Can you name *any* sources of legally downloaded video content that this doesn't support? besides WMV. (honest question)
Can't think of good downloaded content examples offhand, but apparently it doesn't support EyeTV MPEG-2 recordings (native or exported) which is why Elgato shows how to add them to iTunes as exported H.264 using EyeTV's iPod button. That makes their "eyetv & Apple TV, A Perfect Match" advertising a bit silly.
I've read at least one person confirm that 480i SDTV is supported so maybe there are other surprises still to discover (for better or worse) that Apple isn't mentioning.
Kasper Jade reported on the three week delay in delivery that, "Apple now aims to begin shipping iTV (likely under a different product name) in late January or early February. They added that the additional time is necessary to fine-tune an embedded version of the Mac OS operating system that will reportedly run on the device -- a most vital component responsible for ensuring a flawless user experience on the consumer end."
In addition, a number of reports have surfaced that AppleTV, "…like iPhone…would run a scaled down variant of Apple's Mac OS X operating system."
Then Mossberg, after having gotten a pre-released AppleTV, and probably more 'inside' information than us peons, writes, "Apple TV is tiny, just about eight inches square and an inch high, far smaller than a typical DVD player or cable or satellite box, even though it packs in a 40-gigabyte hard disk, an Intel processor and a modified version of the Mac operating system. And it has a carefully limited set of functions." To which Appleinsider headlines, "Mossberg confirms: Apple TV runs Mac OS."
But you in your own brilliant analysis have defiled the pundits and declare that, "…he's (Mossberg) talking out of his ass about certain things." Now I can accept your assumption that he has erred, but, I can't for the life of me state why he would intentionally mislead us. His background would tell me otherwise. That said, however, reporters have (often) taken the fast route and have simply writen what others have inferred without due diligence. But to be so maliciously maligned as you have so done?
Whoops, I forgot. You did state, "…certain things." I gather you have other irrefutable evidence to add.
Hmmm. Mossberg or dfiler? Anyone?
By the way, love your handle, it seems to suits you to the 'T'.
Kasper can be wrong too. A lot of people challenge some of the stories posted here. Heck, even if there is some truth to it, the title of this story is probably not correct if you go by how carefully Apple doesn't say "Mac" in front of OS X for their iPhone.
The claim of OS X on appleTV is thus far unverifiable, as far as I've seen, it looks like a consensus without foundation. Apple didn't say it, I've never seen it on their spec sheets either. I think it is likely to be a cut-down version of OS X, but we're not given any information as to how they know this well enough to state it as if it were a known fact.
Quote:
But you in your own brilliant analysis have defiled the pundits and declare that
...
There is a huge difference between defy and defile. Think of defy as a rejection, such as "gravity defying stunt" and defile as in "priest - altar boy relationship".
By the way, love your handle, it seems to suits you to the 'T'.
Why so angrily emphatic? My handle? It's my first initial and last name.
Mossberg is a fine tech writer but he doesn't have any clue whether AppleTV runs OS X or not.
Edit: I should probably clarify lest you get worked up into a bigger tizzy. While AppleTV may very well run OS X, Mosberg states it as fact without evidence. It could very easily be running just about any percentage of the OS X code base. That is all.
Can you guys read. Mossberg did not say that "?AppleTV runs Mac OS X!"
He said and I quote, "?even though it (AppleTV) packs?a modified version of the Mac operating system.?" To conclude that "?he's talking out of his ass," is to me defiling, i.e., sullying his reputation.
I think you are confusing what I said. Your quotation still doesn't resolve how Mossberg knows that it's a version of any form of OS X.
Quote:
dfiler or Mossberg?
I'd call that a false dilemma. Mossberg simply didn't say why he said that without saying how he knows it, people are right to ask why and how he said it as if it were a fact because there aren't any indication that he really knew.
1) It runs a variant of OS X. This *is* confirmed, by folks who have yanked the hard drive out, installed it in a Mac, and updated the QuickTime plugins: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sho...readid=2391956 This is also something that was guessed as obvious by most people as soon as the iPhone was announced to be running OS X.
2) OS X != MacOS X. We've been down this route a gazillion times since the iPhone debut. OS X is the generic family, MacOS X is the version for Macintosh.
3) Mossberg said it runs "a modified version of the Mac operating system" which is... not precise. It's like saying that "Ubuntu is a modified version of Debian". It is, however, about what his intended audience will understand.
4) Mossberg was layman-correct, but not technically-correct.
5) Mossberg may have been told the information by Apple reps, he may have cracked open the case himself, or he may have spooky powers of divination. In any case, he did not support his assertion with any justification.
Yes, I've been following the something awful xvid hacking discussion. It seems to indicate that AppleTV does run a form of OS X.
But the quarrelling here wasn't about that. It was about the basis of his assertion. One could make a guess either way and be stand a 50% chance of being correct. We were just calling a tech-industry writer to task for his article content. Nothing major really.
