra $10 a month fee for the DVR is gone, and the iTS features are there as extras. I don't think what Apple is offering now is that great by itself, but with a DVR Apple can out do the others with name recognition, and the iTS living room experience as a whole.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that one bit. Well except that TV is a competitor. But the one of the main pro PVR arguments is penetration. How useful is the iTV to the average TV consumer without it? No use at all. Looking at it from the consumer standpoint, and not an Apple fan standpoint this product is a buy, and keep buying, and buying, and buying " " " " " " " " "... And so on. Not a great deal, and not a consumer friendly deal either.
Now, I don't think Steve Jobs walks on water but I do like Apple kit & their approach to technology (i.e. it's actually useful). You're right to question usefulness of technology, many don't but I'd make the analogy that iTV is as useful to a TV consumer as an iPod was to an HiFi consumer. I told my father in 2001, upon buying my first iPod, that this would change the way I think about music. He laughed it off (of course - though I thought it was me who was supposed to rebel against him) but this year around 40 million people will agree, him included.
I already have my Mac (though it could be a PC) hooked up to the big TV in the lounge & no, we don't look at our photos all night long - though the Mrs is a babe - New Zealand TV isn't that bad. When we come back from weekend trips & holidays the neighbours now expect a slideshow with some inappropriate music, drinks & the low-down (& it is low). It looks great on the big screen & so did 'Lost' which wasn't airing here at the time (OK so it was a P2P download at 640x308 or thereabouts - only the US has TV shows).
The (long-winded) point I'm trying to make is; the iPod alone wasn't that great but it was part of a great music concept which was different to contempory thinking. iTV on it's own is pointless unless you're prepared to rethink TV & acknowledge it's part of a great TV concept which is different to contempory thinking. This time, all the other components are already in place.
What on earth does that have to do with the heart of what I said? If your addressing something irrelevant to what I said don't quote me please.
Because you said that almost everything that the iTV does could be done today, and I responded that the same was the case with the iPod, but it's selling anyway.
Get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
OK, lets direct focus on the iPod instead of the iTV I get it.
Uhm, I was referring to media extenders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Yes, but my point is that Windows doesn't have all the iLife stuff FOR ITV that Mac's do that's why I'm saying that this is mostly a Mac based product.
It didn't occur to you that it will support photos in Windows too? The iPod supports photos on Windows, and I can't see why the iTV shouldn't support that too. The rest comes from iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Yes it will, but how well, and what will windows offer. As I said you can already do all those things on a computer except watch movies for the iTS, and that is not much of an attraction.
You should work for Creative - they can't think about anything else than features too.
Why buy an HP media extender for $229 when $70 will give you ease of use, HD support and probably features we haven't seen yet.
If this is going to be real easy, the iTV will not only connect to a wireless network, it will be a base station IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
How many nights a week do you sit down, and watch a photo-disk for two hours? Comparatively the television is going to be used 99% of the time for watching television shows and movies for a long time to come. There is no getting around that. iTV isn't going to turn the world into a bunch of families that sit down to still picture viewers for hours of enjoyment, and relaxation at the end of their hectic days.
And I never said that either. Why does a product have to be used for hours every day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
How often are you going to do it? You are going to lose a lot of friends if all you do is have them over to look at your photos. Unless your Annie Liebowitz, or something. Then maybe some people would be interested, but how many times can even Annie Liebowitz do that until it gets old?
Again, it has nothing to do with how often I do it, but today I have to let them stand behind me and let them look at a monitor.
But selecting and changing music, I do a lot.
BUt it will be use primarily by a family, or 1, or two people. If it were Annie Liebowitz, is she going to want to sit around and watch her photos all the time when she is alone? Or is she maybe interested in catching the last few episodes of 24 because she was away snapping a photo-shoot for the Rolling Stones on tour?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
PLease quit cutting my posts up as if they are separate paragraphs. Each of these are commenting the same quarrel, and separately they don't make sense.
I don't see The only thing on your list that can't already be done is "They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?" and Your forgetting the average consumer isn't a Mac user. Only about 4% of all computer users are Mac users. On average your trying to identify this product with a group who holds no affiliation with you, or Apple. as one thing, since I don't agree that they have anything to do with each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Nice diversion on your part, but truth is this product is all fantasy presentation that no one is ever going to use very frequently. NO where near a frequently as a PVR.
And it doesn't have to. I use my dvd player much more than my PVR, but I still have both.
