What if, maybe, that "information" had already gotten out and maybe "the public" just decided it wasn't for them? The Apple TV is out there, has been advertised and every Apple Store and Best Buy with an Apple table has a working one on display.
Just because it works out spectacularly for you doesn't mean it works out for everyone. Not everything that Apple touches has to turn to gold in terms of broad public acceptance.
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
I agree that not everything Apple touches is golden. For many people, they can get the same experience out of their Media Center PCs (and gain the ability to DVR broadcasts as well). I was simply pointing out a benefit of the Apple TV that I don't think many people realise.
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
Perhaps you don't understand that I was not prescribing any specific or vague changes to Apple TV, much less those. Maybe you confused me with someone else or maybe are remembering maybe a few posts I made when AppleTV was introduced a couple years ago, but I think I've moved on from that.
But my point is still true, even if it is a "game changer", a game changer is irrelevant if people don't play the new game. Did the game really change if most people don't go along with it?
Quote:
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
The problem is, the cost benefits aren't there with typical TV use in a typical household. The average household watches over 8 hours of TV a day. Let's assume that an average of two people are watching the same show at the same time, that is 4 hours of media that needs to be acquired. If it's one hour dramas, that is $8 a day, $240 a month doing it Apple's way. Even if half of that is podcasts, that is still $120 a month. It goes up if your favorite shows are ones that fill half hour time slots.
I am not drawing on personal anecdotes for this, my family doesn't watch that much. Here is where I get 8 hours a household per day:
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
Just because you want to call it a game changer doesn't make it so. What's so revolutionary about the AppleTV? The fact that you get to pay for every little thing you want to watch separately? The fact that you'll be restricted to a fairly small amount of content? The fact that if they want live events, they'll either still have to pay for some level of cable or go back to the 70's and 80's and deal with a pair of rabbit ears attached to their TV?
Quote:
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
I have a $15 cable that coupled with my iPod allows me to do all that. Why would I want to shell out $229 for AppleTV? Yes, you have to have an iPod for that but I think that would be a given for most iTunes users.
Quote:
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
Or maybe they actually prefer to actually have a wide variety of content at their fingertips that they pay for with one monthly bill, instead of multiple payments for everything they want to watch. I'm sure content providers would love you to have to pay for everything you wanted to watch, but how quickly would the ratings for many shows drop when they were charged $1.99 an episode? Would someone be watching Jeopardy at $9.95/week?
How many differnt shows do you watch during a season of TV? If it's more than a few, AppleTV WILL NOT be cheaper than cable. It's that simple. I think the American average is around 4 hours a TV a day. 28 hours a week at $1.99/episode comes out to over $220 a month via Apple TV. Sure makes that $100/month figure you tossed out sound cheap.
You also seem to be forgetting multiple rooms. Want AppleTV in 4 rooms, that's over $900 in equipment alone. Hardly cheap.
Quote:
[I agree that not everything Apple touches is golden. For many people, they can get the same experience out of their Media Center PCs (and gain the ability to DVR broadcasts as well). I was simply pointing out a benefit of the Apple TV that I don't think many people realise.
Or they could save several hundred dollars and get a TiVo and couple it with their existing cable service and they'd have everything the AppleTV has and more: audio/video streaming, downloadable content from Amazon Unbox and other sources, YouTube, DVR functionality, photo viewing. And TiVo boxes are cheaper than AppleTV. Sure, there's a $13/month charge, but that's peanuts.
Perhaps you don't understand that I was not prescribing any specific or vague changes to Apple TV, much less those. Maybe you confused me with someone else or maybe are remembering maybe a few posts I made when AppleTV was introduced a couple years ago, but I think I've moved on from that.
But my point is still true, a game changer is irrelevant if people don't play the new game.
Nah, I get that. I still think it's unfortunate that not more people see the cost (and convenience) benefits of migrating away from broadcast television. I myself didn't see it until I upgraded to an HD TV and then saw how much it was going to cost me to upgrade my cable to match. I had an 'a-ha' moment, as my household is very a-typical, because there are only a handful of programs that are regularly watched--the rest of the time the TV is either switched off, or we're watching a DVD.
