Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
The Amplifier
7744 Followers
Siddartha Thota
1227 Followers
Jiggle Billy
520 Followers
George Clymer
794 Followers
Jake Rocheleau
2459 Followers
Marcell Purham
178 Followers
Peter Parker
1288 Followers
marcellpurhamAug 23, 2010
I LOVE YOU APPLE! Can't wait for this
jonjonr6Aug 23, 2010
Kevin? Is that you?
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
Why? I'm sorry but it sounds like a horrible TV experience, especially when it's most notable feature will be iAd content.
This has nothing to do with brand loyalty but nothing can beat the flexibility of a HTPC (running Windows Media Center or your favourite media software). I can basically watch any content I want from normal TV to torrents, on-line Flash content, DVD/Bluray or even paid-for downloads without being locked in to Apple's tightly controlled, expensive ecosystem.
I honestly can't see the point of buying into something like this from Apple unless you've already spent too much money on their stuff already (in which case you should probably be looking to back out rather than get in deeper).
Also, they stand no chance of selling this in the UK with that name which seems a bit silly in the country that has the most popular Apple Store in the world.
thedonclarkAug 23, 2010
This device isn't for you, it's for the general consumer. Someone who doesn't want to pay $60/month for hundreds of channels they don't want to watch. And then have to program their DVR to record the episodes and deal with a UI from the 90's.
Contrary to what you may think, not everyone is going to go out and build themselves a computer w/ cablecard and customize the hell out of it. This product looks like it will be quite revolutionary when it comes to how people consume television content. If I can somehow subscribe to the channels I actually watch that would be great. Whatever they're doing - it'll be lightyears beyond the Comcast DVR - which is what 99% of people are dealing with.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
diggduggjoeAug 23, 2010
They are talking about Over-the-air networks doing ads, which will not dramatically alter the scheme of things. Will you be able to get all the cable line-ups that way? For example, the Sopranos in its heyday? Fox Business or CNN?
This is an interesting device, but we will have to see how it works in the real marketplace.
skunkman62Aug 23, 2010
in all seriousness kevin rose should mention in his blog that he is an apple stockholder. since he didnt, he could be doing a "pump and dump" scam.
formerbabbyAug 23, 2010
Sports is what will torpedo this. I love to watch sports and the only decent way to do so in HD is to pay the cable company.
jkalAug 23, 2010
you beat me by this -->||<-- much. :)
spookybootsAug 23, 2010
I'm gonna use that -->||<--
chaosprofessorAug 23, 2010
actually by 6 minutes
mizzerdAug 23, 2010
Sports will be the Achilles Heel only until Apple makes a deal with the major sports organizations to bring the content directly to iTV. I can understand those who don't like Apple and their products but, even if you don't like Apple, you cannot underestimate their ability to change the market landscape in their favor.
It should be interesting to see Google and Apple battle this one out. GoogleTV vs. iTV -- fight!
dontreplytomeAug 23, 2010
If you think that the NFL, NBA, MLB and NHL would go with Apple because they can reach _more_ viewers with iTV than they currently do with cable/satellite ... you're beyond stupid.
thcobbsAug 23, 2010
@don'treplytome
Imagine instead what this is really about.... Advertising revenue. Sports teams will have a field day with the iAds and one-button-buy facilitated through apple.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
If you think reaching "more" viewers has anything to do with what the NFL wants to do, you're the stupid one. If reaching more viewers was the goal, the Sunday Ticket package wouldn't be limited to the craptacular directv. Nope, it's all about the cash, get the money, dolla dolla bill ya'll.
mizzerdAug 23, 2010
I find it funny that I get dugg down for mentioning that Apple has incredible leverage in the marketplace. I am neither pro nor anti Apple. They are who they are, but their influence is undeniable.
mizzerdAug 23, 2010
By the way, the original comment also assumes that the content-provider landscape stays the same. I.e. cable, satellite, and TV maintain their current grip on the market. Personally, I see a huge trend of growth in internet-delivered content (e.g. Hulu, VoIP phone, etc..). The next step is to allow live programs, such as sports, to be delivered live over the internet as well. It is only a matter of time before this is the "norm." You can already get some of this on respective web sites (e.g. MLB.tv, NBA.tv, etc..). Brining it to the TV, for a fee, is just a matter of time.
