The Apple 1 was released in 1976, the year before the PET - the first personal computer with a keyboard, display output (TV) and built in programming language (basic) and was affordable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
That was the first microcomputer, not the first personal computer. A personal computer needs at least a keyboard and a display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alandail
I didn't say the first hobbyist computer or first microcomputer, I said the first personal computer. A personal computer needs to be affordable, have a keyboard and a display.
I realize I'm picking nits about a totally inconsequential subject, but you do realize the Apple 1 had neither a display nor a keyboard
As such, it wasn't much different than the systems that preceded it. It was just cheap.
At the time there was no easy way (available adapter) to interface the iPod connector to RCA jacks, etc.
Really? Because my iPod came with them. I got the iPod photo before they started removing the stuff that came with them, like the RCA adapters, and power adapter. But they were available from a lot of third parties as well.
Really? Because my iPod came with them. I got the iPod photo before they started removing the stuff that came with them, like the RCA adapters, and power adapter. But they were available from a lot of third parties as well.
Some of the earlier iPods did come with a dock that accepted cables that could interface a TV or Stereo with RCA Jacks. Then, As you say, they removed them.
But, still there was no synchronization of sound between the iPod and the Stereo-- you had to fiddle with 2 volume controls.
Also, as I last posted, there was no remote that controlled both the Boom Box and the iPod.
I have looked for solutions ever since i bought my first iPod (I've bought most models) and I don't recall any 3rd-party solutions that gave the came capabilities as the iPod / iPod Hi-Fi combo.
I realize I'm picking nits about a totally inconsequential subject, but you do realize the Apple 1 had neither a display nor a keyboard
As such, it wasn't much different than the systems that preceded it. It was just cheap.
No Power Supply either! The Altair had a case and bus slots to attach accessories: Cassette Tape reader; Paper Tape reader; Dazzler Graphics Display; Terminal (Keyboard & CRT Display).
As delivered, it was more usable (personal) than the Apple 1.
Some of the earlier iPods did come with a dock that accepted cables that could interface a TV or Stereo with RCA Jacks. Then, As you say, they removed them.
No a dock connector, this would also plug directly into the iPod.
[QUOTE=Dick Applebaum;1700798]
But, still there was no synchronization of sound between the iPod and the Stereo-- you had to fiddle with 2 volume controls.
[/QUOTE}
Why would you? Set the iPod volume to one setting, then don't touch it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Also, as I last posted, there was no remote that controlled both the Boom Box and the iPod.
I'll give you that, but did it really matter? To say there was no other solution is a major stretch of the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I have looked for solutions ever since i bought my first iPod (I've bought most models) and I don't recall any 3rd-party solutions that gave the came capabilities as the iPod / iPod Hi-Fi combo.
.
As I have said, a device that you could plug an iPod into and listen to it, there were tonnes of them
What I see: cloud based DVR linked to your mobile me account that can stream what you choose to "record" to whichever apple device you prefer... Including your TV... No tuner needed because apple records it remotely, stores it remotely, but you control, browse and view wherever you or your iOS products are...
What I don't see: another apple also ran a la the current iTV. This one, whenever it comes out will be quite well differentiated in the market...
That's why I think pay-per-minute solutions work. Subscriptions make it difficult for the content providers to get the revenue they deserve but if a publisher is only paid for the minutes of their shows being watched then it makes it fair.
If a documentary was on iTunes for example, it would start playing just like on TV but you'd be charged 3c per minute. If after 5 minutes, you decided it wasn't for you, you'll only get charged 15c. If you keep watching, you would only be paying as much as the show would be to rent - i.e you pay about 90c for a TV show.
The pay-per-minute rate can drop the more you watch so that by the time you have consumed 10 hours of media, it drops to 1.5c per minute. The first 10 hours would cost you $18. This would perhaps be 5 days of TV.
The subsequent 10 days would cost $18 and the rate can drop further. Hopefully to a point where you could consume as much content as you wanted within $50 per month.
The rate drops may have to be done per network/publisher though as it wouldn't be fair for one publisher to be charged at a higher rate and another at a lower rate. Ideally the system would reduce rates based on repeat business for a given publisher.
In the worst case, the highest pay-per-minute rate of 3c per minute would give you just under 28 hours per month, which is close to 1 hour per day.