I see the eight-hour-per-day statistic and am, quite frankly, disgusted by it. Obviously purchasing content is not going to watch for those families, and perhaps that's why systems like the Apple TV and Media Center are not taking off (and may never do). I probably watch about eight hours of TV per month (and don't at all miss the rubbish that most people are getting in those extra twenty-four hours).
Just because you want to call it a game changer doesn't make it so. What's so revolutionary about the AppleTV? The fact that you get to pay for every little thing you want to watch separately? The fact that you'll be restricted to a fairly small amount of content? The fact that if they want live events, they'll either still have to pay for some level of cable or go back to the 70's and 80's and deal with a pair of rabbit ears attached to their TV?
Well for those who aren't addicted to television, paying for only the content we watch is much cheaper than paying for content we don't (and again, I love not having to deal with commercials, and I can re-watch episodes if I want). Live events is a factor, but I still pay $14/month to have access to that.
Quote:
I have a $15 cable that coupled with my iPod allows me to do all that. Why would I want to shell out $229 for AppleTV? Yes, you have to have an iPod for that but I think that would be a given for most iTunes users.
Honestly I considered that (and did shell out $50 for the cable for the iPod Classic), but it's not as seamless. I come home and have video content (from season passes and podcasts) ready and waiting for me. Having hacked my AppleTV, I can also push DivX content onto it.
Quote:
Or maybe they actually prefer to actually have a wide variety of content at their fingertips that they pay for with one monthly bill, instead of multiple payments for everything they want to watch. I'm sure content providers would love you to have to pay for everything you wanted to watch, but how quickly would the ratings for many shows drop when they were charged $1.99 an episode? Would someone be watching Jeopardy at $9.95/week?
Fair enough, and as I said in a previous post, this device ain't gonna be a game changer for them (I might suggest a library card could be, however). I never watch Jeopardy nor mind-numbing sitcoms, and do have access to the dramas and a significant portion of the documentaries I want through the iTunes store (or through other means).
Quote:
How many differnt shows do you watch during a season of TV? If it's more than a few, AppleTV WILL NOT be cheaper than cable. It's that simple. I think the American average is around 4 hours a TV a day. 28 hours a week at $1.99/episode comes out to over $220 a month via Apple TV. Sure makes that $100/month figure you tossed out sound cheap.
As I said, this is a good point. I often forget that the bulk of America lives in their living rooms and doesn't engage in behaviour that doesn't involve their televisions. In my household, we do watch a few shows, but choose to participate in more active activities the majority of the time.
Quote:
You also seem to be forgetting multiple rooms. Want AppleTV in 4 rooms, that's over $900 in equipment alone. Hardly cheap.
True, but I can't for the life of me imagine having a family whereby we all excuse ourselves to our own rooms to sit in a chair and drool while having the life sucked out of us by a box. Four TVs? That's wrong (in my opinion, of course). Most of us grew up in households with one (maybe two) televisions, and life was good. I don't see disconnecting from my wife and children every night as a way to increase the quality of our lives.
Quote:
Or they could save several hundred dollars and get a TiVo and couple it with their existing cable service and they'd have everything the AppleTV has and more: audio/video streaming, downloadable content from Amazon Unbox and other sources, YouTube, DVR functionality, photo viewing. And TiVo boxes are cheaper than AppleTV. Sure, there's a $13/month charge, but that's peanuts.
I can't argue that point. I seriously considered the TiVo route myself, but opted for the Apple TV because I was able to get (near) HD content without an expensive cable subscription. To get TiVo HD, I'd still pay $80 to comcast and $13 to TiVo. I'm not saving any money (but am gaining access to a wider variety of content, but that's not worth the increase in cost to me -- but I get that for most people, it is).
Not only are they sold in less markets, they are sold in WAY less markets. Do your own research. Apple pushed the iphone into a very large number of countries.
