That's already two devices, I don't like that right off the bat. And right now you need a third device if you want to game on your TV.
You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.
Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.
Even with the set up you're on about you've two remotes. Right away that's a bad experience.
… One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.
You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.
Huh?
Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.
I said one remote, not none.
One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.
Nearly identical to TV, Apple TV, remote, iOS device for controlling the games. Operationally identical, actually.
I said one remote, not none.
And we could easily have just one remote! Just takes some engineering.
Huh?
Want me to mock it up? You just need the four directions, volume up and down, accept, and menu. It can basically look the same as the Apple Remote right now.
And you think it's me that's living in the dream world?
Explain how my vision differs from 1) yours or 2) reality.
Just simply, lol.
One step for setup with both devices, so yes. Doesn't matter what they have to do to get it working, matters how the user has to use it. Simply.
I had no idea your argument was just so horrendously weak.
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
They are. It's called the Apple Bluetooth Keyboard. You can even get cases that have slots for both the iPad and the Apple Bluetooth Keyboard, and there are plenty of cases that have their own Bluetooth keyboards built in.
But if you're doing this, you want a laptop. Your computing needs are basically suffering an identity crisis. This is to be expected, obviously, during this transition phase. Nothing wrong with it other than when people don't acknowledge that this is what is happening to them.
By the end of the decade, laptops will basically be phased out, and only bargain bin manufacturers (like Dell or HP, if they're even still making computers at all by then) would be making laptops.
I have several of the Apple Bluetooth Keyboards. To be kind, they are unsuited to the task with tablets.
There is no identity crisis. There is, however, denial on your part that there is a need for such a product. I don't subscribe to the "if I needed it Apple would have provided it" school of thought. I see people struggling with the third party "make do" products and putzing around with the Apple Keyboard. There are, and always will be, situations where text entry is required and it is more than an abbreviated OK. For those situations, an actual keyboard is still vastly superior to tapping on a virtual keyboard.
In the situations where a keyboard is not necessary, you just don't carry it.
An iPad + Apple Bluetooth Keyboard = an inelegant solution.
There is no identity crisis. There is, however, denial…
Yep.
…on your part that there is a need for such a product.
I don't recall saying that. I recall saying they exist and implying Apple shouldn't waste their time making one of their own.
I don't subscribe to the "if I needed it Apple would have provided it" school of thought.
I need a flipping dock before I'd consider a newer iPhone. That I know. Really wish Apple would make one.
In the situations where a keyboard is not necessary, you just don't carry it.
Sounds like exactly the situation in which an Apple Bluetooth Keyboard works. I don't get the inelegance. You'd rather have a keyboard built into your case whether you need it or not?
Did you actually look at the picture or read the description? It's detachable.
Identity. Crisis. It becomes a laptop that you're forced to touch. Make the darn thing bigger and most people won't want to use a physical keyboard at all. That's why I've been for larger iPads since before the iPad was announced.
Identity. Crisis. It becomes a laptop that you're forced to touch. Make the darn thing bigger and most people won't want to use a physical keyboard at all. That's why I've been for larger iPads since before the iPad was announced.
No, you are not "forced to touch" it. If you don't care for the keyboard either don't use it or, better yet, don't buy it. I don't see how making the iPad larger overcomes the inability to touch type. If it were 30", you would still need a better text input mechanism on some occasions. Your argument simply is not logical.
One step for setup with both devices, so yes. Doesn't matter what they have to do to get it working, matters how the user has to use it. Simply.
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
So how exactly is it one step setup for people who are also in the market for a new TV? An experience Apple has zero 'control' over. Notice the word I highlighted, there? And if they are not in the market for a 'new' TV, are you not counting TV setup at all? In your scenario you've two devices to setup, two devices to work together and two (TV) remote controls. Not to mention, the Apple TV doesn't have a hard drive, besides its buffer drive. And if you want a decent gaming experience you'll still need hardware controllers with physical buttons.
You're scenario is basically the existing nightmare we have today, and with no games. Unless you add in a third device, like a PS3, a 360 or a Wii. And then it becomes even messier.
I basically want one TV, one remote, and nothing else. And if you're a gamer, you add in a games controller, or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
Like I say, an Apple branded games controller, available as additional purchase. I basically want them to heavily copy the PS3 controller. Are you a gamer? Then add on a games controller, or two, or three.
