Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Computerworld (the website)
With the iPod, it was the Walkman of the 21st century," Rubin said. "That was easy to understand, but with Apple TV, it will take some education."
Another impediment to Apple is that serious competition is starting to shape up, and not just from Microsoft.
"Some companies are building those same capabilities into their televisions," Rubin said. "HP is one company. Sharp has said it will ship such a TV and Pioneer says it will ship TVs that can stream content from PCs. The technology could be embedded [in TVs], so you wouldn't have to be concerned with a separate box.
Zing!
I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.
they really should have sold an XServer-like device (stripped down, just storage, doesn't need a ton of RAM or CPU speed) for the home media hub. In fact, this is what the Airport Extreme should have been. Like said above, the AirportServerExtreme should have been a router, usb network printer hub (as it is now), AND include a networked storage volume(s) -- at least on par with what the iTV's puny drive is at 40gb -- that would have not added much price at all, and the attractiveness of the product would have gone sky-high....
I agree that the missing piece in the puzzle is a very cheap network server. However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).
As for using the AirportExtreme + an external Hard disk, vs something more integrated... I don't mind the separate disk. It means I can use Apple for the important part and buy a better value disk. However, if Apple is serious about an "iServer" then maybe we should have 1000/100 network ports.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation
Then you can buy iTV "hubs" that use that main central storage repository. In practice, the total price the consumer pays wouldn't be all that much more since the iTV is dumbed down (even more) so it costs less, and the AirportServerExtreme would be a bit more to produce, but make up the price. All in all, they could have upped the price on the package (sold together of course) to even $500 and they'd make an absolute killing. Now THAT would make a captivating product that wouldn't stand a chance at failing. And fills a much-needed gap, intelligently.
I think they are moving to a client-server model. In fact, I think the AppleTV may have once been an example of that - but network latency is especially hard on video, and once you add a caching hard disk and allow syncing you need a bit more brains in the device (so a cheap pentium was added).
We don't know how AppleTV connects to your iTunes if your iTunes is not on. I assume a lite version has to be running continually to stream stuff - we just don't know yet. Perhaps that same simpler iTunes could be made to serve from an Airport Extreme... does it need to do much?
Back in the early days of computing, before wholesale use of PC's, we used dumb terminals hooked up to main frames. These dumb terminals where just little boxes with screens attached and all of the processing was done on the backend. The cool thing about them was that they required zero support and never required upgrading. This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.
And we almost never see dumb terminals anywhere today because???
Quote:
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.
However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).
That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.
Why would they limit it like that? If they had to pick and choose for room, cut out a few wired ethernet ports, heck it's an AIRPORT = wireless -- why 3 ethernet ports and only 1 shareable usb port? So it looks like it's impossible to share more than 1 drive at a time; which mean unless you have a single massive drive, that wouldn't be of much use either. I won't even get into the fact of just a USB port, and not a networkable Firewire port for sharing a drive [1 of each would have been perfect at minimum]. I love Apple, but they sure do seem to be releasing some awesomely stupid products lately.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
While bandwidth is an obvious issue, they are still trying to push their movies over the network, so why not from somewhere else [a large drive] other than a darn Mac.
As for the delay issue, it's more than likely due to crappy software/very-low-end hardware on your DVR, not a bandwidth issue.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.
Care to rethink your reasoning?
Wireless will have a lag, to be sure. Even Ethernet isn't lagless.
The other day, after I downloaded the 10.4.9 Combo update, and used on my machine, I moved it across the 1 Gb Ethernet to first, my wifes machine, my daughters machine, and then, the next day, my other machine.
The 163 MB file was moved to each machine in under 5 seconds. Not bad. But, it will still take a bit of time to move a 1 GB file, not to mention a 3 Gb file.
Streaming video is going to tell us a LOT about the real world speed of our home networks.
It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.
I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.
Streaming video is going to tell us a LOT about the real world speed of our home networks.
It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.
I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.
The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.
That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.
Not so. Per Apple you can do just that. And a Apple Forum posting mentioned a hub with two printers and one hard drive.
Pretty simple. Its an iPod for your TV. That's how it works.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.
Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?
Zing!
I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.