I believe all they would have to do is have a hard drive, and HDV decoding in the unit. Doesn't seem that extreme. Now how does it compete? I think it explains itself. the extra $10 a month fee for the DVR is gone, and the iTS features are there as extras. I don't think what Apple is offering now is that great by itself, but with a DVR Apple can out do the others with name recognition, and the iTS living room experience as a whole.
It is extreme...especially for HD recording and recording of any digital channels not sent unencrypted. Hence the need for cablecards. So it's 30 months for breakeven...assuming that there is no charge for cablecard rental which there is and the price remains $299. Which given the series 3 pricing seems unrealistic even if you get rid of the dual tuners.
You still need a HD cable box unless you're willing to forego PPV and VOD. So how does it compete? Not that much better than a $299 iTV box as is. Plus if TiVO wins its patent case that Apple has to pay them for a license but they'd likely just cross license anyway and Apple pays a small amount if anything.
It is extreme...especially for HD recording and recording of any digital channels not sent unencrypted. Hence the need for cablecards. So it's 30 months for breakeven...assuming that there is no charge for cablecard rental which there is and the price remains $299. Which given the series 3 pricing seems unrealistic even if you get rid of the dual tuners.
You still need a HD cable box unless you're willing to forego PPV and VOD. So how does it compete? Not that much better than a $299 iTV box as is. Plus if TiVO wins its patent case that Apple has to pay them for a license but they'd likely just cross license anyway and Apple pays a small amount if anything.
Vinea
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
I have one of those. It's great except that it crashes about twice a week
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
Mm...yes and no. Using it in dumb VCR mode with a cable box I think you can record PPV and VOD over SVideo (in SD). I never got the firewire port on my HD cable box to do anything particularly interesting (either the original Scientific Atlanta HD box or the later HD-DVR).
The HD-DVR from Comcast I believe will let you record PPV or VOD but I never tried. It was a Motorolla box now that I think about it. The reports are spotty...some folks say you can, some folks say you can't. I think it depends on what your cable provider is thinking that year. Comcast I believe will. One of the other major players I think does not.
Given that cable HD was still newish and the only things that a HTPC HD-DVR could record was clear QAM (i.e. local HD channels)...which meant definately no HBO-HD, ShowTime-HD, IN and also no Discovery-HD, TNT-HD or ESPN-HD...and there were no cable cards I went the path of least resistance.
Even today, with the TiVO Series 3 at its stellar $700 price tag I'd still go the path of least resistance. Cablecards are still new, some companies like Cox reportedly aren't very cooperative and they are one way.
I personally wouldn't buy a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD for $300. I was never all that pleased with the SA gear I did have and the Motorolla boxes weren't much better. Yes, Apple might be able to do better but too many factors are outside their control. Your end user experience on say Cox might be simply horrid. Cablecard in 2006 is still for the early adopter techie type.
In 2.5 years hard drives will be bigger and likely the market will look a bit different. Plus you might move and find your box isn't compatible with whatever technology you need to connect to. I have DISH now and I just laughed when they wanted me to pony up for a HD-DVR. I'll likely go FIOS-TV in a couple months and rent whatever Verizon is provisioning.
In 2.5 years if I bought a HD-DVR there's a good chance it'd be gathering dust like my Replay and TiVO. I'd say I got my value out TiVO and Replay but back then nobody rented you DVRs.
Comments
TV watchers use TV to watch TV. How many nights a week do you sit down, and watch a photo-disk for two hours? Comparatively the television is going to be used 99% of the time for watching television shows and movies for a long time to come. There is no getting around that. iTV isn't going to turn the world into a bunch of families that sit down to still picture viewers for hours of enjoyment, and relaxation at the end of their hectic days.
How often are you going to do it? You are going to lose a lot of friends if all you do is have them over to look at your photos. Unless your Annie Liebowitz, or something. Then maybe some people would be interested, but how many times can even Annie Liebowitz do that until it gets old? Is she going to want to sit around and watch her photos all the time when she is alone? Or is she maybe interested in catching the last few episodes of 24 because she was away snapping a photo-shoot for the Rolling Stones on tour?
My family frequently wants to look at pictures/home movies, and now we just huddle around the computer. I often download funny videos from youtube that I want to show my wife. Not every day, and not much for friends, but often enough to make this iTV an attractive option. Don't exaggerate this into "making friends watch hours and hours of your photos." More and more media content is coming into our computers, and it makes great sense to watch it on a TV rather than the computer.
I really don't understand why people don't get this. Complain about the price, and I'm with you. Say it should have more functions - fine. But it's just silly to suggest that no one wants to view their computer content on their TVs.
