AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled! And one of the reasons is that it's iTunes video content driven- and that video content has diminished since it's inception- plain and simple. That is a fact and a failure. Apple should by now have both more content than it had last May (NBC) as well as higher quality video available. It is not "Near DVD" as Jobs said but more like "Smear VHS" quality if you look at the only upgrade it's ever received -YouTube.
Some success.
OK, AppleTV has failed. But so far, other than that one device, Apple's media policies have not failed. It's your reasoning that's the failure. You are making a false correlation that AppleTV encapsulates all of Apple's media policies. AppleTV can fail and that doesn't mean Apple's media ventures have failed or their policies have failed.
The headline of AppleTV's failure is just based on analyst estimates and expectations, not any real numbers. But that does not mean that Apple's media policies are a failure.
100M+ TV episode purchased downloads is NOT a failure. Gross sales of NBC episodes were about $40M, which is more than NBC will get everywhere else on the Internet, combined, for their TV shows. Your total failure to acknowledge that little fact is really quite baffling. I want you to show me who has sold more than that.
NBC's antics were more about control than money. They got more control, but they can't be making as much money as they did with iTunes.
Why is everyone here blaming NBC for wanting to make a profit on their shows or whatever?
Because I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite to see the only two shows I care to keep up with, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes. As I pointed out earlier, when both shows were airing new episodes that cost me $16 a month at the iTunes store. Find me a cable package that has NBC, and Sci-Fi for $16 a month or less. Oh yeah, there had better not be any commercials either.
Why is everyone here blaming NBC for wanting to make a profit on their shows or whatever? Their objective like any other corporation is to maximize their profits. Don't you get it? Just because they can make more money without being locked into iTunes does not make them the enemy. I think it's quite brilliant that they were able to foresee being locked into a non-negotiable iTunes profit structure before making such a binding comittment like the music industry. They saw how it's worked out for the music industry in that Apple is getting most of the profit via iPods and said -wait a minute. Can you seriously blame them? If you owned a company or corporation wouldn't you go where you can control your sale point and not let where someone else decides it? If you didn't , you'd be fired.
AppleTV via iTune is a f-a-i-l-u-r-e. Instead of asking how many people own sandisks, ask how many people own AppleTV's and why not more.
Please - question Apple's failed policies before bashing everyone and anyone else.
1) They're not the 'enemy' because they're trying to make a profit. They're the enemy because they're insisting on forcing consumption of product we don't want using that as an excuse to inflate prices. This is the same issue as labels insisting that users spend $20 for CDs consisting of 1 good song and 11 crap ones. Its the same issue as Cable insisting on bundling of channels instead of allowing ala carte. iTunes holds the promise of being the ala carte solution and THAT's what the arguement is about.
2) If you're saying that Apple gets most of the profits from iTunes store music sales, then you're just wrong... (if you're saying they get most of the profits from iPods, well, then 'duh'.
"Apple is trying to entice the recording industry by offering a surprising amount of money: iTunes typically pays wholesale prices of 79 cents per song and US$10 per album?comparable to the wholesale prices of CDs, even though there's no manufacturing or distribution cost. These prices leave Apple little money to be made on song sales (hence the importance of selling iPods at a big markup). "
3) if the media companies are saying they're not making any money from digital distribution, then they're outright lying in the writers' strike, since offering 4% of nothing should be no skin off their back. They're making BIG $$ and as usual refuse to let the actual producers share in the rewards.
Because I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite to see the only two shows I care to keep up with, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes. As I pointed out earlier, when both shows were airing new episodes that cost me $16 a month at the iTunes store. Find me a cable package that has NBC, and Sci-Fi for $16 a month or less. Oh yeah, there had better not be any commercials either.
That's a deeply flawed argument. If a content creator cannot or does not provide you their content in the time, form, manner you choose at a price you are willing to pay, you "... must resort to piracy?"
"Must?"
I am sorry, but thievery is thievery. It might happen a lot, might even be the norm in certain settings, and clearly, today's technology enables it to happen with ease, but it is not justified. Ever.
I might not like it -- and might even think the law is too protective of content creators in the US, and content creators are numbnuts, sometimes -- but the law is the law. If you don't like it, you change it. You don't break it.
AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled! And one of the reasons is that it's iTunes video content driven- and that video content has diminished since it's inception- plain and simple. That is a fact and a failure. Apple should by now have both more content than it had last May (NBC) as well as higher quality video available. It is not "Near DVD" as Jobs said but more like "Smear VHS" quality if you look at the only upgrade it's ever received -YouTube.
Some success.
1) Your palpable glee at AppleTV's 'failure' is fascinating. Kind of a sick way to spend your energy, but to each his own.
2) Can you please identify the alternative device that is (at the moment) a 'success' (and please give supporting sales numbers.)
3) Your entire premise of 'failure' is based on one badly sourced item on a rumors site?
That's a deeply flawed argument. If a content creator cannot or does not provide you their content in the time, form, manner you choose at a price you are willing to pay, you "... must resort to piracy?"
"Must?"
I am sorry, but thievery is thievery. It might happen a lot, might even be the norm in certain settings, and clearly, today's technology enables it to happen with ease, but it is not justified. Ever.
I might not like it -- and might even think the law is too protective of content creators in the US, and content creators are numbnuts, sometimes -- but the law is the law. If you don't like it, you change it. You don't break it.
*ahem*
Quote:
I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite
Way to miss the entire fucking point. Here it is again in different words for those who see lots and lots of trees but can't seem to find that forest I keep talking about.
I used to be able to download NBC shows at a fair price. Now I can't. I either can pay a boatload more for cable or satellite, or I can steal it. Those are my options. Eventually I can buy from their new store, if I want to buy a PC and a SanDisk thingy.
I am the consumer. I'm the one who's money they want. They're not acting like they want it very much.
More control = more money. If not now - eventually. Just like the government!
You really need to ease up. Apple is a great company but don't just bash everyone else for the sake of being a stepford Appleite!
Question Apple as well- That's all.
I question Apple's motivations all the time. I really don't know who to believe Apple v. NBC, I think they're both trying to play each other and the public for stupid, and I think they're both being dishonest to us by selectively giving us information about the feud.
You still haven't shown us who's doing a better job or why 100M+ episode sales is a failure. In a small and very new form of paid video distribution. The original post I responded to was filled with FUD, lies or ignorance of the actual facts, save for one headline that's currently unverifiable. If Apple's a failure in this market, then frankly, everyone else is a failure. This bit with Sandisk won't turn Sandisk into an Apple beater.
It's just that your reasoning was way out of whack, as if you're an out and out hater grasping for reasons why. That's all.
If apple offered this solution as a half-price alternative to its apple tv, wouldn't we admire it?
Apple already does, the nano for $149. I've been doing exactly this for over a year with an iPod. This is just an ipod with a remote control instead of a screen, for a little cheaper. Personally, I'd rather pay a little more and get the screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrabu
Once you connect iPod to your TV, can you then control it with a remote from your couch?
You can with an iPod dock. To be honest, the main reason I use a TV remote is to avoid commercials...watching from iPod, that's not an issue for me.
The refunds to advertisers make me laugh, hopefully that's a good sign that the networks may have to eventually crack in the ongoing writers' strike. And I still find it funny to still see iPod mentions in shows like 30 Rock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
AppleTV via iTune is a f-a-i-l-u-r-e. Instead of asking how many people own sandisks, ask how many people own AppleTV's and why not more.
How many people own ANY media extender right now? While the aTV hasn't been a big seller, is there ANY evidence that any competing box has sold better?
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled!
Did YOU read that headline? That whole article was all guesstimates, no real numbers since apple hasn't released any. Is there any real evidence that "nobody" is buying aTV?
And again, while it doesn't seem to be selling like gangbusters, what other box is selling better?
Interesting that there's *no* word at all about their home-site streaming "solution" in context of this news. In fact, there hasn't been a squeak abot their Amazon sales, either. And now, SanDisk. Either they are desperate, or they are fools.
The fact that discounts are being offered is not a good sign for NBC: it means they know they can't compete against iTunes on the strength of their product or their service, so they must offer enticements to hold their own. Down the road, attempting to cut back on those enticements could deal a hard blow to their viability.
NBC and the other networks are in the same perilous position as the major labels & the big studios: digital media pulls the plug on the old models, and attempts to force those models onto the current landscape is a recipie for disaster. the day may not be far off when I can subscribe to the things I want to watch regularly, and use spot-downloads & NetFlix to fill in my entertainment wishes. No more satellite fees!