What if, maybe, that "information" had already gotten out and maybe "the public" just decided it wasn't for them? The Apple TV is out there, has been advertised and every Apple Store and Best Buy with an Apple table has a working one on display.
Just because it works out spectacularly for you doesn't mean it works out for everyone. Not everything that Apple touches has to turn to gold in terms of broad public acceptance.
I think it has been a hobby because it doesn't address more than one aspect of home entertainment. I think with the number of new casual game makers now familiar with ObjectiveC I think you'll see ATV becoming more of an interesting platform in the future for the general public. With connectivity to iPod Touch and iPhones you have interesting synergy across product lines and opportunities for game play.
This isn't to say that MS and Sony will stand still. The PS3 is a very capable set top box and Sony has it's own timetable and game plan for set top dominance.
MS has the ultimate trump card for the 360 should they ever wish to use it: Office Student Edition released as a 360 title. This will royally piss off a lot of OEMs though.
True, but I can't for the life of me imagine having a family whereby we all excuse ourselves to our own rooms to sit in a chair and drool while having the life sucked out of us by a box. Four TVs? That's wrong (in my opinion, of course). Most of us grew up in households with one (maybe two) televisions, and life was good. I don't see disconnecting from my wife and children every night as a way to increase the quality of our lives.
Bingo. I think paying a bunch of money monthly for a Cable or Satellite package simply means people feel like they "must" "all-u-can-eat" their fill in programming. I get too annoyed with commercials and station holograms superimposed over the picture (like I don't know what station I'm watching) to bother much at this point.
In the future I'll probably do a blend.
Maybe basic cable depending on the sports access it provides.
Netflix -where I'll get my HD programming on disc
HD antenna
Apple TV or HTPC of some sort.
Apple has the opportunity to join this Netbook craze and make their version superior and yet another device that we can carry our media around with. Let's face it and iPhone can play back video content but not as well as a 8" or larger screen.
That is certainly proof of the number of countries, but I do see many Caribbean island nations.
All I did was google and count. Heck, I probably counted wrong.
Yes, Montserrat and Monaco...not too big (yes, monaco is not in the Caribbean or an island). There are duplicates on both lists. Apple lists Belgium twice (French and Dutch versions).
But given that BlackBerry support is in most of Western Europe, N. America, S. America and India I'm thinking that "WAY less markets" is wrong.
Neither officially lists China but I bet a lot of Hong Kong devices are in Beijing for both Blackberry and iPhone.
That is pretty sad because I know quite a few $500 computers that are not a piece of junk.\
Matter of fact I own one (Compaq C700) and it is running circles around my daughters $1000 MacBook both running Mac OS X 10.5. I love Apple but I'm not willing to pay more money for a lesser product because it is looking prettier.
What is it with those stuck up software/computer giants not believing in choice?
That is pretty sad because I know quite a few $500 computers that are not a piece of junk.\
Matter of fact I own one (Compaq C700) and it is running circles around my daughters $1000 MacBook both running Mac OS X 10.5. I love Apple but I'm not willing to pay more money for a lesser product because it is looking prettier.
What is it with those stuck up software/computer giants not believing in choice?
Corporations are stuck in this vortex called Capitalism which pretty much means if massive profits aren't available a product is not worth creating. Despite the hype and lies Capitalism is an anathema to fast forward progress.
Anyone of us could easily build a solid computer for $500 with internet pricing. The level of integration on motherboards makes it very easy. It's pretty much
Case/PS
Motherboard
CPU
RAM/Storage
Mouse/KB
OS
Done. No one expects a barn burner at $500 but a stable machine with 2GB of RAM is certainly possible.
featuring the now-standard 1.6-GHz Atom CPU and 1 GB of RAM. But dig deeper and you'll find a series of impressive upgrades over the competition: The most visible is a 10.2-inch LCD vs. the 8.9-inch screen that's become the norm on mini-notes. Another modest upgrade puts a 160-GB hard drive at your disposal, the largest among all netbooks we've seen. And you get Windows XP, not yet another Linux of the Month flavor that you'll have to learn from scratch (and thankfully not Vista, which runs like molasses on these machines). Performance isn't great, but compared to the category, it's at the top. At the very least, it's one of the few machines that were able to actually complete our benchmark routine.