Apple has taken on a realization that they need to work in a world where not everyone owns Apple hardware. Therefore their devices need to work as good as possible with other systems while excelling at what they do. It would be a shame to force people into the AirPort model if they have and are familiar with a network that is as good or better than what Apple puts out, be it wired or wireless. The same goes for limiting their products to Mac owners by not supporting PC's. The AirPort needs to shine on it's own, and this latest version does just that. Apple should not include it at a higher price to Apple TV just so that you don't have to buy another device. Also, as I understand it and I may be wrong here, you don't need an AirPort Extreme to link another system to a Mac with a built in wireless card, you can set the Mac with a computer to computer connection without a wireless hub. Given this you should be able to connect an Apple TV in one room to the iMac in another which is hooked up to your DSL modem without any other networking hardware other than what is built into the iMac and the Apple TV, therefore there is no need to buy any additional hardware or wires to make the connection. If you have more than the two units to network wirelessly then you may need another solution, and AirPort Extreme is a good solution but not the only one, and not the fastest which is wired ethernet.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud.
It might be clear as mud to you, but it's clear as water to me:
The AppleTV can be synced with iTunes just like an iPod. Once material is on the HDD, it can be viewed with your PC/Mac off.
The AppleTV can also stream from iTunes any content that is not already stored on the internal HDD. In that case, the PC/Mac needs to be on and iTunes needs to be running.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.
It does it so you can run it with your computer off, and so you can watch movies with someone else using the computer, and not cause problems for the two (ie, they access the hard disk, and it locks up for a few seconds, stopping your movie and whatever they're doing).
Live streaming is only for watching iTunes movies and shows that you just bought and are still downloading, or if your friend brings over her laptop. Syncing is the preferred method of using AppleTV.
The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.
I'm not sure why there's confusion, Apple has explained it on their website.
1) You can stream if your network is fast enough
2) You can put content on the HD and watch it from there
3) You can sync content to the HD and start watching it immediately - if your network is inconsistent or not fast enough, you just need to give it a head start but you don't need to wait for the whole thing to copy over.
The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.
While I understand what all of you are saying, and that's what it says on their site as well, I just can't help the feeling that what they are saying, and what they intend, aren't quite the same thing. I know it's just a feeling, but I've seen it before with Apple, and it just seems to me that something here is lacking from their explanation.
The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.
I wonder if it'll work like watching Quicktime trailers does now.
ie: Click on the film you want to watch, the iTV shows that it is downloading it but waits (a few seconds/minutes??) before it starts playing, to ensure uninterrupted playback.
Comments
With the iPod, it was the Walkman of the 21st century," Rubin said. "That was easy to understand, but with Apple TV, it will take some education."
Another impediment to Apple is that serious competition is starting to shape up, and not just from Microsoft.
"Some companies are building those same capabilities into their televisions," Rubin said. "HP is one company. Sharp has said it will ship such a TV and Pioneer says it will ship TVs that can stream content from PCs. The technology could be embedded [in TVs], so you wouldn't have to be concerned with a separate box.
Zing!
I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.
Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?
Zing!
The Hp, at least, has been out for a while. The receiver is stuck on the back like a hump.
they really should have sold an XServer-like device (stripped down, just storage, doesn't need a ton of RAM or CPU speed) for the home media hub. In fact, this is what the Airport Extreme should have been. Like said above, the AirportServerExtreme should have been a router, usb network printer hub (as it is now), AND include a networked storage volume(s) -- at least on par with what the iTV's puny drive is at 40gb -- that would have not added much price at all, and the attractiveness of the product would have gone sky-high....
I agree that the missing piece in the puzzle is a very cheap network server. However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).
As for using the AirportExtreme + an external Hard disk, vs something more integrated... I don't mind the separate disk. It means I can use Apple for the important part and buy a better value disk. However, if Apple is serious about an "iServer" then maybe we should have 1000/100 network ports.
Then you can buy iTV "hubs" that use that main central storage repository. In practice, the total price the consumer pays wouldn't be all that much more since the iTV is dumbed down (even more) so it costs less, and the AirportServerExtreme would be a bit more to produce, but make up the price. All in all, they could have upped the price on the package (sold together of course) to even $500 and they'd make an absolute killing. Now THAT would make a captivating product that wouldn't stand a chance at failing. And fills a much-needed gap, intelligently.
I think they are moving to a client-server model. In fact, I think the AppleTV may have once been an example of that - but network latency is especially hard on video, and once you add a caching hard disk and allow syncing you need a bit more brains in the device (so a cheap pentium was added).
We don't know how AppleTV connects to your iTunes if your iTunes is not on. I assume a lite version has to be running continually to stream stuff - we just don't know yet. Perhaps that same simpler iTunes could be made to serve from an Airport Extreme... does it need to do much?
Back in the early days of computing, before wholesale use of PC's, we used dumb terminals hooked up to main frames. These dumb terminals where just little boxes with screens attached and all of the processing was done on the backend. The cool thing about them was that they required zero support and never required upgrading. This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.
And we almost never see dumb terminals anywhere today because???
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.
Care to rethink your reasoning?
However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).
That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.
