How does pointing out that including Blu-ray with the Xbox One will generate royalty payments to a whole consortium of companies other than Sony equate to "some sort of pro-Apple victory"? Help me out because I'm obviously not as good at trolling as you purport to be.
So then why mention Apple at all if you weren't trying to make it out as a win for them? And how was I trolling? Pointing out that Microsoft licensing H.264 and AACS as being nothing new is "trolling"? Interesting world you live in.
They already have been paying royalty payments to a whole consortium of other companies with the Xbox 360 and their failed HD-DVD attempt. In the case of the latter to Toshiba and many others. They also pay a whole consortium to allow DVD movie playback in the 360 by way of licensing MPEG-2 and CSS. Basically, it's business as usual for anyone who is making a legit media player.
Xbox 720 would sound like a step backwards since it's the poor-man's HD. I quite like the chosen name, the look of the device, and it's stated functionality. What it will be able to offer may be a different issue altogether.
Given the design is a homage to Next (albeit squished). So ... perhaps the name is a prequel.
May as well call it Xbox One Nine Eight Four. It "will not operate" without a Kinect plugged in. Couple that with the physical size of both devices (and the "pay twice" model they're using for used games) and it'll be dead by 2015.
Originally Posted by Ingela
Apple TV could have done a lot of this a long time ago. Wonder why they have dragged their feet on it. Shame.
This works via hdmi IN. you plug your cable box or satellite box into the hdmi in port. Then you would tell the box what your provider is and it will download all the channel guide data.
You would have an ir transmitter thing connected to the cable or sat box to turn its channels.
Oh whoop. Another shiny black box! 0 for design guys.
Just another excuse to raise the cost of games methinks.
It is as good of a design as it can be, very minimalistic and doesn't draw attention to itself, it will blend in with the rest of my black gear (AVR, DirecTV, Amps, Control Processor, Etc.) A square peg for a square hole.
I don't follow. If the device has an HDMI passthrough then it can be always connected and ready to overlay on your cable/sat feed or take over completely with a touch of a button. This is what I've been saying Apple should have done with the Apple TV from day one to specifically avoid being an ignored device that requires an input change on the monitor before it can be utilized.
I agree. Elgato has been doing that very thing for years now, and I also don't understand why AppleTV hasn't incorporated this.
A large part of the package is the integrated TV functionality, which in turn relies on an integrated program guide. I wonder how or if they plan to offer that outside the US. Is that what the 300 K servers worldwide are for? Outside the US, a lot of TV comes via satellite, how is this device going to integrate and work that - if at all - given I suspect it's TV integration is reliant on cable fed TV as seems common in the US.
I don't suppose your TV content will actually be coming via Xbox live from those servers in a sort of on-demand basis?
Nope live TV. FiOS is on the Xbox though it's not the full channel lineup.
It sounds impressive%u2026 but then, so did Metro%u2026 *cough*
Actually, Xbox is one of the few areas Microsoft seems to be getting right. I wonder, if/when Apple more aggressively enters the "living room" space, what they'll offer as an alternative?
50%+ failure rate on the 360, billions in losses, now 3rd place in global sales....yeah, they sure are getting it "right"
So what? Who spends all day looking at their game console? It's probably tucked out of the way some where.
In some ways, this is what Apple TV should have been. Apple was positioned to do the "one box to control them all" game a long time ago, but fell short. With only minor modifications, Apple TV could have been the center of your entertainment system and done all the things that XBox 1 does (gaming, music, movies, TV, Internet, etc).
It's not a bad product in concept. It will be interesting to see how well they've actually met their goals.
I don't see any point in comparing the Xbox 1 to Apple TV, in that the Xbox is likely to cost 3-4 times as much, is about 50 times the volume, has vastly more memory and processing power on board, and looks to get its multi-device control capacities via IR blasters. Not to mention a UI scheme that includes a gaming controller, Kinect box and voice recognition.
Apple was never going to make that device. That's not to say they can't add functionality to something like the existing Apple TV, primarily HDMI pass-through for cablebox overlay and instant switching, plus apps and a browser. But the real trick is how to offer that while keeping the UI and attendant devices dead simple. "Gamers" may welcome multi-device control and multiple ways to do the same thing, but the average TV viewer will not.
Presumably Apple has something in mind, Jobs' oft mentioned declaration that he'd "cracked the code." But I think we can be pretty sure that it won't look or work much like an Xbox.
I don't follow. If the device has an HDMI passthrough then it can be always connected and ready to overlay on your cable/sat feed or take over completely with a touch of a button. This is what I've been saying Apple should have done with the Apple TV from day one to specifically avoid being an ignored device that requires an input change on the monitor before it can be utilized.
I agree. Elgato has been doing that very thing for years now, and I also don't understand why AppleTV hasn't incorporated this.
Or in our case once we toggled the HDMI box to Apple TV we never changed the input back.
Seriously though, I have a RocketFish auto detecting HDMI thingumybob that simply changes to whatever input device I fiddle with. It works flawlessly. This should IMHO be built in the the TV not a device such as an Apple TV.
How exactly is being able to put more transistors into a smaller or similar size die "bad design"? Your statement about how it doesn't make you think about power efficiency is equally baffling. The shrinking of the transistors means that you can lower the voltage and decrease power consumption while still gaining in performance. So it's far more efficient in performance/watt especially since it's pretty much guaranteed that the CPU die will be either equal in size or smaller than the 360 as well.
you're assuming higher transistor density. What if it's actually poor design, using extra chips and wasting power? And it's not the 1960's. We care about RAM capacities and CPU performance, not transistor counts and crystal counts! It stands to reason that one way a marketing dept might decide on such an odd focus is because the other specs are embarrassing.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Ah yes. The infamous Red Ring of Death. The main reason why Xbox lost $$$ billions for years.