2nd Generation Netbook with faster Atom will start the watershed movement to these Netbooks.
Well for those who aren't addicted to television, paying for only the content we watch is much cheaper than paying for content we don't (and again, I love not having to deal with commercials, and I can re-watch episodes if I want). Live events is a factor, but I still pay $14/month to have access to that.
So what I get from all your comments is that you are basically anti-TV and therefore the AppleTV works for you since there is very little you want to watch on TV. Unfortunately, that also puts you into a very small percentage of the population, whether you like it or not (and maybe you could lose the insulting tone toward people who actually like TV). So for maybe 5% of the general populace, the AppleTV would be a game changer. For everyone else, it would greatly increase their monthly entertainment costs.
Comments
What if, maybe, that "information" had already gotten out and maybe "the public" just decided it wasn't for them? The Apple TV is out there, has been advertised and every Apple Store and Best Buy with an Apple table has a working one on display.
Just because it works out spectacularly for you doesn't mean it works out for everyone. Not everything that Apple touches has to turn to gold in terms of broad public acceptance.
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
I agree that not everything Apple touches is golden. For many people, they can get the same experience out of their Media Center PCs (and gain the ability to DVR broadcasts as well). I was simply pointing out a benefit of the Apple TV that I don't think many people realise.
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
Perhaps you don't understand that I was not prescribing any specific or vague changes to Apple TV, much less those. Maybe you confused me with someone else or maybe are remembering maybe a few posts I made when AppleTV was introduced a couple years ago, but I think I've moved on from that.
But my point is still true, even if it is a "game changer", a game changer is irrelevant if people don't play the new game. Did the game really change if most people don't go along with it?
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
The problem is, the cost benefits aren't there with typical TV use in a typical household. The average household watches over 8 hours of TV a day. Let's assume that an average of two people are watching the same show at the same time, that is 4 hours of media that needs to be acquired. If it's one hour dramas, that is $8 a day, $240 a month doing it Apple's way. Even if half of that is podcasts, that is still $120 a month. It goes up if your favorite shows are ones that fill half hour time slots.
I am not drawing on personal anecdotes for this, my family doesn't watch that much. Here is where I get 8 hours a household per day:
http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/porta...00ac0a260aRCRD
Perhaps you're not understanding the definition of the term "Game Changer." If Apple TV had been described as a box that lets you channel surf, then it could be called a "Game Stay-The-Samer."
Just because you want to call it a game changer doesn't make it so. What's so revolutionary about the AppleTV? The fact that you get to pay for every little thing you want to watch separately? The fact that you'll be restricted to a fairly small amount of content? The fact that if they want live events, they'll either still have to pay for some level of cable or go back to the 70's and 80's and deal with a pair of rabbit ears attached to their TV?
The information is out there that Apple TV allows you to view your iTunes content on your television (and to listen to your tunes on your good speakers), but I don't think most people realise the amount of money they would save by migrating. When or if people come to this understanding, then the game will have been changed.
I have a $15 cable that coupled with my iPod allows me to do all that. Why would I want to shell out $229 for AppleTV? Yes, you have to have an iPod for that but I think that would be a given for most iTunes users.
Until people understand this, they'll be content to blindingly hand over $100/month to Comcast simply because that's what they've always done (or because they're one of those mind-numbed people who prefer to have one hand in the popcorn and the other on the remote while flipping through 300 channels of crap because they simply watch tv out of habit).
Or maybe they actually prefer to actually have a wide variety of content at their fingertips that they pay for with one monthly bill, instead of multiple payments for everything they want to watch. I'm sure content providers would love you to have to pay for everything you wanted to watch, but how quickly would the ratings for many shows drop when they were charged $1.99 an episode? Would someone be watching Jeopardy at $9.95/week?