The US average is something like 4.5 hours per day or 140 hours per month so that $50 plan falls short but advertisements wouldn't be counted on iTunes unlike a TV, which could be as much as 25% of the viewing time. Also, depending on how many ads were shown, that could affect the rates of some TV shows - in fact, many shows could be broadcast on iTunes for free. This is much more possible with the Netflix, Hulu etc apps for the iOS.
If Apple could even manage to cover 3 hours per day within a $50 per month price bracket (around 1c per minute average), that would have a significant impact on the way people consume media.
I think this is a great approach and well thought out.
I'm not sure what the split between box seller (Apple), content provider (Disney, Discovery etc ) and broadband provider should be in all of this but assumedly there would need to be allowances for each of the parts that they provide. I'd imagine usage like this needs upwards of 500GB of internet access a month which will cost a bit too. Maybe it's $50 split between Apple and the content providers and then another $30 for the internet provider.
One of the challenges is that the the studios still know they already have an effective distribution model (deals with cable, theaters, DVD stores) without Apple. They'd be highly reluctant to put all their faith in one solution which means they still hold the power to resist improvements in pricing or offering the types of solutions that consumers really might like.
No the first personal computer was the commodore pet released in January of 1977
This is from Wikipedia:
"The Apple I went on sale in July 1976 at a price of $666.66,[3] because Wozniak liked repeating digits[4] and because they originally sold it to a local shop for $500 and added a one-third markup."
Last time I checked, 1976 came before 1977. Just saying. BTW, Nobody here has said that Steve Jobs created any of the things mentioned earlier.There is a BIG difference between invented and innovated, so let it go already.
"This will eventually destroy the television side of the cable and satellite industry,"
Am I missing something here? If destroy is defined by paying for a show that cable and Satilite offer FREE for no charge and Apppe are thinking pay for via iTunes, Thad not going to happen, so if I'm missing simething then by all means, fill me and probably many others, in
I hope itv is exactly as predicted.....There were lots of comments here that were just wrong though..... Everybody needs to remember, apple is not the invented, apple is the company that prepares and improves the invention for mass consumption.... Alot of the nerdy things we do with our home theater defile will not be included.... Itv will be designed with grandma in mind.
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
I hope itv is exactly as predicted.....There were lots of comments here that were just wrong though..... Everybody needs to remember, apple is not the invented, apple is the company that prepares and improves the invention for mass consumption.... Alot of the nerdy things we do with our home theater defile will not be included.... Itv will be designed with grandma in mind.
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
Also as a follow up to this, I am pretty sure apple has not contacted all the local channels in the country to get them on board with this and so this will he a slow launch...... Btw if I can get the networks, one or two news channels and the Disney channel, I will pull my dish out of the ground on launch day.... They gotta be live though, noninteractive boobtube
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
They could do it with location aware iAd. In fact I think internet ads in general are under utilized. I don't watch a lot of TV nowadays, and I only knew that we recently had an air quality advisory through word of mouth (and due to the fact that going outside made me feel sick). However, I definitely would have seen it if the message was delivered to me via internet advertising. It would be a better use of their location aware tech than telling me that there are sexy singles in my area.
I'm not sure what the split between box seller (Apple), content provider (Disney, Discovery etc ) and broadband provider should be in all of this but assumedly there would need to be allowances for each of the parts that they provide. I'd imagine usage like this needs upwards of 500GB of internet access a month which will cost a bit too. Maybe it's $50 split between Apple and the content providers and then another $30 for the internet provider.
The internet service would have to be separate so you'd pay for it on top of the TV content. If we go with a 3 hour watching time per day (equal to 1 film + 3 episodes of a TV show for example), this will take about 5.5GB of bandwidth per day at iTunes 720p - they may even squeeze it down further. This would be around 170GB per month.
I'd say that's at maximum usage but is certainly quite heavy on the ISP and many will have 150GB or less caps but they will just have to adapt to it. One perception that arises over electronic content is that bandwidth is a resource that runs out. It doesn't really in the way that food can run out. Bandwidth is just capacity - on a highway, you just build an extra lane - so they just need to expand their capacity.
This will come in time, emerging technology will always hit technical barriers needing to be overcome. Like how the days of dial-up, when you had to watch your usage, are gone, the bandwidth caps will eventually be high enough that there are no constraints.