Technological hurdles, such as bandwidth to support full HD, can and will be overcome and, when they do, all content will be delivered over packet-switched networks.
Of course, in 20 years the "new trend" will be dedicated content delivery systems again.
charlotte_webAug 23, 2010
The NFL is just looking to maximize profits, and no one partner of theirs has exclusive access to all of their content. The NFL has been very savvy in dividing up their huge amount of content to the many broadcasters out there.
DirecTV has the best NFL package, but the games also play on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, and ESPN. And Verizon has a deal for mobile phones.
If Apple jumps into the fray with the rumored iTV, I have no doubt that they will ink a deal with the NFL. Maybe not right off the bat, but it'll happen.
dontreplytomeAug 24, 2010
@mizzerd:
//@dontreplytome: Before you start calling people names,//
I didn't call you a name, I just said you're beyond stupid. That's an adjective describing your mental capacity, not name-calling.
Regarding that capacity: it may come as a complete surprise to you but hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of NFL, MBL, NBA and NHL fans would rather watch their games on the simplicity of cable or satellite, rather than "dicking around with a computer" to view it and paying extra $$ to do so.
Tens of thousands *would* dick around with Apple Tv, or any other internet-enabled device.
You do the math, since you're so smart, and tell me which one the advertisers will continue to choose. 800lb gorillas don't move that easily.
Maybe in 2054. Not in 2011. The point.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
hater2winAug 23, 2010
I made a comment on the blog and then came here and saw this. I agree 100%.
I don't know how he expects to watch Monday Night Football without cable...
charlotte_webAug 23, 2010
Monday Night Football is ABC, which a large segment of the country can get without cable.
hater2winAug 23, 2010
Monday Night Football moved to ESPN 4 years ago. They no longer broadcast on ABC. ESPN qould require at LEAST basic cable seeing as how ESPN is not broadcast OTA.
pres2014Aug 23, 2010
It's called OTA TV...
hater2winAug 23, 2010
Monday Night Football moved to ESPN 4 years ago. They no longer broadcast on ABC. ESPN qould require at LEAST basic cable seeing as how ESPN is not broadcast OTA.
slvrbullet87Aug 24, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
brennokAug 23, 2010
On top of that if it goes the way Kevin thinks, you may find yourself paying more for sports. Currently ESPN is one of the most expensive if not the most for cable companies, but people who never watch it are required to pay for it as part of their cable package. This is exactly why the cable companies won't embrace a la carte programming. They would then have to negotiate based on how many households actually subscribed which would result in increased fees for those that do. I believe the last study found ESPN ran the average person $4 a month versus $.87 cents for the average channel.
angelbunnyAug 23, 2010
Actually, they do not embrace a la carte programming because many of the primary companies that own the channels (mainly disney) will refuse the cable companies if they do a la carte programming. The cable companies can not afford to have such a lack of stations.
nichowaAug 23, 2010
Actually, it's a little bit of both, but it's cute to watch people fight like their rationale is the only valid one.
protodonAug 23, 2010
You can watch sports on network tv and in HD over OTA. Before I got cable, I had HD OTA and it's the only thing that got me to watch football for more than 5 minutes. The green of the field in HD is absolutely mesmerizing.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Most regular season sports games are not broadcasted OTA like NBA, NHL, and MLB. I think NFL is one of the few that are broadcasted.
thumper13Aug 23, 2010
No Red Zone....no deal. That channel has changed football forever. Offer that, and I will kick the cable to the curb in seconds. At this point I think that and NHL network are the only reasons I still pay for cable. I can get everything else through other means.