How many differnt shows do you watch during a season of TV? If it's more than a few, AppleTV WILL NOT be cheaper than cable. It's that simple. I think the American average is around 4 hours a TV a day. 28 hours a week at $1.99/episode comes out to over $220 a month via Apple TV. Sure makes that $100/month figure you tossed out sound cheap.
You also seem to be forgetting multiple rooms. Want AppleTV in 4 rooms, that's over $900 in equipment alone. Hardly cheap.
[I agree that not everything Apple touches is golden. For many people, they can get the same experience out of their Media Center PCs (and gain the ability to DVR broadcasts as well). I was simply pointing out a benefit of the Apple TV that I don't think many people realise.
Or they could save several hundred dollars and get a TiVo and couple it with their existing cable service and they'd have everything the AppleTV has and more: audio/video streaming, downloadable content from Amazon Unbox and other sources, YouTube, DVR functionality, photo viewing. And TiVo boxes are cheaper than AppleTV. Sure, there's a $13/month charge, but that's peanuts.
Perhaps you don't understand that I was not prescribing any specific or vague changes to Apple TV, much less those. Maybe you confused me with someone else or maybe are remembering maybe a few posts I made when AppleTV was introduced a couple years ago, but I think I've moved on from that.
But my point is still true, a game changer is irrelevant if people don't play the new game.
Nah, I get that. I still think it's unfortunate that not more people see the cost (and convenience) benefits of migrating away from broadcast television. I myself didn't see it until I upgraded to an HD TV and then saw how much it was going to cost me to upgrade my cable to match. I had an 'a-ha' moment, as my household is very a-typical, because there are only a handful of programs that are regularly watched--the rest of the time the TV is either switched off, or we're watching a DVD.
I see the eight-hour-per-day statistic and am, quite frankly, disgusted by it. Obviously purchasing content is not going to watch for those families, and perhaps that's why systems like the Apple TV and Media Center are not taking off (and may never do). I probably watch about eight hours of TV per month (and don't at all miss the rubbish that most people are getting in those extra twenty-four hours).
Just because you want to call it a game changer doesn't make it so. What's so revolutionary about the AppleTV? The fact that you get to pay for every little thing you want to watch separately? The fact that you'll be restricted to a fairly small amount of content? The fact that if they want live events, they'll either still have to pay for some level of cable or go back to the 70's and 80's and deal with a pair of rabbit ears attached to their TV?
Well for those who aren't addicted to television, paying for only the content we watch is much cheaper than paying for content we don't (and again, I love not having to deal with commercials, and I can re-watch episodes if I want). Live events is a factor, but I still pay $14/month to have access to that.
I have a $15 cable that coupled with my iPod allows me to do all that. Why would I want to shell out $229 for AppleTV? Yes, you have to have an iPod for that but I think that would be a given for most iTunes users.
Honestly I considered that (and did shell out $50 for the cable for the iPod Classic), but it's not as seamless. I come home and have video content (from season passes and podcasts) ready and waiting for me. Having hacked my AppleTV, I can also push DivX content onto it.
Or maybe they actually prefer to actually have a wide variety of content at their fingertips that they pay for with one monthly bill, instead of multiple payments for everything they want to watch. I'm sure content providers would love you to have to pay for everything you wanted to watch, but how quickly would the ratings for many shows drop when they were charged $1.99 an episode? Would someone be watching Jeopardy at $9.95/week?
Fair enough, and as I said in a previous post, this device ain't gonna be a game changer for them (I might suggest a library card could be, however). I never watch Jeopardy nor mind-numbing sitcoms, and do have access to the dramas and a significant portion of the documentaries I want through the iTunes store (or through other means).
How many differnt shows do you watch during a season of TV? If it's more than a few, AppleTV WILL NOT be cheaper than cable. It's that simple. I think the American average is around 4 hours a TV a day. 28 hours a week at $1.99/episode comes out to over $220 a month via Apple TV. Sure makes that $100/month figure you tossed out sound cheap.