Quote:
Originally Posted by benice
One of the challenges is that the the studios still know they already have an effective distribution model (deals with cable, theaters, DVD stores) without Apple. They'd be highly reluctant to put all their faith in one solution which means they still hold the power to resist improvements in pricing or offering the types of solutions that consumers really might like.
I think the iTV would be more of a hub of various solutions rather than the one solution. So it would be the flexible box that gives you Hulu, Netflix, CNBC, Youtube, BBC iPlayer, 4od, a web browser for all HTML5 streaming content. Kind of a 3rd party solution from a company that serves no content of their own to bring all content providers onto a level playing field. Some providers will play hard-ball but they will give in eventually when they see the audience and revenue they are missing out on.
Man, I can't wait to see what RealRacing HD and Madden NFL look like on my Samsung.
Same like on iPad, only bigger..?
Question that emerges here is how's iOS software/A4 hardware going to handle different resolution (say full HD). Will there be, again, new versions of software for iTV? \
I guess its only right to be unbiased and grab all kinds of news from any blog/site but sometimes it seems more than obvious that some people/sources are only sometimes correct because of coincidence. For example, he was right about copy n paste but so were many people. Many were anticipating it. However, this guy also claims the 3G would have a front camera and that iTV will allow...viewing other angles of football on the iPad? that sounds like the dumbest idea I've heard. I don't know about you, but I like havin to look down from my big TV to a smaller screen to check some extraneous angle on football.
This guy is nothing more than some other guy who claims to know stuff. Why is AI posting this?!?
Because it is AppleInquirer, after all. Oops. AppleInsider.
Dude.... Cable and satellite don't offer any channels for free
True. You pay a monthly service rate but it also allows you to watch many show ie Big Brother (last time I looked there were like 8 ready to watch) or CSI MIAMI,NEW YORK, LAS VEGAS. Right there are at least 38 shows that would cost $38.00 on iTunes and that's if they can even get them for .99 cents. Plus anything else you watch in that month. You coud watch most of those shows in one weekend if you a hard core fan of the show or V or some of the bigger shows coming out this season. NBC looks like they may have a hit with a show called The Event and Big Brother offers the latest episode about an hour after it airs on the pacific ONLINE as do most big shows and all for free. Of course not even counting torrents.
Comments
the frist personal computer was the Apple 1
The Apple 1 was released in 1976, the year before the PET - the first personal computer with a keyboard, display output (TV) and built in programming language (basic) and was affordable.
That was the first microcomputer, not the first personal computer. A personal computer needs at least a keyboard and a display.
I didn't say the first hobbyist computer or first microcomputer, I said the first personal computer. A personal computer needs to be affordable, have a keyboard and a display.
I realize I'm picking nits about a totally inconsequential subject, but you do realize the Apple 1 had neither a display nor a keyboard
As such, it wasn't much different than the systems that preceded it. It was just cheap.
I think you are mistaken!
At the time there was no easy way (available adapter) to interface the iPod connector to RCA jacks, etc.
Really? Because my iPod came with them. I got the iPod photo before they started removing the stuff that came with them, like the RCA adapters, and power adapter. But they were available from a lot of third parties as well.
Really? Because my iPod came with them. I got the iPod photo before they started removing the stuff that came with them, like the RCA adapters, and power adapter. But they were available from a lot of third parties as well.
Some of the earlier iPods did come with a dock that accepted cables that could interface a TV or Stereo with RCA Jacks. Then, As you say, they removed them.
But, still there was no synchronization of sound between the iPod and the Stereo-- you had to fiddle with 2 volume controls.
Also, as I last posted, there was no remote that controlled both the Boom Box and the iPod.
I have looked for solutions ever since i bought my first iPod (I've bought most models) and I don't recall any 3rd-party solutions that gave the came capabilities as the iPod / iPod Hi-Fi combo.
.
I realize I'm picking nits about a totally inconsequential subject, but you do realize the Apple 1 had neither a display nor a keyboard
As such, it wasn't much different than the systems that preceded it. It was just cheap.
No Power Supply either! The Altair had a case and bus slots to attach accessories: Cassette Tape reader; Paper Tape reader; Dazzler Graphics Display; Terminal (Keyboard & CRT Display).
As delivered, it was more usable (personal) than the Apple 1.
.