The regular TV would come with a remote, and the gamers out there would acquire some games controllers from Apple. The idea of using an iDevice as a controller for a game on your TV is beyond gimmick. Gaming directly on an iDevice is one thing. You need to feel your controller to game on a TV - and I'm not the only one who thinks this.
No, you are not "forced to touch" it. If you don't care for the keyboard either don't use it or, better yet, don't buy it.
It's a tablet! You're forced to touch it! You can't control the OS completely from the keyboard! What are you talking about?!
Originally Posted by Ireland
So how exactly is it one step setup for people who are also in the market for a new TV? An experience Apple has zero 'control' over. Notice the word I highlighted, there? And if they are not in the market for a 'new' TV, are you not counting TV setup at all? In your scenario you've two devices to setup, two devices to work together and two (TV) remote controls.
One remote control. Really, I don't get how you're not seeing this. If you're really just not, I apologize.
Hold your Apple Remote facing the TV. Hold Menu, tap volume up. If nothing happens, tap it again. Continue tapping volume up while holding Menu until the volume goes up on the TV. Boom. Let go of Menu. Now it works with your TV for volume and Apple TV for controls.
In the background, where the user couldn't care less about it, it's cycling through the settings for different models of TV. Ever seen one of those giant charts on the big programmable remotes where they give you a list of codes to put in? Forget that. Two buttons, one cycle; the remote does all the work.
Not to mention, the Apple TV doesn't have a hard drive, besides its buffer drive.
I still don't like that about the two newest models, but it wouldn't matter if Apple would just let us have NAiTL support! What, you actually expect a hard drive inside this TV? Talk about artificially dating it.
And if you want a decent gaming experience you'll still need hardware controllers with physical buttons.
So… that's two "remotes". You hate that.
…and with no games.
Not the nightmare, as I've outlined above, and games via iDevices.
Unless you add in a third device, like a PS3, a 360 or a Wii. And then it becomes even messier.
It would be a lot better if you'd just actually outline your idea instead of throwing together a bunch of mixed signals. You whine about having "multiple remotes" and then claim they're necessary for the full experience. You whine about having "no games" and then claim you have to have "another device" for them in the first place.
Here's MY idea:
Any TV. Plug in an Apple TV. One remote. Controls the functions of both. Third party software creation specifically for the device is limited to video content, since it's a TV. You want games, AirPlay from your iOS device, and also control them from there. Developers can, of course, build support into their apps for 1920x1080, with the intent of them being played on an Apple TV via an iDevice.
From what I'm understanding, your vision is identical, except you want to remove just the Apple TV from this equation (and make people's TVs obsolete every three years) while still requiring a non-Apple game console. Now here's the part where you tell me what is correct and what is incorrect about my view of your vision.
One remote control. Really, I don't get how you're not seeing this. If you're really just not, I apologize.
Hold your Apple Remote facing the TV. Hold Menu, tap volume up. If nothing happens, tap it again. Continue tapping volume up while holding Menu until the volume goes up on the TV. Boom. Let go of Menu. Now it works with your TV for volume and Apple TV for controls.
LOL, so user friendly. Apple should hire you. You're too funny.
It's a tablet! You're forced to touch it! You can't control the OS completely from the keyboard! What are you talking about?!
<snip>
Yea, really? That is not the question or the subject. It's text entry. You may recall that I pointed out the touchpad in the photo of the Asus device and commented that it was not relevant to a discussion of the iPad. Just what are you talking about?
That was my prompting you to actually answer some of the questions I've posed, but I guess not.
I've read all your comments. I don't agree that plugging an Apple TV in every brand of TV is a good solution. It's not terrible, I own one, but it's not good and certainly not delightful. You're solution for the Apple TV Remote controlling the functions of the TV sounds good on paper, but back in the real world it would never work, you've too many different TV's out there, and they still provide an un-Apple experience. Even if your idea worked (and I don't think it would) you'd still need the TV remote to turn on the TV. That experience is not delightful.