My family frequently wants to look at pictures/home movies, and now we just huddle around the computer. I often download funny videos from youtube that I want to show my wife. Not every day, and not much for friends, but often enough to make this iTV an attractive option. Don't exaggerate this into "making friends watch hours and hours of your photos." More and more media content is coming into our computers, and it makes great sense to watch it on a TV rather than the computer.
I really don't understand why people don't get this. Complain about the price, and I'm with you. Say it should have more functions - fine. But it's just silly to suggest that no one wants to view their computer content on their TVs.
Which really is a point I'm making, but on a remote level. But I do think for real penetration it needs the PVR to succeed in making big waves. I'm only interested in the success of this product. I know it will sell as it is, but it will be very limited comparatively, and then without the PVR Apple is going to come out worse than BIG BROTHER with their stance on selling free TV to the masses when they are a hardware company that was, or seemed like one of us. And now having a politician on their board who's whole career is about sucking the life out of the public. They are quickly looking worse than Microsoft ever was. With their DRM thing, iPod only stance on iTunes compatibility, and now this. (selling free TV without the option to PVR) The only thing that was that all that bad about MS was their shoddy programming. This is plain old milking the consumer. They are starting to look like turncoats. Does anyone remember the 1984 superbowl add? What happened to the Apple we counted on?
Whatever, but why don't you read the rest of the post and tell me if you think it matters. How often is a person going to use it in comparison to the way they use their TV today?
I forgot to put that in. PVR software can easily feed recorded shows into iTunes. It's not even hard to do.
I forgot to put that in. PVR software can easily feed recorded shows into iTunes. It's not even hard to do.
Well that I didn't know. Thanks for the heads up.
I do think for real penetration it needs the PVR to suceed in making big waves.
Why do you keep repeating that point? Is there anyone still reading this thread who doesn't already know that's what you think?
Which really is a point I'm making, but on a remote level. But I do think for real penetration it needs the PVR to succeed in making big waves. I'm only interested in the success of this product. I know it will sell as it is, but it will be very limited comparatively, and then without the PVR Apple is going to come out worse than BIG BROTHER with their stance on selling free TV to the masses when they are a hardware company that was, or seemed like one of us. And now having a politician on their board who's whole career is about sucking the life out of the public. They are quickly looking worse than Microsoft ever was. With their DRM thing, iPod only stance on iTunes compatibility, and now this. (selling free TV without the option to PVR) The only thing that was that all that bad about MS was their shoddy programming. This is plain old milking the consumer. They are starting to look like turncoats. Does anyone remember the 1984 superbowl add? What happened to the Apple we counted on?
Well that's quite a rant, including referring to Gore "sucking the life out of the public." Don't blame your readers for thinking you're being a bit irrational.
I have no doubt that Elgato and others will make PVRs for this thing. It's the perfect opportunity for them, and some people will buy them.
Well that's quite a rant, including referring to Gore "sucking the life out of the public." Don't blame your readers for thinking you're being a bit irrational.
How irrational is it to know that politics, and politicians are all about big business. Weather they are smart enough to know it or not.
I have no doubt that Elgato and others will make PVRs for this thing.
What might that PVR be and where would it be located?
If the tuner is hooked directly to iTV would captured content be stored locally or remotely? The former seems easiest and most obvious, but undesirable if you want your media library archive stored remotely. The latter seems more technically challenging, but desirable if you want iTV to remain a relatively light-weight client device.
I can imagine an iTV-based PVR scenario similar to my current EyeTV/EyeHome configuration: hook the tuner to a computer with access to the storage library and stream content to iTV. What iTV would need, which EyeHome doesn't support with EyeTV, is interactive tuner control (for lack of a better term). There's no ability to schedule programs, stream and time-shift live TV, and other EyeTV PVR-like functions through EyeHome.
I'm sure I'm not the only current EyeTV customer hoping Apple/Elgato will somehow integrate it with iTV in a way that makes it a more complete PVR solution than the EyeTV/EyeHome combination.
I just got distracted/rushed to post this a bit sooner than I'd like. The basic idea is considering ways a PVR requirement might be satisfied with iTV as one of its components -- I'm curious what other ideas people have in mind.
If anyone actually still reads 8 pages before they get to this one maybe. BUt I like to make sure it gets on every page so I can keep addressing it. It's valid.