I WANT OUT!
prolikewhoaAug 23, 2010
I KNOW! I hear all about these HTPCs and Web TVs and people saying "dump your cable! It's all on the web! Hulu etc!" Thanks but no thanks, nerd. I need my live sports. I have every sports channel. You can't get that with Hulu.
rockynAug 23, 2010
dugg for calling someone a nerd on the web.
formerbabbyAug 23, 2010
Dugg for digg of calling someone a nerd on the web.
spire3660Aug 23, 2010
OMG i need my sweaty men fighting over a stupid piece of land to feel complete. Really hate that people think that liking sports somehow makes them cool. In my experience people like sports because it gives them something to talk about in their otherwise dull conversations.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jabbrwockeyAug 23, 2010
I like to drink sports drinks while donning sports wear to watch my friends play sports video games while we talk about sports stats - but only after we go for a ride in my sports car, listening to sports radio.
starscream45Aug 23, 2010
@Spire3660
You got beat up by a high school football jock, huh?
"Really hate that people think that liking sports somehow makes them cool."
You realize how juvenile that sounds right? I don't know anyone who thinks liking sports makes them "cool." I watch sports and I know I am not cool. I'm on friggin' Digg for cryin' out loud.
You do realize that you don't have to be a douchey football jock to enjoy sports right?
shamadiddyAug 24, 2010
So you're not good at sports: it's a very small part of life.
Sports, sports, sports, sports, sports, sports, sports, sports...Marge, Bart rides up in the front seat today because he's a good guy at sports.
sexyboboAug 23, 2010
Most major leagues already stream games live over the internet if you pay a subscription. The Roku/netflix box has access to all of them and i assume ITV will too.
seroevoAug 24, 2010
Not a valid alternative. All local games are blacked out, so the services only apply if you're a fan of an out-of-market team, or you also have cable (defeating the purpose).
For example, I'm in Toronto and all Blue Jays games would be blacked out for me on MLB TV.
You can double check for your area/IP address via the MLB TV website.
eslamicolt3Aug 23, 2010
Well we'll be getting ESPN with our Xbox Live subscriptions pretty soon.
mrspontaneousAug 23, 2010
ESPN3. Which shows absolutely nothing of interest.
nmanguyAug 23, 2010
If you can't do it already with Hulu, then you're SOL with Apple.
jabbrwockeyAug 23, 2010
I like to drink sports drinks while donning sports wear to watch my friends play sports video games while we talk about sports stats - but only after we go to the sports store in my sports car, listening to sports radio.
ohitsdomAug 23, 2010
The NFL better get off its ass and offer a streaming package. The only one they have now is extremely expensive and only for overseas fans. Good for them, but it's something like $240. And it's only a 16-game season...
seroevoAug 23, 2010
Even when they do have a deal, it'll end up being country-specific.
It's something you'd expect if you lived in the UK and wanted to watch the NFL, but even in Canada we get shafted on everything.
Our "cable networks" (which really are just advertising parasites) like CTV and Global - not to mention the ISPs/cable providers Rogers and Bell - will make sure that no one here can get anything coming from the US without us paying out our ass.
Which means we're stuck paying a minimum of $60-90 to get sports legitimately, or watch horribly quality hacked feeds online.
angelbunnyAug 23, 2010
I don't think sports will be the achilles heel for the reason that ESPN already allows streaming over the net. Sure, it isn't HD (unless you want to pay), but it shows that sports companies are pro obtaining viewers this way.
The achilles heel will be companies that refuse to support this broadcasting format like disney. A couple of companies will refuse to broadcast their shows and stations unless it is in a package format like we have with cable and satellite today. This lack of content could make or break on demand tv.
thiscouldbebenAug 23, 2010
I have MLB.TV and watch HD games streaming on my computer or tv via a PS3 or you can get a Roku box, or Boxee on the AppleTV, So you don't have to pay the cable company to watch HD content. On top of that MLB Extra Innings through Cable/Dish is $160/year and MLB.TV is $99 just need broadband internet
lynnehkAug 23, 2010
f**k Apple.
danielphermousAug 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
Sorry but wasting time re-encoding content is not a solution.
jazzflightAug 23, 2010
jakem1, it's called AirVideo and it's 3 bucks.