Why would they limit it like that? If they had to pick and choose for room, cut out a few wired ethernet ports, heck it's an AIRPORT = wireless -- why 3 ethernet ports and only 1 shareable usb port? So it looks like it's impossible to share more than 1 drive at a time; which mean unless you have a single massive drive, that wouldn't be of much use either. I won't even get into the fact of just a USB port, and not a networkable Firewire port for sharing a drive [1 of each would have been perfect at minimum]. I love Apple, but they sure do seem to be releasing some awesomely stupid products lately.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
While bandwidth is an obvious issue, they are still trying to push their movies over the network, so why not from somewhere else [a large drive] other than a darn Mac.
As for the delay issue, it's more than likely due to crappy software/very-low-end hardware on your DVR, not a bandwidth issue.
Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.
Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.
Care to rethink your reasoning?
Wireless will have a lag, to be sure. Even Ethernet isn't lagless.
The other day, after I downloaded the 10.4.9 Combo update, and used on my machine, I moved it across the 1 Gb Ethernet to first, my wifes machine, my daughters machine, and then, the next day, my other machine.
The 163 MB file was moved to each machine in under 5 seconds. Not bad. But, it will still take a bit of time to move a 1 GB file, not to mention a 3 Gb file.
It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.
I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.
Streaming video is going to tell us a LOT about the real world speed of our home networks.
It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.
I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.
The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.
That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.
Not so. Per Apple you can do just that. And a Apple Forum posting mentioned a hub with two printers and one hard drive.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...en/ap2108.html
The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered,
huh? It clearly is for 'sync'.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/sync.html
Pretty simple. Its an iPod for your TV. That's how it works.
huh? It clearly is for 'sync'.
http://www.apple.com/appletv/sync.html
Pretty simple. Its an iPod for your TV. That's how it works.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.
Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?
Zing!
I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.
Apple has taken on a realization that they need to work in a world where not everyone owns Apple hardware. Therefore their devices need to work as good as possible with other systems while excelling at what they do. It would be a shame to force people into the AirPort model if they have and are familiar with a network that is as good or better than what Apple puts out, be it wired or wireless. The same goes for limiting their products to Mac owners by not supporting PC's. The AirPort needs to shine on it's own, and this latest version does just that. Apple should not include it at a higher price to Apple TV just so that you don't have to buy another device. Also, as I understand it and I may be wrong here, you don't need an AirPort Extreme to link another system to a Mac with a built in wireless card, you can set the Mac with a computer to computer connection without a wireless hub. Given this you should be able to connect an Apple TV in one room to the iMac in another which is hooked up to your DSL modem without any other networking hardware other than what is built into the iMac and the Apple TV, therefore there is no need to buy any additional hardware or wires to make the connection. If you have more than the two units to network wirelessly then you may need another solution, and AirPort Extreme is a good solution but not the only one, and not the fastest which is wired ethernet.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud.
It might be clear as mud to you, but it's clear as water to me:
The AppleTV can be synced with iTunes just like an iPod. Once material is on the HDD, it can be viewed with your PC/Mac off.
The AppleTV can also stream from iTunes any content that is not already stored on the internal HDD. In that case, the PC/Mac needs to be on and iTunes needs to be running.
Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.
It does it so you can run it with your computer off, and so you can watch movies with someone else using the computer, and not cause problems for the two (ie, they access the hard disk, and it locks up for a few seconds, stopping your movie and whatever they're doing).
Live streaming is only for watching iTunes movies and shows that you just bought and are still downloading, or if your friend brings over her laptop. Syncing is the preferred method of using AppleTV.
The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.
I'm not sure why there's confusion, Apple has explained it on their website.
1) You can stream if your network is fast enough
2) You can put content on the HD and watch it from there
3) You can sync content to the HD and start watching it immediately - if your network is inconsistent or not fast enough, you just need to give it a head start but you don't need to wait for the whole thing to copy over.
The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.
While I understand what all of you are saying, and that's what it says on their site as well, I just can't help the feeling that what they are saying, and what they intend, aren't quite the same thing. I know it's just a feeling, but I've seen it before with Apple, and it just seems to me that something here is lacking from their explanation.
The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.
I wonder if it'll work like watching Quicktime trailers does now.
ie: Click on the film you want to watch, the iTV shows that it is downloading it but waits (a few seconds/minutes??) before it starts playing, to ensure uninterrupted playback.
it just seems to me that something here is lacking from their explanation.
Something like what? It makes sense to me, I don't see where the explanations are lacking. Can you elaborate?
Something like what? It makes sense to me, I don't see where the explanations are lacking. Can you elaborate?
No! If I could have, I would have. I'm not shy.