The division is finally above a break-even run rate, but they're still deep in the hole.
They're not deep in the hole. They had made their money back on the R&D and RRoD debacle by the end of 2009.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
HD-DVD, nice.
How does pointing out that including Blu-ray with the Xbox One will generate royalty payments to a whole consortium of companies other than Sony equate to "some sort of pro-Apple victory"? Help me out because I'm obviously not as good at trolling as you purport to be.
So then why mention Apple at all if you weren't trying to make it out as a win for them? And how was I trolling? Pointing out that Microsoft licensing H.264 and AACS as being nothing new is "trolling"? Interesting world you live in.
They already have been paying royalty payments to a whole consortium of other companies with the Xbox 360 and their failed HD-DVD attempt. In the case of the latter to Toshiba and many others. They also pay a whole consortium to allow DVD movie playback in the 360 by way of licensing MPEG-2 and CSS. Basically, it's business as usual for anyone who is making a legit media player.
Given the design is a homage to Next (albeit squished). So ... perhaps the name is a prequel.
May as well call it Xbox One Nine Eight Four. It "will not operate" without a Kinect plugged in. Couple that with the physical size of both devices (and the "pay twice" model they're using for used games) and it'll be dead by 2015.
Originally Posted by Ingela
Apple TV could have done a lot of this a long time ago. Wonder why they have dragged their feet on it. Shame.
Stuff your trolling in a sack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Seven years and this is what you post?
LOL....only you would catch that
This works via hdmi IN. you plug your cable box or satellite box into the hdmi in port. Then you would tell the box what your provider is and it will download all the channel guide data.
You would have an ir transmitter thing connected to the cable or sat box to turn its channels.
It will work the same way google tv works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mad1at35
Oh whoop. Another shiny black box! 0 for design guys.
Just another excuse to raise the cost of games methinks.
It is as good of a design as it can be, very minimalistic and doesn't draw attention to itself, it will blend in with the rest of my black gear (AVR, DirecTV, Amps, Control Processor, Etc.) A square peg for a square hole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't follow. If the device has an HDMI passthrough then it can be always connected and ready to overlay on your cable/sat feed or take over completely with a touch of a button. This is what I've been saying Apple should have done with the Apple TV from day one to specifically avoid being an ignored device that requires an input change on the monitor before it can be utilized.
I agree. Elgato has been doing that very thing for years now, and I also don't understand why AppleTV hasn't incorporated this.
But can it play Crysis? It doesn't look like it can?
Nope live TV. FiOS is on the Xbox though it's not the full channel lineup.
Not the current one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical
It sounds impressive%u2026 but then, so did Metro%u2026 *cough*
Actually, Xbox is one of the few areas Microsoft seems to be getting right. I wonder, if/when Apple more aggressively enters the "living room" space, what they'll offer as an alternative?
50%+ failure rate on the 360, billions in losses, now 3rd place in global sales....yeah, they sure are getting it "right"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
So what? Who spends all day looking at their game console? It's probably tucked out of the way some where.
In some ways, this is what Apple TV should have been. Apple was positioned to do the "one box to control them all" game a long time ago, but fell short. With only minor modifications, Apple TV could have been the center of your entertainment system and done all the things that XBox 1 does (gaming, music, movies, TV, Internet, etc).
It's not a bad product in concept. It will be interesting to see how well they've actually met their goals.
I don't see any point in comparing the Xbox 1 to Apple TV, in that the Xbox is likely to cost 3-4 times as much, is about 50 times the volume, has vastly more memory and processing power on board, and looks to get its multi-device control capacities via IR blasters. Not to mention a UI scheme that includes a gaming controller, Kinect box and voice recognition.
Apple was never going to make that device. That's not to say they can't add functionality to something like the existing Apple TV, primarily HDMI pass-through for cablebox overlay and instant switching, plus apps and a browser. But the real trick is how to offer that while keeping the UI and attendant devices dead simple. "Gamers" may welcome multi-device control and multiple ways to do the same thing, but the average TV viewer will not.
Presumably Apple has something in mind, Jobs' oft mentioned declaration that he'd "cracked the code." But I think we can be pretty sure that it won't look or work much like an Xbox.
Do you have a current link for those statistics, or are you going by info that's several years old?
Or in our case once we toggled the HDMI box to Apple TV we never changed the input back.
Seriously though, I have a RocketFish auto detecting HDMI thingumybob that simply changes to whatever input device I fiddle with. It works flawlessly. This should IMHO be built in the the TV not a device such as an Apple TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Nope live TV. FiOS is on the Xbox though it's not the full channel lineup.
How does FiOS work outside the US?
you're assuming higher transistor density. What if it's actually poor design, using extra chips and wasting power? And it's not the 1960's. We care about RAM capacities and CPU performance, not transistor counts and crystal counts! It stands to reason that one way a marketing dept might decide on such an odd focus is because the other specs are embarrassing.
It doesn't, it is also not available everywhere in the U.S. I don't know what their plans are for live TV in other places.
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Do you have a current link for those statistics, or are you going by info that's several years old?
"Several years old" would be 75% fail rate. Channel stuffing the new, tiny model has lowered the average.