Um no... no it can't. The Sansa View cannot play my iTunes videos. Nor can I as a Mac user shop at this new store. All of that is beside the point. The point is that NBC claims that the AppleTV is the only way to watch your iTunes purchases on your TV when there is an older system that's almost identical to what they propose you do instead. On top of that, what I usually do is just connect my MacBook directly to the TV so I can use my remote. There's 3 different ways when NBC claims that Apple requires the AppleTV.
Okay, since you're going to be pedantic, I'll revise my statement:
If you replace "iPod Nano" with "Sansa View", and replace "iTunes content" with "Fanfare content", then the same would be true.
My original point was simply that you seemed to be latched on to this unsupportable idea that the iPod Nano occupied some sort of unique position in the iTunes (AppleTV/iPod/iTMS) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem which didn't have any parallel in the Sansa (TakeTV/Sansa View/Fanfare) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem.
Your exact words were to the effect that the iPod Nano's ability to play iTunes movies on your TV via an A/V cable, and then be detached to continue playback as a standalone portable unit was something that SanDisk's new service wouldn't be able to parallel.
I was pointing out that all indications suggest to me that opinion simply isn't going to turn out to be true.
And it's a safe bet, Apple will either be announcing a new AppleTV in January, or dropping it. Apple doesn't let stuff sit around to long without some changes, and this one is ripe for some up-dates.
Skip
The Airport Express defies your assumption.
The AppleTV isn't even a year old yet. Hardly time to start a panic about a revision.
<quote>I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite</unquote>
Way to miss the entire fucking point. Here it is again in different words for those who see lots and lots of trees but can't seem to find that forest I keep talking about.
I used to be able to download NBC shows at a fair price. Now I can't. I either can pay a boatload more for cable or satellite, or I can steal it. Those are my options. Eventually I can buy from their new store, if I want to buy a PC and a SanDisk thingy.
I am the consumer. I'm the one who's money they want. They're not acting like they want it very much.
1) I did not miss the point. What would you do if you missed a show on cable or satellite (w/no DVR) or have neither?
2) I realize you might be angry at my response, but adding an f-word as emphasis does nothing enhance your point or your standing.
Okay, since you're going to be pedantic, I'll revise my statement:
If you replace "iPod Nano" with "Sansa View", and replace "iTunes content" with "Fanfare content", then the same would be true.
My original point was simply that you seemed to be latched on to this unsupportable idea that the iPod Nano occupied some sort of unique position in the iTunes (AppleTV/iPod/iTMS) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem which didn't have any parallel in the Sansa (TakeTV/Sansa View/Fanfare) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem.
Your exact words were to the effect that the iPod Nano's ability to play iTunes movies on your TV via an A/V cable, and then be detached to continue playback as a standalone portable unit was something that SanDisk's new service wouldn't be able to parallel.
No... my exact words were in direct response to...
Quote:
While Apple's method calls for its $299 Apple TV set-top-box to serve as a wireless conduit that streams the downloaded iTunes content to television sets, SanDisk is taking a slightly different approach to getting the video content from PCs to the TV -- its $100 4GB and $150 8GB Sansa TakeTV devices.
I will admit that I thought that said Apple's method requires instead of Apple's method calls for. My point was that the AppleTV is not the only way to watch iTunes content on your TV. Also, your statement still doesn't work because I'd have to buy a PC to use the Fanfare content.
1) I did not miss the point. What would you do if you missed a show on cable or satellite (w/no DVR) or have neither?
2) I realize you might be angry at my response, but adding an f-word as emphasis does nothing enhance your point or your standing.
Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.
Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.
My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.
Comments
AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled! And one of the reasons is that it's iTunes video content driven- and that video content has diminished since it's inception- plain and simple. That is a fact and a failure. Apple should by now have both more content than it had last May (NBC) as well as higher quality video available. It is not "Near DVD" as Jobs said but more like "Smear VHS" quality if you look at the only upgrade it's ever received -YouTube.
Some success.
OK, AppleTV has failed. But so far, other than that one device, Apple's media policies have not failed. It's your reasoning that's the failure. You are making a false correlation that AppleTV encapsulates all of Apple's media policies. AppleTV can fail and that doesn't mean Apple's media ventures have failed or their policies have failed.
The headline of AppleTV's failure is just based on analyst estimates and expectations, not any real numbers. But that does not mean that Apple's media policies are a failure.
