Users who Dugg This
Mendokusai Daiyo
17819 Followers
SleepingZombie
331 Followers
Ken Fresno
419 Followers
Black Sonia
854 Followers
spacem00seAug 12, 2010
Make the remote use standard IRDA codes, so you can merge it with whatever universal remote you own. Thats one thing that irked me with the WDTV Live, all the codes I used, didnt work on my RCA Universal Remote, which is a great remote that only cost me 15$.
Steve Jobs doesnt like buttons, so the its no wonder why the AppleTV remote is what is is, expect more of the same with iTV. If Apple decides to use proprietary IRDA codes, then you are screwed.
craigwebAug 13, 2010
WD TV Live works just fine with my cheapo £29.99 Logitech Harmony.
spacem00seAug 13, 2010
What code does it use? Zenith? Sony?.
jboswell2000Aug 13, 2010
And Apple TV works just fine with my $150 Logitech Harmony.
macparrotAug 13, 2010
Considering the number of combo IR/cases there are for iPhone 3's, they very well could include an app for controlling multiple devices. If Apple goes the same way they did with the previous AppleTV (which could have been freaking awesome if it had capable of being set up like a media center, but didn't so wasn't), this will be just another device to manage which means I probably won't bother with it as I didn't the old AppleTV either.
spacem00seAug 13, 2010
Seriously dude, the average user isnt going to spend more than 30$ on a universal remote.
noisymimeAug 14, 2010
How the hell are IR remotes still the standard? Bluetooth or wifi work so much better and really, practically the entire potential market for iTVs probably has an iTouch or iPhone anyway.
dig1xAug 13, 2010
1080p
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
most people can't play streaming 1080p, so why bother making the unit cost more for the few who can?
of course if they release a slightly more expensive 1080p capable unit, people will cry about that too. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craigwebAug 13, 2010
As others have said the 3Gs was capable of playing 1080p video, so in theory the iPhone 4 should be.
Considering that the aleged iTV and iPhone 4 both use the same chip (the A4) it almost feels like Apple is ommitting 1080p on purpose just to have something they can release later on.
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
Right, and the 3Gs also needed 30Mb/s to play 1080p.
Do you have 30Mb/s to your house? I sure don't.
hipmanAug 13, 2010
Appletvs max bitrate is 5mb/s.You can quadruple that and not hit 30.
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
If you calculate the bitrate of itunes trailers, the 1080p bitrate is 10 Mbps. And I guarantee you, you can lower that for 1080p where it's longer then 2 minutes.
macparrotAug 13, 2010
1080p is the shorthand identification for a set of HDTV video modes which are characterised by 1,080 lines of vertical resolution (1,080 horizontal scan lines) and progressive scan (meaning the image is not interlaced).
You didn't already know this?
jjustin01Aug 13, 2010
I guarantee you the reason they are not enabling 1080p playback, even though the 3GS and [presumably] the iPhone 4 can, is because the chip may not have the stability for playback over time. I mean, you can overclock a Palm Pre to 1.2GHz, but that doesn't mean you'll get a long life out of it. Cutting the life expectancy of the device for a small handful of people who can actually see a difference would not be worth it, from a business investment point of view.
*disclaimer: scientifically speaking, there is a viewing distance to screen size ratio that determines whether or not a human can actually see a difference between 720p and 1080p. The average household does not have a 60" 1080p within 15' of viewing.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
http://www.thebestplasmatv.com/guides/size-optimal-viewing-distance/
Closed AccountAug 13, 2010
Anything that makes it more like WMC would be nice.
roiperezAug 13, 2010
I hate submissions like these. They always raise my expectations to be ridiculously high about a product and then it gets released and I feel like Steve Jobs just did a wet fart on me. Although I'm sure most fan boys would love that.......
davidtcAug 13, 2010
Just think of Apple rumors as the product of 4 years from now, not the next release. If you do that the rumors from 4 years before become true!
dadumtishAug 13, 2010
MKV and xvid support.
zunipusAug 13, 2010
Adding the full extensibility of QuickTime components would do the trick. Beats me why Apple has kept the Apple TV hobbled all these years.
dadumtishAug 13, 2010
Steve jobs and his obsession with control.
gerz1219Aug 13, 2010
Because there's no money in selling a $99 media streamer that plays everyone's huge existing cache of pirated content.