In my mind, the only solution is an AIO TV. In 30 years time people will look back and laugh at the fact that you used to have to physically connect devices to your TV, and people had set-ups with 3 remotes, etc. It's bad out there, I hope Apple gets the content deals they're looking for - I feel that's all is holding this up at this point. That's my dream living room setup. One AIO iTV that works. No boxes, no wires - a display and a power cord.
I've read all your comments. I don't agree that plugging an Apple TV in every brand of TV is a good solution. It's not terrible, I own one, but it's not good and certainly not delightful. You're solution for the Apple TV Remote controlling the functions of the TV sounds good on paper, but back in the real world it would never work, you've too many different TV's out there, and they still provide an un-Apple experience.
The ONLY thing the TV would control is the volume. The implication is that, while they're still designed for systems that precede the Apple TV, you wouldn't mess with any of that crap, owning an Apple TV.
Even if your idea worked (and I don't think it would) you'd still need the TV remote to turn on the TV.
Fine, nine buttons on the remote.
In 30 years time people will look back and laugh at the fact that you used to have to physically connect devices to your TV…
In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.
In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.
Rather like the non-existent AirPlay Mirroring on my mid-2010 iMac 27" (grumble moan whine whinge bleat and sigh).
Comments
Originally Posted by Ireland
That's already two devices, I don't like that right off the bat. And right now you need a third device if you want to game on your TV.
You'll need a second device if you want to do that with your mythical television. A third, really. Same as with an Apple TV. And you have already said you hate that.
Are you honestly trying to pretend that an Apple television would do away with the remote entirely? Come on.
Even with the set up you're on about you've two remotes. Right away that's a bad experience.
… One remote. It can have as few as ten buttons and control both the television and the Apple TV. Actually, eight buttons, since channels wouldn't exist anymore.
Huh?
I said one remote, not none.
Huh?
Originally Posted by Ireland
Huh?
TV, remote, iOS device for controlling the games.
Nearly identical to TV, Apple TV, remote, iOS device for controlling the games. Operationally identical, actually.
I said one remote, not none.
And we could easily have just one remote! Just takes some engineering.
Huh?
Want me to mock it up? You just need the four directions, volume up and down, accept, and menu. It can basically look the same as the Apple Remote right now.
And you think it's me that's living in the dream world?
Just simply, lol.
And gaming via an iOS device on your TV would be (and is) a gimmick, and an awful experience.
I had no idea your argument was just so horrendously weak.
Originally Posted by Ireland
And you think it's me that's living in the dream world?
Explain how my vision differs from 1) yours or 2) reality.
Just simply, lol.
One step for setup with both devices, so yes. Doesn't matter what they have to do to get it working, matters how the user has to use it. Simply.
I had no idea your argument was just so horrendously weak.
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They are. It's called the Apple Bluetooth Keyboard. You can even get cases that have slots for both the iPad and the Apple Bluetooth Keyboard, and there are plenty of cases that have their own Bluetooth keyboards built in.
But if you're doing this, you want a laptop. Your computing needs are basically suffering an identity crisis. This is to be expected, obviously, during this transition phase. Nothing wrong with it other than when people don't acknowledge that this is what is happening to them.
By the end of the decade, laptops will basically be phased out, and only bargain bin manufacturers (like Dell or HP, if they're even still making computers at all by then) would be making laptops.
I have several of the Apple Bluetooth Keyboards. To be kind, they are unsuited to the task with tablets.
There is no identity crisis. There is, however, denial on your part that there is a need for such a product. I don't subscribe to the "if I needed it Apple would have provided it" school of thought. I see people struggling with the third party "make do" products and putzing around with the Apple Keyboard. There are, and always will be, situations where text entry is required and it is more than an abbreviated OK. For those situations, an actual keyboard is still vastly superior to tapping on a virtual keyboard.
In the situations where a keyboard is not necessary, you just don't carry it.
An iPad + Apple Bluetooth Keyboard = an inelegant solution.
Originally Posted by RBR
There is no identity crisis. There is, however, denial…
Yep.
…on your part that there is a need for such a product.
I don't recall saying that. I recall saying they exist and implying Apple shouldn't waste their time making one of their own.
I don't subscribe to the "if I needed it Apple would have provided it" school of thought.
I need a flipping dock before I'd consider a newer iPhone. That I know. Really wish Apple would make one.