It streams any video format from your computer wirelessly to your iPod Touch/iPhone/iPad and it's a universal app. You can even stream your files over the internet wherever you are. No re-encoding needed.
danielphermousAug 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
prolikewhoaAug 23, 2010
Have fun watching movies on your 4" screen
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Only if you're on a landline...
sotoninAug 23, 2010
Who in the s**t isn't on a "land line" at their Home... very few people have any desire to use 3G for their home internet connection.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
It was a joke, calm down.
shodanxAug 24, 2010
this whole google hates net neutrality is just pure FUD, google is still on hour side
wireless private traffic is NOT the internet
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
I think Google already knows enough about me, I'm not going add favourite TV shows to that.
hodorAug 23, 2010
they can probably already infer that from your: a) internet searches b) facebook profile c) other demographics
t440Aug 23, 2010
Yeah, Google may know my e-mail, passwords, credit card info, social security number and home address...but I'll be damned if I'm gonna let them learn that I watch America's Got Talent!
cpmccarronAug 23, 2010
To be fair, if I watched America's Got Talent I wouldn't want anyone to know either.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
...the way Apple horribly restricts what's available through iTunes media right now? Which is...?
davecanadaAug 23, 2010
Somehow, somebody has to get paid for the their work. Apple's done a lot to bridge the gap between consumers and LA in a legit way.
denizen42Aug 23, 2010
Careful, they've shown signs of crossing to the dark side.
rpatrick819Aug 23, 2010
I agree with your first sentence. We're starting to see Google's "true" (new?) colors lately, so it's more like:
"Google won't restrict my viewing, but they will use the data along with the rest of the data they mine to track everything about me in Orwelian fashion."
solecizeAug 23, 2010
Google already restricts what they put on YouTube. Apple is the most successful company to date to bring mainstream licensed digital media to the public directly without piracy, media ripping, or 3rd party solutions.
The problem is not with Apple- the problem is with the media production companies, and so far they only seem willing to work with Apple.
4ndr01dAug 23, 2010
f**k Google
seanflyonAug 24, 2010
While I disagree with Digger1123 what he is saying is that the government has no right to mandate the network policies of private companies. Its a perfectly consistent position.
I support net neutrality for the same reason I support basic antitrust laws: I don't want that kind of power in the hands of corporations which will abuse it.
soopaflyAug 23, 2010
Seriously? 133 diggs for say "Google tv PROBABLY won't..."
hypocritediggAug 23, 2010
That's anti-apple zealot faux nerds for ya.
danielhunterAug 24, 2010
Remember when Google remotely deleted apps from people's Android phones, something Apple has never done?
Yeah, I didn't think you did. I do.
xanadu2113Aug 24, 2010
Over 200 diggs for Apple hate? What a changed world we live in. It seems like just a year ago digg had nothing but Apple fanboys.
cthellisAug 25, 2010
Do you really think that's hygienic?
macparrotAug 23, 2010
OK Step 1: Actually wait until such a product is announced? Yeah yeah, Kevin Rose and all that, but for Apple to change anything, they first actually have to release it.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Thank you.
"Announcement that there's going to be an announcement" = gossip
mstachiwAug 23, 2010
Hey now watch who you're talking to buddy. Don't just write him off like that if it wasn't for Kevin Rose you wouldn't be here. He's like your internet mother. You should show more respect for your internet mother... now go apologize and suckle your internet mother's digital teats like a good lad.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darkshroudAug 23, 2010
Kevin tends to make up his own dream versions of products, just listen to him talk about Google TV. He might as well have called it Skittles 'n Brew.
tadsexington69Aug 23, 2010
You mean Skittlebrau
mrspontaneousAug 23, 2010
Why should we trust a self-professed fanboy who was so convinced he knew what the iPhone 1 would be (and was totally wrong)?
jamaphAug 23, 2010
Kevin Rose doesn't exactly have a great track record for guessing Apple products... He totally gaffed the iPhone 3Gs by jumping the gun, pretty much listing his wishful add-ons.