There is money, however, in using a $99 media streamer as a loss leader to help spur expensive rentals and purchases from a proprietary video service that provides a massive profit margin.
yeshuuAug 13, 2010
Not saying it wont happen, but in the UK, there is a major television broadcaster called itv, not sure about the copyright laws, but to say it wont come into play is naive.
tomleykisAug 13, 2010
Apple will sue them for claiming it was Apple's idea first
enantiodromiaAug 13, 2010
They didn't do that with the names "iPhone" or "iOS", so you must be trollin.
spiritdaveAug 13, 2010
Yeah, Apple will not be able to call it iTV here. If they were smart they'd have looked into this ... so my feeling is that it wont be called iTV ... perhaps iTelevision or something.
yeshuuAug 13, 2010
I thought they might call it iView, but a quick Google search shows that their is a pre-existing company called iView....owned by Microsoft
craigwebAug 13, 2010
But hasn't ITV only just started making profits again? Maybe they'll just sell the trademark and call themselves Not-the-BBC
hipmanAug 13, 2010
...Which is kept afloat with public money.
wabbitseasonAug 13, 2010
According to Wikipedia, iTV is not only stations in Vietnam, Thailand and (in shortened form) SanDiego, it has stood for "Interactive Television" (no that that is trademarked) which I faintly remember developing for in the late '90s.
The great god Wiki also points out that "iTV" is used as a pre-release codename by Apple so who knows what they'll go for?
syntaxgsAug 13, 2010
LLLL Let a gess,, it like lee Juts the mo niter and nothng ealse Nott even The Buton =-D
nidstylesAug 13, 2010
Someone buried you.... Someone must not get the joke..
tomleykisAug 13, 2010
Slingbox competitior
streetmagixAug 13, 2010
Why? Just get a Slingbox Solo. It will happily stream to Windows, OS X, iPhone, Android and Windows Mobile.
lodcrappoAug 13, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
nidstylesAug 13, 2010
Note: Item does not actually need to have said features, it just need's to be advertised as such.
yeshuuAug 13, 2010
Or "we show X-factor at Christmas"
robrohanAug 13, 2010
we do?
craigreedAug 13, 2010
I don't really care for any of these.
wyrdnessAug 13, 2010
So this thing is supposed to have expensive flash memory, rather than a hard disk, and cost 'just $99'.
I call BS. It's an Apple product. It won't be priced cheaply.
zunipusAug 13, 2010
"It won't be priced cheaply."
Apple doesn't MAKE cheaply. Apple makes high end quality tech that lasts and simply works. Pricing quality via simply the shelf price is a waste of time.
cyberstrikerAug 13, 2010
Is that why TechCrunch, any many other tech websites that took apart the iPad, found that it only cost $250 to $300 in parts (depending on the model) to make?
Think about that... They're selling the top of the line model for $850, when it only cost them $300 in parts. That's MASSIVE greed on Apple's part.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wabbitseasonAug 13, 2010
"Apple doesn't SELL cheaply"
FTFY
"Apple makes high end quality tech"
<cough>Antennagate</cough>
mynameisjoeAug 13, 2010
It's not going to have a lot of flash memory. Basically it will have the same hardware as the iPod touch with an inferred port minus the touch screen, accelerometer, speaker, head phone jack, volume controls, and home button. Considering the fact that the lowest priced iPod touch sells for $200 and the touch screen is the most expensive component, $100 isn't that far fetched. I still think a $125-$150 price tag is much more likely.
macparrotAug 13, 2010
1. No
2. No
3. Maybe an iPhone app...otherwise no.
4. Would be nice...but no
5. You are on drugs if you think this is even possible so...no
5sistersAug 13, 2010
I'd like to see stevie j shot in the face! Live! What an app!
tnvwboyAug 13, 2010
Number 5 is nice but unlikely, how about make #5: Firmware update existing AppleTVs to have the same features. If Apple just tells existing AppleTV users to buy a new iTV, Jobs can stick it so far up his ass the WiFi won't be able to sync.
shellcase13Aug 13, 2010
Forgot 6. Porn
prod_deityAug 13, 2010
#5 can be substituted by the Mac Mini (with HDMI support, no more adaptors!) with Elgato's Eye TV. More expensive, yes. But more options than a stand alone DVR, too.
jayskullsAug 13, 2010
Screw iTV I just want to see Steve enter the stage wearing a fluorescent green shirt and hammer pants.
swookAug 13, 2010
Since you can eliminate the most expensive components (screen, battery, cellular radio, gps and memory--this will be streaming only) the price almost sounds doable
bugalouAug 13, 2010
You could fill the entire thing with feces and people would still buy it cause of the pretty Apple logo on the box.
Love or hate Apple, its the truth and a sad statement about modern society.
eatrainsAug 13, 2010
Cause Apple TV has been selling so well...
gh02tAug 13, 2010
What about better codec support? Unlikely but I might actually buy one if they did. I love my WDTV, but it has some serious audio sync issues.
jackmonAug 13, 2010
How about an actual web browser?
jshhmrAug 13, 2010
Take the Apple logo off, and have it made by a company that won't be in denial when something fails on it.
schneidz101Aug 13, 2010
like a few other fones, if ifone had hdmi-out it would make itv useless.
if it had the ability to dvr i'd be all in (but i doubt comcast would allow that).
Closed AccountAug 14, 2010
Whatever it's like, I'm sure it will be magical, revolutionary and above all else, change everything again.