In the situations where a keyboard is not necessary, you just don't carry it.
Sounds like exactly the situation in which an Apple Bluetooth Keyboard works. I don't get the inelegance. You'd rather have a keyboard built into your case whether you need it or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
<snip> You'd rather have a keyboard built into your case whether you need it or not?
Did you actually look at the picture or read the description? It's detachable.
Originally Posted by RBR
Did you actually look at the picture or read the description? It's detachable.
Identity. Crisis. It becomes a laptop that you're forced to touch. Make the darn thing bigger and most people won't want to use a physical keyboard at all. That's why I've been for larger iPads since before the iPad was announced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Identity. Crisis. It becomes a laptop that you're forced to touch. Make the darn thing bigger and most people won't want to use a physical keyboard at all. That's why I've been for larger iPads since before the iPad was announced.
No, you are not "forced to touch" it. If you don't care for the keyboard either don't use it or, better yet, don't buy it. I don't see how making the iPad larger overcomes the inability to touch type. If it were 30", you would still need a better text input mechanism on some occasions. Your argument simply is not logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
One step for setup with both devices, so yes. Doesn't matter what they have to do to get it working, matters how the user has to use it. Simply.
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
So how exactly is it one step setup for people who are also in the market for a new TV? An experience Apple has zero 'control' over. Notice the word I highlighted, there? And if they are not in the market for a 'new' TV, are you not counting TV setup at all? In your scenario you've two devices to setup, two devices to work together and two (TV) remote controls. Not to mention, the Apple TV doesn't have a hard drive, besides its buffer drive. And if you want a decent gaming experience you'll still need hardware controllers with physical buttons.
You're scenario is basically the existing nightmare we have today, and with no games. Unless you add in a third device, like a PS3, a 360 or a Wii. And then it becomes even messier.
I basically want one TV, one remote, and nothing else. And if you're a gamer, you add in a games controller, or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You don't have one at all! How do you expect to "control games" with this "second device" in your own argument? Or are you claiming some Kinect-like system whereby the "dual front-facing FaceTime cameras" let you control things without something in your hand?
Like I say, an Apple branded games controller, available as additional purchase. I basically want them to heavily copy the PS3 controller. Are you a gamer? Then add on a games controller, or two, or three.
The regular TV would come with a remote, and the gamers out there would acquire some games controllers from Apple. The idea of using an iDevice as a controller for a game on your TV is beyond gimmick. Gaming directly on an iDevice is one thing. You need to feel your controller to game on a TV - and I'm not the only one who thinks this.
Originally Posted by RBR
No, you are not "forced to touch" it. If you don't care for the keyboard either don't use it or, better yet, don't buy it.
It's a tablet! You're forced to touch it! You can't control the OS completely from the keyboard! What are you talking about?!
Originally Posted by Ireland
So how exactly is it one step setup for people who are also in the market for a new TV? An experience Apple has zero 'control' over. Notice the word I highlighted, there? And if they are not in the market for a 'new' TV, are you not counting TV setup at all? In your scenario you've two devices to setup, two devices to work together and two (TV) remote controls.
One remote control. Really, I don't get how you're not seeing this. If you're really just not, I apologize.
Hold your Apple Remote facing the TV. Hold Menu, tap volume up. If nothing happens, tap it again. Continue tapping volume up while holding Menu until the volume goes up on the TV. Boom. Let go of Menu. Now it works with your TV for volume and Apple TV for controls.
In the background, where the user couldn't care less about it, it's cycling through the settings for different models of TV. Ever seen one of those giant charts on the big programmable remotes where they give you a list of codes to put in? Forget that. Two buttons, one cycle; the remote does all the work.
Not to mention, the Apple TV doesn't have a hard drive, besides its buffer drive.
I still don't like that about the two newest models, but it wouldn't matter if Apple would just let us have NAiTL support! What, you actually expect a hard drive inside this TV? Talk about artificially dating it.
And if you want a decent gaming experience you'll still need hardware controllers with physical buttons.
So… that's two "remotes". You hate that.
…and with no games.
Not the nightmare, as I've outlined above, and games via iDevices.
Unless you add in a third device, like a PS3, a 360 or a Wii. And then it becomes even messier.