I don't think the "iTV" will do anything. They are competing against TiVo, Wii, XBOX, Sony, and every cable manufacture that sells you a set top box for DVR viewing.
It's not that Apple can't innovate, it's just these players are gunning for the same idealistic world; Their Set-Top box in every American home, allowing them to leverage content deals, and entertainment, as the intermediary.
And Kevin, iAds? iAds, will change advertising? ... Yeah.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
dont forget to high five the other mac stooge, mr.Bitch!
rovaAug 23, 2010
The title is 'will' not 'has'.
jkalAug 23, 2010
A very big call, I somewhat agree with the first 2 points (back to these in a minute), however the last 2 are already in action with HTS and don't need an iPad to be a remote, a jailbroken iPhone suffices.
With the first point most new Blu-ray/DVD player already allow video streaming via youtube combined with a HTS this is already moot, I guess games would be ok, but do you really want to be playing iphone style games on your nice 42-57 inch LCD/Plasma we already have consoles for that.
2nd point, unless iTV can duplicate 90% of cable TV channels and specially live to air sports channels. Cable is not going anywhere.
dwtcAug 23, 2010
The second one is a stretch. As if ABC/NBC/CBS are going to abandon a format that everyone can use with their millions of different TVs made my different manufacturers and in different decades, for a format where everyone had to have one specific device made by one company, which will be updated every year and will leave the devices from 2-3 years ago completely obsolete.
If Apple could combine its marketing savvy with Google's openness and ability to partner with other industry players, then maybe number 2 could start to have an effect, but even then it would never "destroy the television side of the cable and satellite industry."
mstachiwAug 23, 2010
I love Apple products but I picked up the AppleTV and the most disappointing thing was that it was limited in codecs out of the box. While I understand Apple was pushing their store content it wasn't user friendly to anything outside of its own Apple universe. Sure I was able to run hacks on it but at the end of the day it was such a hassle I wish I waited for some of the other set top boxes.
That being said Apple does have a better shot this time around with the iOS but I think I'll wait to see what the future holds. I have twins on the way so got frugal by canceling cable, joining netflix and am fairly content thus far. The only thing I would really like to have is Showtime for Dexter and AMC for The Walking Dead.
kitsuaAug 23, 2010
Dugg for having great taste in Telly, comics and the impending twinnage. Best of luck buddy.
mxm111Aug 23, 2010
The disappointing part is 1080p. The rest I can live with, but to show movies, play games and show PICTURES!!! in 720p does not do justice to HDTV set.
superkendallAug 24, 2010
Get a blu-ray player for 1080p. For streaming, 720p is the sweet spot and will be for some time to come...
7king7kingAug 23, 2010
It's not going to change the way i eat.
osteor10Aug 23, 2010
it just did.
"I eat."
"i eat."
the "IEat"
osirus1156Aug 24, 2010
Revolutionary.
brotherfrancizAug 23, 2010
"An Apple a day keeps the doctor away."
For all those hardcore Apple fans out there: you're supposed to put the Apple in your mouth, not up your ass...
reelgirlAug 23, 2010
Because it has the name Apple attached to it
elranzerAug 23, 2010
It's going to be harder to "be seen" using your iTV at Starbucks than other Apple logo-branded devices, so this one might not be as popular.
paduraAug 23, 2010
He is spreading rumors again.
dcjoedogv2Aug 23, 2010
Apple - We want to announce a product in 6 months to a year, but we need hype now
Rose - Sure, I love Apple products (suck suck suck)
Apple - Could you stop just long enough for the meeting?
Rose - No... I really can't
formerbabbyAug 23, 2010
How about the part where he is invited on TWiT so he can stretch the BS for an hour.
jamaphAug 23, 2010
(FB chat)
Kevin - Hey, Apple love you a ton
Apple - k
Kevin - Hey, how's the iTV coming along?
Apple - Busy, event soon, give you a pass if you blog about it
Kevin - "Why Apple's iTV will change everything."