As I said, this is a good point. I often forget that the bulk of America lives in their living rooms and doesn't engage in behaviour that doesn't involve their televisions. In my household, we do watch a few shows, but choose to participate in more active activities the majority of the time.
You also seem to be forgetting multiple rooms. Want AppleTV in 4 rooms, that's over $900 in equipment alone. Hardly cheap.
True, but I can't for the life of me imagine having a family whereby we all excuse ourselves to our own rooms to sit in a chair and drool while having the life sucked out of us by a box. Four TVs? That's wrong (in my opinion, of course). Most of us grew up in households with one (maybe two) televisions, and life was good. I don't see disconnecting from my wife and children every night as a way to increase the quality of our lives.
Or they could save several hundred dollars and get a TiVo and couple it with their existing cable service and they'd have everything the AppleTV has and more: audio/video streaming, downloadable content from Amazon Unbox and other sources, YouTube, DVR functionality, photo viewing. And TiVo boxes are cheaper than AppleTV. Sure, there's a $13/month charge, but that's peanuts.
I can't argue that point. I seriously considered the TiVo route myself, but opted for the Apple TV because I was able to get (near) HD content without an expensive cable subscription. To get TiVo HD, I'd still pay $80 to comcast and $13 to TiVo. I'm not saving any money (but am gaining access to a wider variety of content, but that's not worth the increase in cost to me -- but I get that for most people, it is).
Not only are they sold in less markets, they are sold in WAY less markets. Do your own research. Apple pushed the iphone into a very large number of countries.
http://www.cellhire.com/content/pop_..._countries.htm
http://www.blackberry.com/support/co...lability.shtml
93
http://www.apple.com/iphone/countries/
57
I counted quickly so I may be off a number here or there.
http://www.cellhire.com/content/pop_..._countries.htm
http://www.blackberry.com/support/co...lability.shtml
93
http://www.apple.com/iphone/countries/
57
I counted quickly so I may be off a number here or there.
That is certainly proof of the number of countries, but I do see many Caribbean island nations. I wonder what the total per capita difference is.
What if, maybe, that "information" had already gotten out and maybe "the public" just decided it wasn't for them? The Apple TV is out there, has been advertised and every Apple Store and Best Buy with an Apple table has a working one on display.
Just because it works out spectacularly for you doesn't mean it works out for everyone. Not everything that Apple touches has to turn to gold in terms of broad public acceptance.
I think it has been a hobby because it doesn't address more than one aspect of home entertainment. I think with the number of new casual game makers now familiar with ObjectiveC I think you'll see ATV becoming more of an interesting platform in the future for the general public. With connectivity to iPod Touch and iPhones you have interesting synergy across product lines and opportunities for game play.
This isn't to say that MS and Sony will stand still. The PS3 is a very capable set top box and Sony has it's own timetable and game plan for set top dominance.
MS has the ultimate trump card for the 360 should they ever wish to use it: Office Student Edition released as a 360 title. This will royally piss off a lot of OEMs though.
So the original G4 Mac mini, which was $499, was a piece of junk? Gotcha.
Opps. Well I guess since it has languished for about a year without updates maybe he does consider it a piece of junk.
True, but I can't for the life of me imagine having a family whereby we all excuse ourselves to our own rooms to sit in a chair and drool while having the life sucked out of us by a box. Four TVs? That's wrong (in my opinion, of course). Most of us grew up in households with one (maybe two) televisions, and life was good. I don't see disconnecting from my wife and children every night as a way to increase the quality of our lives.
Bingo. I think paying a bunch of money monthly for a Cable or Satellite package simply means people feel like they "must" "all-u-can-eat" their fill in programming. I get too annoyed with commercials and station holograms superimposed over the picture (like I don't know what station I'm watching) to bother much at this point.
In the future I'll probably do a blend.
Maybe basic cable depending on the sports access it provides.
Netflix -where I'll get my HD programming on disc
HD antenna
Apple TV or HTPC of some sort.