100M+ TV episode purchased downloads is NOT a failure. Gross sales of NBC episodes were about $40M, which is more than NBC will get everywhere else on the Internet, combined, for their TV shows. Your total failure to acknowledge that little fact is really quite baffling. I want you to show me who has sold more than that.
NBC's antics were more about control than money. They got more control, but they can't be making as much money as they did with iTunes.
Why is everyone here blaming NBC for wanting to make a profit on their shows or whatever?
Because I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite to see the only two shows I care to keep up with, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes. As I pointed out earlier, when both shows were airing new episodes that cost me $16 a month at the iTunes store. Find me a cable package that has NBC, and Sci-Fi for $16 a month or less. Oh yeah, there had better not be any commercials either.
NBC's antics were more about control than money. They got more control, but they can't be making as much money as they did with iTunes.
More control = more money. If not now - eventually. Just like the government!
You really need to ease up. Apple is a great company but don't just bash everyone else for the sake of being a stepford Appleite!
Question Apple as well- That's all.
Why is everyone here blaming NBC for wanting to make a profit on their shows or whatever? Their objective like any other corporation is to maximize their profits. Don't you get it? Just because they can make more money without being locked into iTunes does not make them the enemy. I think it's quite brilliant that they were able to foresee being locked into a non-negotiable iTunes profit structure before making such a binding comittment like the music industry. They saw how it's worked out for the music industry in that Apple is getting most of the profit via iPods and said -wait a minute. Can you seriously blame them? If you owned a company or corporation wouldn't you go where you can control your sale point and not let where someone else decides it? If you didn't , you'd be fired.
AppleTV via iTune is a f-a-i-l-u-r-e. Instead of asking how many people own sandisks, ask how many people own AppleTV's and why not more.
Please - question Apple's failed policies before bashing everyone and anyone else.
1) They're not the 'enemy' because they're trying to make a profit. They're the enemy because they're insisting on forcing consumption of product we don't want using that as an excuse to inflate prices. This is the same issue as labels insisting that users spend $20 for CDs consisting of 1 good song and 11 crap ones. Its the same issue as Cable insisting on bundling of channels instead of allowing ala carte. iTunes holds the promise of being the ala carte solution and THAT's what the arguement is about.
2) If you're saying that Apple gets most of the profits from iTunes store music sales, then you're just wrong... (if you're saying they get most of the profits from iPods, well, then 'duh'.
http://www.computer.org/portal/site/...rL!-1254254976
"Apple is trying to entice the recording industry by offering a surprising amount of money: iTunes typically pays wholesale prices of 79 cents per song and US$10 per album?comparable to the wholesale prices of CDs, even though there's no manufacturing or distribution cost. These prices leave Apple little money to be made on song sales (hence the importance of selling iPods at a big markup). "
3) if the media companies are saying they're not making any money from digital distribution, then they're outright lying in the writers' strike, since offering 4% of nothing should be no skin off their back. They're making BIG $$ and as usual refuse to let the actual producers share in the rewards.
Because I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite to see the only two shows I care to keep up with, Battlestar Galactica and Heroes. As I pointed out earlier, when both shows were airing new episodes that cost me $16 a month at the iTunes store. Find me a cable package that has NBC, and Sci-Fi for $16 a month or less. Oh yeah, there had better not be any commercials either.
That's a deeply flawed argument. If a content creator cannot or does not provide you their content in the time, form, manner you choose at a price you are willing to pay, you "... must resort to piracy?"
"Must?"
I am sorry, but thievery is thievery. It might happen a lot, might even be the norm in certain settings, and clearly, today's technology enables it to happen with ease, but it is not justified. Ever.
I might not like it -- and might even think the law is too protective of content creators in the US, and content creators are numbnuts, sometimes -- but the law is the law. If you don't like it, you change it. You don't break it.
AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled! And one of the reasons is that it's iTunes video content driven- and that video content has diminished since it's inception- plain and simple. That is a fact and a failure. Apple should by now have both more content than it had last May (NBC) as well as higher quality video available. It is not "Near DVD" as Jobs said but more like "Smear VHS" quality if you look at the only upgrade it's ever received -YouTube.
Some success.
1) Your palpable glee at AppleTV's 'failure' is fascinating. Kind of a sick way to spend your energy, but to each his own.
2) Can you please identify the alternative device that is (at the moment) a 'success' (and please give supporting sales numbers.)
