I don't actually like the Wiimote. It is too fiddly when trying to point to things on screen. Because it is like a 10ft finger very small hand movements translate into massive on-screen movements.
With use you would grow accustomed to it. It's easier than a mouse or track pad, but not as easy as a touch screen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando
Sony move is pretty cool and might work well. There are some nice demos where they create and manipulate 3D objects using two move controllers. But waving your hands around might get tiring after a while.
For navigation a Wiimote (or at least the Wiimote Plus) style controller is more accurate, faster and much cheaper to implement than the PS Move.
The Move offers the benefit of true 1-to-1 mapping, which whilst interesting for gaming, probably wouldn't be worth the required trade-offs for something like the Apple TV.
The Move offers the benefit of true 1-to-1 mapping, which whilst interesting for gaming, probably wouldn't be worth the required trade-offs for something like the Apple TV.
So does the WiiMote if you have the MotionPlus and the program is MP aware.
Keep in mind, the iPod Touch is, first and foremost, an iPod and not a hand-held computer for browsing. Whatever Apple does or doesn't do to change this offering I think will be driven by it's #1 function as an iPod (music).
Does a music player need an A4 type processor? Further i don't think you realize how many people buy a Touch with no intention of using it as an iPod. Call it a pocket computer, organizer, game machine or whatever for many it is not a iPod.
It may not be the cost of the iPad that has shown the average buyer to be more affluent. Remember, the rumored consensus was closer to double the price than what twas announced in January. I'd say the most jawdropping part of that event was the unbelievably low introductory price.
Many of us consider the price rather high for what you are getting. What is jaw dropping to me is the rapid adoption of an obviously limited Rev 1 device.
Quote:
I think what those surveys are showing is what most said after the event: Why do I need this when I have a smartphone and a PC? You don't. It's not a neccesity the way we view and see those other computers and clearlyn designed as an accessory conputer so it was bound to be adopted by those with more disposable income.
This I agree with. I'm avoiding rev one simply because i expect rev to to be full feature and a better value for my money. That because i don't want to buy an iPad or any computer every year.
Quote:
The other real surprise seems to be much older users flocking to this device without the scare and confusion a PC offers and with a large enough display and lack of contract that takes smartphones out of the running.
The adoption by older people is interesting. I think part of that is due iPads portability. If you are retired or employeed part time and free to travel or move about a portable and communicative tablet like iPad could be very handy. In a nut shell adoption by the older generation mirrors the reasons of the younger.
Quote:
Also, let's not forget the elephant in the room. It's only been out since April. I'd wager that people with more disposable income are more unlikely to adopt a new product out d the gate over those with less money.
This is my reason in a sense. It is the need to control money that is spent on computing hardware that keeps me away from the current iPad. Especially when it is obvious that the next rev will address the few short comings of the platform.
Quote:
Finally, can we trust the survey? It seems like people like to inject their goals, not reality, even when it's anonymous.
Nope.
However it doesn't really matter. IPad is very successful and will only grow in that success as more powerful models emerge. More powerful models at the same general price point will end up replacing a lot of laptops.
Ontario (AMD's first Bobcat Fusion processor) would work well in an AppleTV. I had figured a couple of years ago that Apple would use ION for the ATV, but it seems Apple has had a falling out with Nvidia since then (who can blame them). However, I think that if the AppleTV is going to be an iOS device, it will use the same ARM A4 chip as other iOS devices.
I mean, the point of being iOS is application compatibility, right? App Store apps on the big screen. Apps programmed for the iPad's 1024x768 display or the iPhone's retina display could be rescaled to 720p and upscaled to 1080p without much loss. An x86 processor would have to emulate iPhone apps, which would work some of the time and be very annoying when it doesn't work.
Ontario (AMD's first Bobcat Fusion processor) would work well in an AppleTV. I had figured a couple of years ago that Apple would use ION for the ATV, but it seems Apple has had a falling out with Nvidia since then (who can blame them). However, I think that if the AppleTV is going to be an iOS device, it will use the same ARM A4 chip as other iOS devices.
I mean, the point of being iOS is application compatibility, right? App Store apps on the big screen. Apps programmed for the iPad's 1024x768 display or the iPhone's retina display could be rescaled to 720p and upscaled to 1080p without much loss. An x86 processor would have to emulate iPhone apps, which would work some of the time and be very annoying when it doesn't work.