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
Vinea
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
Vinea
You tell 'em. I think the whole "I want a PVR/DVR in it" is a very short-sighted thing, and limiting. We have that already, why should Apple compete there? My cable's version works just fine, or, I can do as a friend, and add a DVD burner to it if I want something more permanent. From everything I'm hearing round town, Apple's trying to change the dynamics and distribution, not just with iTunes but in our methodology of watching TV via the Internet (and whatever's beyond that) as opposed to broadcast or cable/satellite. It becomes an incremental change. Cable changed the viewing habits of America and changed the ad dollars distribution out there (the Big 4 networks had to change their whole viewing/ad monetization ratios over the years). I think Apple's trying for another change. And it takes awhile. Small well-placed steps.
How about addressing how Apple is expected to compete with a $10/month HD-DVR from Comcast with better integration to their services than Apple can achieve? You'll also have to explain how an Apple DVR is going to be that much more compelling than a Series 3 TiVO or any cheaper...
Vinea
I believe all they would have to do is have a hard drive, and HDV decoding in the unit. Doesn't seem that extreme. Now how does it compete? I think it explains itself. the extra $10 a month fee for the DVR is gone, and the iTS features are there as extras. I don't think what Apple is offering now is that great by itself, but with a DVR Apple can out do the others with name recognition, and the iTS living room experience as a whole.
I'm not disagreeing with you on that one bit. Well except that TV is a competitor. But the one of the main pro PVR arguments is penetration. How useful is the iTV to the average TV consumer without it? No use at all. Looking at it from the consumer standpoint, and not an Apple fan standpoint this product is a buy, and keep buying, and buying, and buying " " " " " " " " "... And so on. Not a great deal, and not a consumer friendly deal either.
Now, I don't think Steve Jobs walks on water but I do like Apple kit & their approach to technology (i.e. it's actually useful). You're right to question usefulness of technology, many don't but I'd make the analogy that iTV is as useful to a TV consumer as an iPod was to an HiFi consumer. I told my father in 2001, upon buying my first iPod, that this would change the way I think about music. He laughed it off (of course - though I thought it was me who was supposed to rebel against him) but this year around 40 million people will agree, him included.
I already have my Mac (though it could be a PC) hooked up to the big TV in the lounge & no, we don't look at our photos all night long - though the Mrs is a babe - New Zealand TV isn't that bad. When we come back from weekend trips & holidays the neighbours now expect a slideshow with some inappropriate music, drinks & the low-down (& it is low). It looks great on the big screen & so did 'Lost' which wasn't airing here at the time (OK so it was a P2P download at 640x308 or thereabouts - only the US has TV shows).
The (long-winded) point I'm trying to make is; the iPod alone wasn't that great but it was part of a great music concept which was different to contempory thinking. iTV on it's own is pointless unless you're prepared to rethink TV & acknowledge it's part of a great TV concept which is different to contempory thinking. This time, all the other components are already in place.
McD
What on earth does that have to do with the heart of what I said? If your addressing something irrelevant to what I said don't quote me please.
Because you said that almost everything that the iTV does could be done today, and I responded that the same was the case with the iPod, but it's selling anyway.
Get it?
OK, lets direct focus on the iPod instead of the iTV I get it.
Uhm, I was referring to media extenders.
Yes, but my point is that Windows doesn't have all the iLife stuff FOR ITV that Mac's do that's why I'm saying that this is mostly a Mac based product.
It didn't occur to you that it will support photos in Windows too? The iPod supports photos on Windows, and I can't see why the iTV shouldn't support that too. The rest comes from iTunes.
Yes it will, but how well, and what will windows offer. As I said you can already do all those things on a computer except watch movies for the iTS, and that is not much of an attraction.
You should work for Creative - they can't think about anything else than features too.
Why buy an HP media extender for $229 when $70 will give you ease of use, HD support and probably features we haven't seen yet.
If this is going to be real easy, the iTV will not only connect to a wireless network, it will be a base station IMHO.
How many nights a week do you sit down, and watch a photo-disk for two hours? Comparatively the television is going to be used 99% of the time for watching television shows and movies for a long time to come. There is no getting around that. iTV isn't going to turn the world into a bunch of families that sit down to still picture viewers for hours of enjoyment, and relaxation at the end of their hectic days.
And I never said that either. Why does a product have to be used for hours every day?
How often are you going to do it? You are going to lose a lot of friends if all you do is have them over to look at your photos. Unless your Annie Liebowitz, or something. Then maybe some people would be interested, but how many times can even Annie Liebowitz do that until it gets old?
Again, it has nothing to do with how often I do it, but today I have to let them stand behind me and let them look at a monitor.
But selecting and changing music, I do a lot.