3) Your entire premise of 'failure' is based on one badly sourced item on a rumors site?
That's a deeply flawed argument. If a content creator cannot or does not provide you their content in the time, form, manner you choose at a price you are willing to pay, you "... must resort to piracy?"
"Must?"
I am sorry, but thievery is thievery. It might happen a lot, might even be the norm in certain settings, and clearly, today's technology enables it to happen with ease, but it is not justified. Ever.
I might not like it -- and might even think the law is too protective of content creators in the US, and content creators are numbnuts, sometimes -- but the law is the law. If you don't like it, you change it. You don't break it.
*ahem*
I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite
Way to miss the entire fucking point. Here it is again in different words for those who see lots and lots of trees but can't seem to find that forest I keep talking about.
I used to be able to download NBC shows at a fair price. Now I can't. I either can pay a boatload more for cable or satellite, or I can steal it. Those are my options. Eventually I can buy from their new store, if I want to buy a PC and a SanDisk thingy.
I am the consumer. I'm the one who's money they want. They're not acting like they want it very much.
More control = more money. If not now - eventually. Just like the government!
You really need to ease up. Apple is a great company but don't just bash everyone else for the sake of being a stepford Appleite!
Question Apple as well- That's all.
I question Apple's motivations all the time. I really don't know who to believe Apple v. NBC, I think they're both trying to play each other and the public for stupid, and I think they're both being dishonest to us by selectively giving us information about the feud.
You still haven't shown us who's doing a better job or why 100M+ episode sales is a failure. In a small and very new form of paid video distribution. The original post I responded to was filled with FUD, lies or ignorance of the actual facts, save for one headline that's currently unverifiable. If Apple's a failure in this market, then frankly, everyone else is a failure. This bit with Sandisk won't turn Sandisk into an Apple beater.
It's just that your reasoning was way out of whack, as if you're an out and out hater grasping for reasons why. That's all.
That little device is a kick-ass idea.
Er, yeah. Like an iPod w/o the screen. Really Kick-ass.
If apple offered this solution as a half-price alternative to its apple tv, wouldn't we admire it?
Apple already does, the nano for $149. I've been doing exactly this for over a year with an iPod. This is just an ipod with a remote control instead of a screen, for a little cheaper. Personally, I'd rather pay a little more and get the screen.
Once you connect iPod to your TV, can you then control it with a remote from your couch?
You can with an iPod dock. To be honest, the main reason I use a TV remote is to avoid commercials...watching from iPod, that's not an issue for me.
The refunds to advertisers make me laugh, hopefully that's a good sign that the networks may have to eventually crack in the ongoing writers' strike. And I still find it funny to still see iPod mentions in shows like 30 Rock.
AppleTV via iTune is a f-a-i-l-u-r-e. Instead of asking how many people own sandisks, ask how many people own AppleTV's and why not more.
How many people own ANY media extender right now? While the aTV hasn't been a big seller, is there ANY evidence that any competing box has sold better?
AppleTV is a failure. Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread? It has underperformed greatly- nobody is buying it. Sales have stalled!
Did YOU read that headline? That whole article was all guesstimates, no real numbers since apple hasn't released any. Is there any real evidence that "nobody" is buying aTV?
And again, while it doesn't seem to be selling like gangbusters, what other box is selling better?
The fact that discounts are being offered is not a good sign for NBC: it means they know they can't compete against iTunes on the strength of their product or their service, so they must offer enticements to hold their own. Down the road, attempting to cut back on those enticements could deal a hard blow to their viability.
NBC and the other networks are in the same perilous position as the major labels & the big studios: digital media pulls the plug on the old models, and attempts to force those models onto the current landscape is a recipie for disaster. the day may not be far off when I can subscribe to the things I want to watch regularly, and use spot-downloads & NetFlix to fill in my entertainment wishes. No more satellite fees!
Um no... no it can't. The Sansa View cannot play my iTunes videos. Nor can I as a Mac user shop at this new store. All of that is beside the point. The point is that NBC claims that the AppleTV is the only way to watch your iTunes purchases on your TV when there is an older system that's almost identical to what they propose you do instead. On top of that, what I usually do is just connect my MacBook directly to the TV so I can use my remote. There's 3 different ways when NBC claims that Apple requires the AppleTV.