Comments
Can you name *any* sources of legally downloaded video content that this doesn't support? besides WMV. (honest question)
Can't think of good downloaded content examples offhand, but apparently it doesn't support EyeTV MPEG-2 recordings (native or exported) which is why Elgato shows how to add them to iTunes as exported H.264 using EyeTV's iPod button. That makes their "eyetv & Apple TV, A Perfect Match" advertising a bit silly.
I've read at least one person confirm that 480i SDTV is supported so maybe there are other surprises still to discover (for better or worse) that Apple isn't mentioning.
Check out the title of this thread for one.
So let's see:
Kasper Jade reported on the three week delay in delivery that, "Apple now aims to begin shipping iTV (likely under a different product name) in late January or early February. They added that the additional time is necessary to fine-tune an embedded version of the Mac OS operating system that will reportedly run on the device -- a most vital component responsible for ensuring a flawless user experience on the consumer end."
In addition, a number of reports have surfaced that AppleTV, "…like iPhone…would run a scaled down variant of Apple's Mac OS X operating system."
Then Mossberg, after having gotten a pre-released AppleTV, and probably more 'inside' information than us peons, writes, "Apple TV is tiny, just about eight inches square and an inch high, far smaller than a typical DVD player or cable or satellite box, even though it packs in a 40-gigabyte hard disk, an Intel processor and a modified version of the Mac operating system. And it has a carefully limited set of functions." To which Appleinsider headlines, "Mossberg confirms: Apple TV runs Mac OS."
But you in your own brilliant analysis have defiled the pundits and declare that, "…he's (Mossberg) talking out of his ass about certain things." Now I can accept your assumption that he has erred, but, I can't for the life of me state why he would intentionally mislead us. His background would tell me otherwise. That said, however, reporters have (often) taken the fast route and have simply writen what others have inferred without due diligence. But to be so maliciously maligned as you have so done?
Whoops, I forgot. You did state, "…certain things." I gather you have other irrefutable evidence to add.
Hmmm. Mossberg or dfiler? Anyone?
By the way, love your handle, it seems to suits you to the 'T'.
So let's see:
Kasper Jade reported....
Kasper can be wrong too. A lot of people challenge some of the stories posted here. Heck, even if there is some truth to it, the title of this story is probably not correct if you go by how carefully Apple doesn't say "Mac" in front of OS X for their iPhone.
The claim of OS X on appleTV is thus far unverifiable, as far as I've seen, it looks like a consensus without foundation. Apple didn't say it, I've never seen it on their spec sheets either. I think it is likely to be a cut-down version of OS X, but we're not given any information as to how they know this well enough to state it as if it were a known fact.
But you in your own brilliant analysis have defiled the pundits and declare that
...
There is a huge difference between defy and defile. Think of defy as a rejection, such as "gravity defying stunt" and defile as in "priest - altar boy relationship".
Hmmm. Mossberg or dfiler? Anyone?
By the way, love your handle, it seems to suits you to the 'T'.
Why so angrily emphatic?
Mossberg is a fine tech writer but he doesn't have any clue whether AppleTV runs OS X or not.
Edit: I should probably clarify lest you get worked up into a bigger tizzy. While AppleTV may very well run OS X, Mosberg states it as fact without evidence. It could very easily be running just about any percentage of the OS X code base. That is all.
Can you guys read. Mossberg did not say that "?AppleTV runs Mac OS X!"
He said and I quote, "?even though it (AppleTV) packs?a modified version of the Mac operating system.?" To conclude that "?he's talking out of his ass," is to me defiling, i.e., sullying his reputation.
And so to add? JeffDm, dfiler or Mossberg? Hmmmm.
Next time i'll phrase things a little nicer thant "talking out of his ass".
But I stand by the assertion that he didn't really know what was under the hood. Try to make it personal all you want but this is all we're claiming.
dfiler or Mossberg?
I'd call that a false dilemma. Mossberg simply didn't say why he said that without saying how he knows it, people are right to ask why and how he said it as if it were a fact because there aren't any indication that he really knew.
2) OS X != MacOS X. We've been down this route a gazillion times since the iPhone debut. OS X is the generic family, MacOS X is the version for Macintosh.
3) Mossberg said it runs "a modified version of the Mac operating system" which is... not precise. It's like saying that "Ubuntu is a modified version of Debian". It is, however, about what his intended audience will understand.
4) Mossberg was layman-correct, but not technically-correct.
5) Mossberg may have been told the information by Apple reps, he may have cracked open the case himself, or he may have spooky powers of divination. In any case, he did not support his assertion with any justification.
6) The headline here is just wrong.
Can we let this rest now?
But the quarrelling here wasn't about that. It was about the basis of his assertion. One could make a guess either way and be stand a 50% chance of being correct. We were just calling a tech-industry writer to task for his article content. Nothing major really.