It would be a lot better if you'd just actually outline your idea instead of throwing together a bunch of mixed signals. You whine about having "multiple remotes" and then claim they're necessary for the full experience. You whine about having "no games" and then claim you have to have "another device" for them in the first place.
Here's MY idea:
Any TV. Plug in an Apple TV. One remote. Controls the functions of both. Third party software creation specifically for the device is limited to video content, since it's a TV. You want games, AirPlay from your iOS device, and also control them from there. Developers can, of course, build support into their apps for 1920x1080, with the intent of them being played on an Apple TV via an iDevice.
From what I'm understanding, your vision is identical, except you want to remove just the Apple TV from this equation (and make people's TVs obsolete every three years) while still requiring a non-Apple game console. Now here's the part where you tell me what is correct and what is incorrect about my view of your vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
One remote control. Really, I don't get how you're not seeing this. If you're really just not, I apologize.
Hold your Apple Remote facing the TV. Hold Menu, tap volume up. If nothing happens, tap it again. Continue tapping volume up while holding Menu until the volume goes up on the TV. Boom. Let go of Menu. Now it works with your TV for volume and Apple TV for controls.
LOL, so user friendly. Apple should hire you. You're too funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's a tablet! You're forced to touch it! You can't control the OS completely from the keyboard! What are you talking about?!
<snip>
Yea, really? That is not the question or the subject. It's text entry. You may recall that I pointed out the touchpad in the photo of the Asus device and commented that it was not relevant to a discussion of the iPad. Just what are you talking about?
Originally Posted by Ireland
LOL, so user friendly. Apple should hire you. You're too funny.
This response shows that I have not incorrectly defined your view on the television, proving that you've contradicted yourself multiple times above.
This response also shows that you can't think of any better way of doing it and are mocking me for trying. Imagine if everyone didn't try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
This response shows that I have not incorrectly defined your view on the television, proving that you've contradicted yourself multiple times above.
This response also shows that you can't think of any better way of doing it and are mocking me for trying. Imagine if everyone didn't try.
Oh relax, I've argued about it with you for years now. It gets tiring. We'll wait and see, but I think you're misguided.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Oh relax, I've argued about it with you for years now. It gets tiring. We'll wait and see, but I think you're misguided.
That was my prompting you to actually answer some of the questions I've posed, but I guess not.
I've read all your comments. I don't agree that plugging an Apple TV in every brand of TV is a good solution. It's not terrible, I own one, but it's not good and certainly not delightful. You're solution for the Apple TV Remote controlling the functions of the TV sounds good on paper, but back in the real world it would never work, you've too many different TV's out there, and they still provide an un-Apple experience. Even if your idea worked (and I don't think it would) you'd still need the TV remote to turn on the TV. That experience is not delightful.
In my mind, the only solution is an AIO TV. In 30 years time people will look back and laugh at the fact that you used to have to physically connect devices to your TV, and people had set-ups with 3 remotes, etc. It's bad out there, I hope Apple gets the content deals they're looking for - I feel that's all is holding this up at this point. That's my dream living room setup. One AIO iTV that works. No boxes, no wires - a display and a power cord.
Originally Posted by Ireland
I've read all your comments. I don't agree that plugging an Apple TV in every brand of TV is a good solution. It's not terrible, I own one, but it's not good and certainly not delightful. You're solution for the Apple TV Remote controlling the functions of the TV sounds good on paper, but back in the real world it would never work, you've too many different TV's out there, and they still provide an un-Apple experience.
The ONLY thing the TV would control is the volume. The implication is that, while they're still designed for systems that precede the Apple TV, you wouldn't mess with any of that crap, owning an Apple TV.
Even if your idea worked (and I don't think it would) you'd still need the TV remote to turn on the TV.
Fine, nine buttons on the remote.
In 30 years time people will look back and laugh at the fact that you used to have to physically connect devices to your TV…
In 30 years time, if true, I'll look back and remember the happy days when I wasn't supposed to buy a new TV every two years… just to have access to modern content. Because you know that's how it's going to happen. Content will be limited to the most modern devices.
Rather like the non-existent AirPlay Mirroring on my mid-2010 iMac 27" (grumble moan whine whinge bleat and sigh).