Apple has the opportunity to join this Netbook craze and make their version superior and yet another device that we can carry our media around with. Let's face it and iPhone can play back video content but not as well as a 8" or larger screen.
That is certainly proof of the number of countries, but I do see many Caribbean island nations.
All I did was google and count. Heck, I probably counted wrong.
Yes, Montserrat and Monaco...not too big (yes, monaco is not in the Caribbean or an island). There are duplicates on both lists. Apple lists Belgium twice (French and Dutch versions).
But given that BlackBerry support is in most of Western Europe, N. America, S. America and India I'm thinking that "WAY less markets" is wrong.
Neither officially lists China but I bet a lot of Hong Kong devices are in Beijing for both Blackberry and iPhone.
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk...
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
That is pretty sad because I know quite a few $500 computers that are not a piece of junk.
Matter of fact I own one (Compaq C700) and it is running circles around my daughters $1000 MacBook both running Mac OS X 10.5. I love Apple but I'm not willing to pay more money for a lesser product because it is looking prettier.
What is it with those stuck up software/computer giants not believing in choice?
That is pretty sad because I know quite a few $500 computers that are not a piece of junk.
Matter of fact I own one (Compaq C700) and it is running circles around my daughters $1000 MacBook both running Mac OS X 10.5. I love Apple but I'm not willing to pay more money for a lesser product because it is looking prettier.
What is it with those stuck up software/computer giants not believing in choice?
Corporations are stuck in this vortex called Capitalism which pretty much means if massive profits aren't available a product is not worth creating. Despite the hype and lies Capitalism is an anathema to fast forward progress.
Anyone of us could easily build a solid computer for $500 with internet pricing. The level of integration on motherboards makes it very easy. It's pretty much
Case/PS
Motherboard
CPU
RAM/Storage
Mouse/KB
OS
Done. No one expects a barn burner at $500 but a stable machine with 2GB of RAM is certainly possible.
8.9" (1280 × 768), SSD drive,...
More picts and other mockups here.
Talking about netbooks... Here's Isamu Sanada's version of a rebirth of the iBook:
Oh my, that thing is gorgeous. I'll pass on their hideous mock-up of the Mini however!
http://www.wired.com/reviews/product/lenovo_ideapad_s10
featuring the now-standard 1.6-GHz Atom CPU and 1 GB of RAM. But dig deeper and you'll find a series of impressive upgrades over the competition: The most visible is a 10.2-inch LCD vs. the 8.9-inch screen that's become the norm on mini-notes. Another modest upgrade puts a 160-GB hard drive at your disposal, the largest among all netbooks we've seen. And you get Windows XP, not yet another Linux of the Month flavor that you'll have to learn from scratch (and thankfully not Vista, which runs like molasses on these machines). Performance isn't great, but compared to the category, it's at the top. At the very least, it's one of the few machines that were able to actually complete our benchmark routine.
2nd Generation Netbook with faster Atom will start the watershed movement to these Netbooks.
(8.9" screen, trackpad for amoeba)
I'll have one of these:
(10" touch screen, touch keyboard)
You can have one of those:
(8.9" screen, trackpad for amoeba)
I'll have one of these:
(10" touch screen, touch keyboard)
At least, I'm sharing something NEW.
Well for those who aren't addicted to television, paying for only the content we watch is much cheaper than paying for content we don't (and again, I love not having to deal with commercials, and I can re-watch episodes if I want). Live events is a factor, but I still pay $14/month to have access to that.
So what I get from all your comments is that you are basically anti-TV and therefore the AppleTV works for you since there is very little you want to watch on TV. Unfortunately, that also puts you into a very small percentage of the population, whether you like it or not (and maybe you could lose the insulting tone toward people who actually like TV). So for maybe 5% of the general populace, the AppleTV would be a game changer. For everyone else, it would greatly increase their monthly entertainment costs.
At least, I'm sharing something NEW.
And something better. A netbook without a keyboard would suck and there's no reason that the screen couldn't be a touch surface as well.