Some of the earlier iPods did come with a dock that accepted cables that could interface a TV or Stereo with RCA Jacks. Then, As you say, they removed them.
No a dock connector, this would also plug directly into the iPod.
[QUOTE=Dick Applebaum;1700798]
But, still there was no synchronization of sound between the iPod and the Stereo-- you had to fiddle with 2 volume controls.
[/QUOTE}
Why would you? Set the iPod volume to one setting, then don't touch it again.
Also, as I last posted, there was no remote that controlled both the Boom Box and the iPod.
I'll give you that, but did it really matter? To say there was no other solution is a major stretch of the truth.
I have looked for solutions ever since i bought my first iPod (I've bought most models) and I don't recall any 3rd-party solutions that gave the came capabilities as the iPod / iPod Hi-Fi combo.
.
As I have said, a device that you could plug an iPod into and listen to it, there were tonnes of them
What I don't see: another apple also ran a la the current iTV. This one, whenever it comes out will be quite well differentiated in the market...
That's why I think pay-per-minute solutions work. Subscriptions make it difficult for the content providers to get the revenue they deserve but if a publisher is only paid for the minutes of their shows being watched then it makes it fair.
If a documentary was on iTunes for example, it would start playing just like on TV but you'd be charged 3c per minute. If after 5 minutes, you decided it wasn't for you, you'll only get charged 15c. If you keep watching, you would only be paying as much as the show would be to rent - i.e you pay about 90c for a TV show.
The pay-per-minute rate can drop the more you watch so that by the time you have consumed 10 hours of media, it drops to 1.5c per minute. The first 10 hours would cost you $18. This would perhaps be 5 days of TV.
The subsequent 10 days would cost $18 and the rate can drop further. Hopefully to a point where you could consume as much content as you wanted within $50 per month.
The rate drops may have to be done per network/publisher though as it wouldn't be fair for one publisher to be charged at a higher rate and another at a lower rate. Ideally the system would reduce rates based on repeat business for a given publisher.
In the worst case, the highest pay-per-minute rate of 3c per minute would give you just under 28 hours per month, which is close to 1 hour per day.
The US average is something like 4.5 hours per day or 140 hours per month so that $50 plan falls short but advertisements wouldn't be counted on iTunes unlike a TV, which could be as much as 25% of the viewing time. Also, depending on how many ads were shown, that could affect the rates of some TV shows - in fact, many shows could be broadcast on iTunes for free. This is much more possible with the Netflix, Hulu etc apps for the iOS.
If Apple could even manage to cover 3 hours per day within a $50 per month price bracket (around 1c per minute average), that would have a significant impact on the way people consume media.
I think this is a great approach and well thought out.
I'm not sure what the split between box seller (Apple), content provider (Disney, Discovery etc ) and broadband provider should be in all of this but assumedly there would need to be allowances for each of the parts that they provide. I'd imagine usage like this needs upwards of 500GB of internet access a month which will cost a bit too. Maybe it's $50 split between Apple and the content providers and then another $30 for the internet provider.
One of the challenges is that the the studios still know they already have an effective distribution model (deals with cable, theaters, DVD stores) without Apple. They'd be highly reluctant to put all their faith in one solution which means they still hold the power to resist improvements in pricing or offering the types of solutions that consumers really might like.
No the first personal computer was the commodore pet released in January of 1977
This is from Wikipedia:
"The Apple I went on sale in July 1976 at a price of $666.66,[3] because Wozniak liked repeating digits[4] and because they originally sold it to a local shop for $500 and added a one-third markup."
Last time I checked, 1976 came before 1977. Just saying. BTW, Nobody here has said that Steve Jobs created any of the things mentioned earlier.There is a BIG difference between invented and innovated, so let it go already.
Am I missing something here? If destroy is defined by paying for a show that cable and Satilite offer FREE for no charge and Apppe are thinking pay for via iTunes, Thad not going to happen, so if I'm missing simething then by all means, fill me and probably many others, in
Thank you!!!
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
I hope itv is exactly as predicted.....There were lots of comments here that were just wrong though..... Everybody needs to remember, apple is not the invented, apple is the company that prepares and improves the invention for mass consumption.... Alot of the nerdy things we do with our home theater defile will not be included.... Itv will be designed with grandma in mind.