If Apple wants this to be a cheaper version of a Wii with fun but simpler games then the Imagination GPUs with 1080p High-Profile decoder chips would be more than adequate for the next TV.
As for it being iOS so you can use your iPhone apps on a big screen, that doesn?t seem feasible to me no matter how you slice it. Just look at how poorly iPhone apps look on an iPad going 2x the size. Now consider a much larger display, that is always in landscape even though most apps seem to be designed primarily for portrait mode, and the lack of the accelerometer and other components that make many apps more useful.
The point of going with iOS is because the OS is small and lightweight. It?s also designed to run on ARM, which most of the rumours seem to talk about. CocoaTouch is the UI for iOS for the touch screen that is currently the only way iOS ships, but if we look at Mac OS X which has Aqua, the TV was the first system using Mac OS X that had a different UI, BackRow.
If the make an App Store I think it will require a new SDK and new App Store segment. Integration between apps and universal apps, but no direct expansion of apps designed for a 3.5? display running on 60+? displays.
If Apple wants this to be a cheaper version of a Wii with fun but simpler games then the Imagination GPUs with 1080p High-Profile decoder chips would be more than adequate for the next TV.
Yeah for simple decoding of streamed data an ARM/Imagination chi would likely work well. To me the big question is are they targeting functionality beyond that. Trying to hit a $99 price point means thin hardware an ARM is likely your best deal.
However I'm not sure people realize what AMD is targeting with their Bobcat based Fusion devices. They will be going head to head with the higher end ARM based devices and higher end ATOMs from Intel. The thing is there will be a lot of functionality in AMDs Fusions that make rolling your own an expensive proposition.
Quote:
As for it being iOS so you can use your iPhone apps on a big screen, that doesn?t seem feasible to me no matter how you slice it. Just look at how poorly iPhone apps look on an iPad going 2x the size. Now consider a much larger display, that is always in landscape even though most apps seem to be designed primarily for portrait mode, and the lack of the accelerometer and other components that make many apps more useful.
Why has this idea settled int that iOS apps are always iPhone apps? That is a huge mistake in my mind as device specific apps already exist in the app store. Rationally one wouldn't expect all iPad apps to run well on a 1080P TV either.
Quote:
The point of going with iOS is because the OS is small and lightweight. It?s also designed to run on ARM, which most of the rumours seem to talk about. CocoaTouch is the UI for iOS for the touch screen that is currently the only way iOS ships, but if we look at Mac OS X which has Aqua, the TV was the first system using Mac OS X that had a different UI, BackRow.
Small and light weight is only a small portion of the rational. For a TV the metaphor where the app gets full control of the screen makes a lot of sense.
As to the designed to run on ARM, that is not really true. iOS are built around the SDK which I'm willing to bet is easily transferable to any CPU Apple wants to use. So Bobcat is only a compile away. For a gaming machine Bobcat actually makes a lot of sense, a four core machine will compete very well against the current crop of set top boxes.
So it is really a question of what Apple is targeting with Apple TV. If it is simply a streaming node then an ARM based architecture makes a lot of sense. If they want to target gaming something like Bobcat makes more sense, but I don't know how they would hit the $99 price point.
In the end maybe what Apple will do is to target two price levels. One being a streaming device and one a device that effectively adds games, apps and other functionality. Oh and local storage.
Quote:
If the make an App Store I think it will require a new SDK and new App Store segment. Integration between apps and universal apps, but no direct expansion of apps designed for a 3.5? display running on 60+? displays.
Not so much new, as an extended SDK. That however is no big deal as the SDK is being extended every day (well every release). However I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of running some of those iPhone apps on a TV. Some parts of the user interface extend easily to the larger screen and some apps can easily offer up alternative user interfaces. As we have seen with iPad it is very possible to build functional universal apps that function on both platforms. That is not possible with all apps of course but if Apple TV is ARM based i would expect it to have a way to run iPhone apps even if they do look like crap. iPad has demonstrated that that is a valuable feature for initial product launches.
To address comments seen in another post Touch would be fine on an Apple TV like device. The Touch surface would simply be remote. If needed the Touch surface could be imprinted with a keyboard for data entry or even use a monochrome screen to map keyboards and prompts to the Touch surface. In other words this is one way to address the issue of Touch on Apple TV, there are a bunch of other ways this could be done too. Touch isn't a limitation here but rather an opportunity to innovate. I've been able to imagine a number of possible hand held controllers for such a platform. I'm sure Apple and its crew can out pace my imagination. The thing to remember is this, Apple TV has a completely different reason for being than IPad or IPhone so the interface requirements are by definition different.