Okay, since you're going to be pedantic, I'll revise my statement:
If you replace "iPod Nano" with "Sansa View", and replace "iTunes content" with "Fanfare content", then the same would be true.
My original point was simply that you seemed to be latched on to this unsupportable idea that the iPod Nano occupied some sort of unique position in the iTunes (AppleTV/iPod/iTMS) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem which didn't have any parallel in the Sansa (TakeTV/Sansa View/Fanfare) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem.
Your exact words were to the effect that the iPod Nano's ability to play iTunes movies on your TV via an A/V cable, and then be detached to continue playback as a standalone portable unit was something that SanDisk's new service wouldn't be able to parallel.
I was pointing out that all indications suggest to me that opinion simply isn't going to turn out to be true.
And it's a safe bet, Apple will either be announcing a new AppleTV in January, or dropping it. Apple doesn't let stuff sit around to long without some changes, and this one is ripe for some up-dates.
Skip
The Airport Express defies your assumption.
The AppleTV isn't even a year old yet. Hardly time to start a panic about a revision.
*ahem*
<quote>I must now resort to piracy or cable or satellite</unquote>
Way to miss the entire fucking point. Here it is again in different words for those who see lots and lots of trees but can't seem to find that forest I keep talking about.
I used to be able to download NBC shows at a fair price. Now I can't. I either can pay a boatload more for cable or satellite, or I can steal it. Those are my options. Eventually I can buy from their new store, if I want to buy a PC and a SanDisk thingy.
I am the consumer. I'm the one who's money they want. They're not acting like they want it very much.
1) I did not miss the point. What would you do if you missed a show on cable or satellite (w/no DVR) or have neither?
2) I realize you might be angry at my response, but adding an f-word as emphasis does nothing enhance your point or your standing.
AppleTV is a failure.
It is? When did Apple state that?
Didn't you read yesterday's headline and thread?
You mean the unfounded SPECULATION from an analyst?
Remember that it was analysts that said the iPhone was a failure when it launched.
Okay, since you're going to be pedantic, I'll revise my statement:
If you replace "iPod Nano" with "Sansa View", and replace "iTunes content" with "Fanfare content", then the same would be true.
My original point was simply that you seemed to be latched on to this unsupportable idea that the iPod Nano occupied some sort of unique position in the iTunes (AppleTV/iPod/iTMS) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem which didn't have any parallel in the Sansa (TakeTV/Sansa View/Fanfare) movie-purchasing/playing ecosystem.
Your exact words were to the effect that the iPod Nano's ability to play iTunes movies on your TV via an A/V cable, and then be detached to continue playback as a standalone portable unit was something that SanDisk's new service wouldn't be able to parallel.
No... my exact words were in direct response to...
While Apple's method calls for its $299 Apple TV set-top-box to serve as a wireless conduit that streams the downloaded iTunes content to television sets, SanDisk is taking a slightly different approach to getting the video content from PCs to the TV -- its $100 4GB and $150 8GB Sansa TakeTV devices.
I will admit that I thought that said Apple's method requires instead of Apple's method calls for. My point was that the AppleTV is not the only way to watch iTunes content on your TV. Also, your statement still doesn't work because I'd have to buy a PC to use the Fanfare content.
1) I did not miss the point. What would you do if you missed a show on cable or satellite (w/no DVR) or have neither?
2) I realize you might be angry at my response, but adding an f-word as emphasis does nothing enhance your point or your standing.
Sorry about that. It's just the whole latch on to single word like a rabid terrier thing is getting really really old. I realize that this is the first time you've done.
Looks like you're still missing the point though. I do in fact have neither. What I do now is miss the shows. I tried watching Heroes on NBC's site, but it stutters like mad and tends to crash during the "limited commercial interruptions." The iTunes store was the only workable way for me to legally see these shows. I'm not subscribing to cable or satellite to watch 40 hours of TV a year.
My original post that started this tangent was in response to "Why is NBC the bad guy?," or "Why do you hate NBC so much." Well, I don't really hate them, but they have these two great shows that I really enjoyed and then they said I can't watch them anymore. That's why I don't like them. Of course they have a legal right to do that, but that doesn't change the whole "I'm taking my ball and going home." crap that they're pulling.
No replys from me until I get home as someone let the kids onto this forum and our content sweeper has been tripped - moderator please!
McD
[QUOTE]
They never did! Why would they???
Forbes.com has called it the iFlop.