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
Also as a follow up to this, I am pretty sure apple has not contacted all the local channels in the country to get them on board with this and so this will he a slow launch...... Btw if I can get the networks, one or two news channels and the Disney channel, I will pull my dish out of the ground on launch day.... They gotta be live though, noninteractive boobtube
But here is the kicker..... Name a channel that you can go online now and view it live? If I can't stream my local channel4 how will I know the tornado is coming, live local programming is a very important piece of this puzzle
They could do it with location aware iAd. In fact I think internet ads in general are under utilized. I don't watch a lot of TV nowadays, and I only knew that we recently had an air quality advisory through word of mouth (and due to the fact that going outside made me feel sick). However, I definitely would have seen it if the message was delivered to me via internet advertising. It would be a better use of their location aware tech than telling me that there are sexy singles in my area.
I'm not sure what the split between box seller (Apple), content provider (Disney, Discovery etc ) and broadband provider should be in all of this but assumedly there would need to be allowances for each of the parts that they provide. I'd imagine usage like this needs upwards of 500GB of internet access a month which will cost a bit too. Maybe it's $50 split between Apple and the content providers and then another $30 for the internet provider.
The internet service would have to be separate so you'd pay for it on top of the TV content. If we go with a 3 hour watching time per day (equal to 1 film + 3 episodes of a TV show for example), this will take about 5.5GB of bandwidth per day at iTunes 720p - they may even squeeze it down further. This would be around 170GB per month.
I'd say that's at maximum usage but is certainly quite heavy on the ISP and many will have 150GB or less caps but they will just have to adapt to it. One perception that arises over electronic content is that bandwidth is a resource that runs out. It doesn't really in the way that food can run out. Bandwidth is just capacity - on a highway, you just build an extra lane - so they just need to expand their capacity.
This will come in time, emerging technology will always hit technical barriers needing to be overcome. Like how the days of dial-up, when you had to watch your usage, are gone, the bandwidth caps will eventually be high enough that there are no constraints.
One of the challenges is that the the studios still know they already have an effective distribution model (deals with cable, theaters, DVD stores) without Apple. They'd be highly reluctant to put all their faith in one solution which means they still hold the power to resist improvements in pricing or offering the types of solutions that consumers really might like.
I think the iTV would be more of a hub of various solutions rather than the one solution. So it would be the flexible box that gives you Hulu, Netflix, CNBC, Youtube, BBC iPlayer, 4od, a web browser for all HTML5 streaming content. Kind of a 3rd party solution from a company that serves no content of their own to bring all content providers onto a level playing field. Some providers will play hard-ball but they will give in eventually when they see the audience and revenue they are missing out on.
Man, I can't wait to see what RealRacing HD and Madden NFL look like on my Samsung.
Same like on iPad, only bigger..?
Question that emerges here is how's iOS software/A4 hardware going to handle different resolution (say full HD). Will there be, again, new versions of software for iTV?
I guess its only right to be unbiased and grab all kinds of news from any blog/site but sometimes it seems more than obvious that some people/sources are only sometimes correct because of coincidence. For example, he was right about copy n paste but so were many people. Many were anticipating it. However, this guy also claims the 3G would have a front camera and that iTV will allow...viewing other angles of football on the iPad? that sounds like the dumbest idea I've heard. I don't know about you, but I like havin to look down from my big TV to a smaller screen to check some extraneous angle on football.
This guy is nothing more than some other guy who claims to know stuff. Why is AI posting this?!?
Because it is AppleInquirer, after all. Oops. AppleInsider.
Nah, you guys are a special breed.
Ah, good old smug elitist Apple user attitude showing it's ugly face again.
Dude.... Cable and satellite don't offer any channels for free
True. You pay a monthly service rate but it also allows you to watch many show ie Big Brother (last time I looked there were like 8 ready to watch) or CSI MIAMI,NEW YORK, LAS VEGAS. Right there are at least 38 shows that would cost $38.00 on iTunes and that's if they can even get them for .99 cents. Plus anything else you watch in that month. You coud watch most of those shows in one weekend if you a hard core fan of the show or V or some of the bigger shows coming out this season. NBC looks like they may have a hit with a show called The Event and Big Brother offers the latest episode about an hour after it airs on the pacific ONLINE as do most big shows and all for free. Of course not even counting torrents.
iTV could cost more in the long run.