Comments
I don't actually like the Wiimote. It is too fiddly when trying to point to things on screen. Because it is like a 10ft finger very small hand movements translate into massive on-screen movements.
With use you would grow accustomed to it. It's easier than a mouse or track pad, but not as easy as a touch screen.
Sony move is pretty cool and might work well. There are some nice demos where they create and manipulate 3D objects using two move controllers. But waving your hands around might get tiring after a while.
For navigation a Wiimote (or at least the Wiimote Plus) style controller is more accurate, faster and much cheaper to implement than the PS Move.
The Move offers the benefit of true 1-to-1 mapping, which whilst interesting for gaming, probably wouldn't be worth the required trade-offs for something like the Apple TV.
The Move offers the benefit of true 1-to-1 mapping, which whilst interesting for gaming, probably wouldn't be worth the required trade-offs for something like the Apple TV.
So does the WiiMote if you have the MotionPlus and the program is MP aware.
Keep in mind, the iPod Touch is, first and foremost, an iPod and not a hand-held computer for browsing. Whatever Apple does or doesn't do to change this offering I think will be driven by it's #1 function as an iPod (music).
Does a music player need an A4 type processor? Further i don't think you realize how many people buy a Touch with no intention of using it as an iPod. Call it a pocket computer, organizer, game machine or whatever for many it is not a iPod.
Dave
It may not be the cost of the iPad that has shown the average buyer to be more affluent. Remember, the rumored consensus was closer to double the price than what twas announced in January. I'd say the most jawdropping part of that event was the unbelievably low introductory price.
Many of us consider the price rather high for what you are getting. What is jaw dropping to me is the rapid adoption of an obviously limited Rev 1 device.
I think what those surveys are showing is what most said after the event: Why do I need this when I have a smartphone and a PC? You don't. It's not a neccesity the way we view and see those other computers and clearlyn designed as an accessory conputer so it was bound to be adopted by those with more disposable income.
This I agree with. I'm avoiding rev one simply because i expect rev to to be full feature and a better value for my money. That because i don't want to buy an iPad or any computer every year.
The other real surprise seems to be much older users flocking to this device without the scare and confusion a PC offers and with a large enough display and lack of contract that takes smartphones out of the running.
The adoption by older people is interesting. I think part of that is due iPads portability. If you are retired or employeed part time and free to travel or move about a portable and communicative tablet like iPad could be very handy. In a nut shell adoption by the older generation mirrors the reasons of the younger.
Also, let's not forget the elephant in the room. It's only been out since April. I'd wager that people with more disposable income are more unlikely to adopt a new product out d the gate over those with less money.
This is my reason in a sense. It is the need to control money that is spent on computing hardware that keeps me away from the current iPad. Especially when it is obvious that the next rev will address the few short comings of the platform.
Finally, can we trust the survey? It seems like people like to inject their goals, not reality, even when it's anonymous.
Nope.
However it doesn't really matter. IPad is very successful and will only grow in that success as more powerful models emerge. More powerful models at the same general price point will end up replacing a lot of laptops.
Dave
I mean, the point of being iOS is application compatibility, right? App Store apps on the big screen. Apps programmed for the iPad's 1024x768 display or the iPhone's retina display could be rescaled to 720p and upscaled to 1080p without much loss. An x86 processor would have to emulate iPhone apps, which would work some of the time and be very annoying when it doesn't work.
Ontario (AMD's first Bobcat Fusion processor) would work well in an AppleTV. I had figured a couple of years ago that Apple would use ION for the ATV, but it seems Apple has had a falling out with Nvidia since then (who can blame them). However, I think that if the AppleTV is going to be an iOS device, it will use the same ARM A4 chip as other iOS devices.
I mean, the point of being iOS is application compatibility, right? App Store apps on the big screen. Apps programmed for the iPad's 1024x768 display or the iPhone's retina display could be rescaled to 720p and upscaled to 1080p without much loss. An x86 processor would have to emulate iPhone apps, which would work some of the time and be very annoying when it doesn't work.
If Apple wants this to be a cheaper version of a Wii with fun but simpler games then the Imagination GPUs with 1080p High-Profile decoder chips would be more than adequate for the next TV.