BUt it will be use primarily by a family, or 1, or two people. If it were Annie Liebowitz, is she going to want to sit around and watch her photos all the time when she is alone? Or is she maybe interested in catching the last few episodes of 24 because she was away snapping a photo-shoot for the Rolling Stones on tour?
PLease quit cutting my posts up as if they are separate paragraphs. Each of these are commenting the same quarrel, and separately they don't make sense.
I don't see The only thing on your list that can't already be done is "They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?" and Your forgetting the average consumer isn't a Mac user. Only about 4% of all computer users are Mac users. On average your trying to identify this product with a group who holds no affiliation with you, or Apple. as one thing, since I don't agree that they have anything to do with each other.
Nice diversion on your part, but truth is this product is all fantasy presentation that no one is ever going to use very frequently. NO where near a frequently as a PVR.
And it doesn't have to. I use my dvd player much more than my PVR, but I still have both.
I believe all they would have to do is have a hard drive, and HDV decoding in the unit. Doesn't seem that extreme. Now how does it compete? I think it explains itself. the extra $10 a month fee for the DVR is gone, and the iTS features are there as extras. I don't think what Apple is offering now is that great by itself, but with a DVR Apple can out do the others with name recognition, and the iTS living room experience as a whole.
It is extreme...especially for HD recording and recording of any digital channels not sent unencrypted. Hence the need for cablecards. So it's 30 months for breakeven...assuming that there is no charge for cablecard rental which there is and the price remains $299. Which given the series 3 pricing seems unrealistic even if you get rid of the dual tuners.
You still need a HD cable box unless you're willing to forego PPV and VOD. So how does it compete? Not that much better than a $299 iTV box as is. Plus if TiVO wins its patent case that Apple has to pay them for a license but they'd likely just cross license anyway and Apple pays a small amount if anything.
Vinea
I don't think they want to make that many models to be compatible with the rest of the world.
It is extreme...especially for HD recording and recording of any digital channels not sent unencrypted. Hence the need for cablecards. So it's 30 months for breakeven...assuming that there is no charge for cablecard rental which there is and the price remains $299. Which given the series 3 pricing seems unrealistic even if you get rid of the dual tuners.
You still need a HD cable box unless you're willing to forego PPV and VOD. So how does it compete? Not that much better than a $299 iTV box as is. Plus if TiVO wins its patent case that Apple has to pay them for a license but they'd likely just cross license anyway and Apple pays a small amount if anything.
Vinea
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
I have one of those. It's great except that it crashes about twice a week
Quick question. Does Tivo record PPV, and VOD? I have no idea about that.
But if most of what you've said is right, and it is the only was to get the HD signal (pre cable Tuner) I'm probably not going to get one. I'd much rather spend $300 on a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD
Mm...yes and no. Using it in dumb VCR mode with a cable box I think you can record PPV and VOD over SVideo (in SD). I never got the firewire port on my HD cable box to do anything particularly interesting (either the original Scientific Atlanta HD box or the later HD-DVR).
The HD-DVR from Comcast I believe will let you record PPV or VOD but I never tried. It was a Motorolla box now that I think about it. The reports are spotty...some folks say you can, some folks say you can't. I think it depends on what your cable provider is thinking that year. Comcast I believe will. One of the other major players I think does not.
Given that cable HD was still newish and the only things that a HTPC HD-DVR could record was clear QAM (i.e. local HD channels)...which meant definately no HBO-HD, ShowTime-HD, IN and also no Discovery-HD, TNT-HD or ESPN-HD...and there were no cable cards I went the path of least resistance.
Even today, with the TiVO Series 3 at its stellar $700 price tag I'd still go the path of least resistance. Cablecards are still new, some companies like Cox reportedly aren't very cooperative and they are one way.
I personally wouldn't buy a Scientific Atlanta 8300HD for $300. I was never all that pleased with the SA gear I did have and the Motorolla boxes weren't much better. Yes, Apple might be able to do better but too many factors are outside their control. Your end user experience on say Cox might be simply horrid. Cablecard in 2006 is still for the early adopter techie type.
In 2.5 years hard drives will be bigger and likely the market will look a bit different. Plus you might move and find your box isn't compatible with whatever technology you need to connect to. I have DISH now and I just laughed when they wanted me to pony up for a HD-DVR. I'll likely go FIOS-TV in a couple months and rent whatever Verizon is provisioning.
In 2.5 years if I bought a HD-DVR there's a good chance it'd be gathering dust like my Replay and TiVO. I'd say I got my value out TiVO and Replay but back then nobody rented you DVRs.
Vinea
I believe all they would have to do is have a hard drive, and HDV decoding in the unit.
You forgot the program guide.