As for it being iOS so you can use your iPhone apps on a big screen, that doesn?t seem feasible to me no matter how you slice it. Just look at how poorly iPhone apps look on an iPad going 2x the size. Now consider a much larger display, that is always in landscape even though most apps seem to be designed primarily for portrait mode, and the lack of the accelerometer and other components that make many apps more useful.
The point of going with iOS is because the OS is small and lightweight. It?s also designed to run on ARM, which most of the rumours seem to talk about. CocoaTouch is the UI for iOS for the touch screen that is currently the only way iOS ships, but if we look at Mac OS X which has Aqua, the TV was the first system using Mac OS X that had a different UI, BackRow.
If the make an App Store I think it will require a new SDK and new App Store segment. Integration between apps and universal apps, but no direct expansion of apps designed for a 3.5? display running on 60+? displays.
If Apple wants this to be a cheaper version of a Wii with fun but simpler games then the Imagination GPUs with 1080p High-Profile decoder chips would be more than adequate for the next TV.
Yeah for simple decoding of streamed data an ARM/Imagination chi would likely work well. To me the big question is are they targeting functionality beyond that. Trying to hit a $99 price point means thin hardware an ARM is likely your best deal.
However I'm not sure people realize what AMD is targeting with their Bobcat based Fusion devices. They will be going head to head with the higher end ARM based devices and higher end ATOMs from Intel. The thing is there will be a lot of functionality in AMDs Fusions that make rolling your own an expensive proposition.
As for it being iOS so you can use your iPhone apps on a big screen, that doesn?t seem feasible to me no matter how you slice it. Just look at how poorly iPhone apps look on an iPad going 2x the size. Now consider a much larger display, that is always in landscape even though most apps seem to be designed primarily for portrait mode, and the lack of the accelerometer and other components that make many apps more useful.
Why has this idea settled int that iOS apps are always iPhone apps? That is a huge mistake in my mind as device specific apps already exist in the app store. Rationally one wouldn't expect all iPad apps to run well on a 1080P TV either.
The point of going with iOS is because the OS is small and lightweight. It?s also designed to run on ARM, which most of the rumours seem to talk about. CocoaTouch is the UI for iOS for the touch screen that is currently the only way iOS ships, but if we look at Mac OS X which has Aqua, the TV was the first system using Mac OS X that had a different UI, BackRow.
Small and light weight is only a small portion of the rational. For a TV the metaphor where the app gets full control of the screen makes a lot of sense.
As to the designed to run on ARM, that is not really true. iOS are built around the SDK which I'm willing to bet is easily transferable to any CPU Apple wants to use. So Bobcat is only a compile away. For a gaming machine Bobcat actually makes a lot of sense, a four core machine will compete very well against the current crop of set top boxes.
So it is really a question of what Apple is targeting with Apple TV. If it is simply a streaming node then an ARM based architecture makes a lot of sense. If they want to target gaming something like Bobcat makes more sense, but I don't know how they would hit the $99 price point.
In the end maybe what Apple will do is to target two price levels. One being a streaming device and one a device that effectively adds games, apps and other functionality. Oh and local storage.
If the make an App Store I think it will require a new SDK and new App Store segment. Integration between apps and universal apps, but no direct expansion of apps designed for a 3.5? display running on 60+? displays.
Not so much new, as an extended SDK. That however is no big deal as the SDK is being extended every day (well every release). However I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of running some of those iPhone apps on a TV. Some parts of the user interface extend easily to the larger screen and some apps can easily offer up alternative user interfaces. As we have seen with iPad it is very possible to build functional universal apps that function on both platforms. That is not possible with all apps of course but if Apple TV is ARM based i would expect it to have a way to run iPhone apps even if they do look like crap. iPad has demonstrated that that is a valuable feature for initial product launches.
To address comments seen in another post Touch would be fine on an Apple TV like device. The Touch surface would simply be remote. If needed the Touch surface could be imprinted with a keyboard for data entry or even use a monochrome screen to map keyboards and prompts to the Touch surface. In other words this is one way to address the issue of Touch on Apple TV, there are a bunch of other ways this could be done too. Touch isn't a limitation here but rather an opportunity to innovate. I've been able to imagine a number of possible hand held controllers for such a platform. I'm sure Apple and its crew can out pace my imagination. The thing to remember is this, Apple TV has a completely different reason for being than IPad or IPhone so the interface requirements are by definition different.
Dave