Apple signed off 5:37am
doublebaconsodaAug 23, 2010
But I don't wanna pay 2.99 per episode and 7.99 for a week of ABC or some other channel. And pay money to do anything else beyond that. Unless it comes with 500$ free Apple bucks with Steve Jobs face on it while he is wiping his ass with the real money I used to buy it.
ralphthemagiAug 23, 2010
Depends how much TV you watch. If you watch 10+ hours a week, it doesn't make much sense. If you watch 10 hours a month, it does.
sportsdude11751Aug 23, 2010
While I concur, I must say that Apple does have iAds now. We could get shows for free but still have to watch a small portion of ads, similar to hulu.
rpatrick819Aug 23, 2010
$2.99 per episode? Try 2.99 per episode, plus another 2.99 if you ever want to watch it again at a future time and have to re-download.
superkendallAug 24, 2010
What the hell? If I accidentally delete a show I can re-download it for free (a few times a year, Apple doesn't let you keep doing it forever).
morpheousmartyAug 24, 2010
What about Hulu, Youtube and Netflix?
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Apple might have a problem if they release this in the UK where there's already a channel called ITV.
stubearAug 23, 2010
I don't know why you're being dugg down because this is a simple fact and Apple is likely well aware of this.
morpheousmartyAug 24, 2010
He should be dugg down because Apple was well aware of iPhone and iPad when they took the names. Apple is not afraid to steal a name and then pay the owners out of court. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
djnikadeemasAug 23, 2010
I thank them exponentially on allowing me to view all the World Cup games this year online since I don't own a television nor will I ever.
paulsaboAug 23, 2010
Nobody's ever thanked me exponentially
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
I reckon the world would be a cooler place if we all tried.
Thanks^2
krandenAug 23, 2010
lower case i
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
ITV have that copyrighted as well.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
If they're serious about it, they'll have something worked out already, or they'll drive it through. Both "iPhone" and "iOS" were already in use, but they worked things out with Cisco. They purchased "iPad" from Fujitsu, as well.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
There's absolutely no way that ITV will change their channel's name so Apple can name their product what they want. It's too big of a TV network in Britain.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
Names can be shared: one is a device, and one is a service in one country. They could even work out a more specific branding in England, if necessary. ("Apple's iTV" for instance.) "Selling it" is not the only consideration.
On the whole, it doesn't matter. Apple's either worked something out, or they'll keep the name they've got, or they'll move to something similar like "iOS TV". Who knows?
digghasnoethicsAug 23, 2010
It won't be called the iTV because there is no way in hell that ITV will sell their primary brand, and if Apple tried to muscle it through they would be banned from selling in Europe as a whole through obvious trademark infringement.
Multiple brands around the world would be even dumber.
Expect something like iVision or even iVideo - even Apple aren't arrogant enough to think they'd win this one.
beerrulesAug 23, 2010
Yah except for money talks, so the question is what is the going price for ITV to let apple use the term iTV. I don't care who you are if someone drops off a big enought pile of cash at your door you let things like this go. I could see ITV trying to raise the price and apple bawlking at the idea of buying it the tradekmark. But trust me everything is for sale at the right price.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
...not to mention they probably have no aversion to being associated with a popular device, which Apple's tend to be.
If they can work out a way to be a premium brand ON it in Britain to boot, so much the better.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
kanockAug 23, 2010
With a revenue last year of £1,879 million (nearly £2bn), I don't think Apple could afford to pay ITV off - it would cost them more than the profit they'd make off of the "iTV".
Whatsmore, Apple is already infringing on ITV's trademark simply by using the name in pre-launch hype.
Also: http://www.itproportal.com/portal/news/article/2010/8/13/apple-confirms-itv-name-faces-legal-clash-uk/
champaAug 23, 2010
i didn't know that £1,879 million are nearly £2bn. Thank you for that!
mochamanAug 23, 2010
Apple can just right out buy the whole company 2.2 £ or 3.5 billions US dollars is not a lot of money considering that they have 40 billion in the bank. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
You don't buy something for the cost of its yearly revenue.
echobotAug 23, 2010
jeeze Kev! WTF are u smoking these days? Apple's iTV will likely be a hit WHEN it's released but the average user will NOT
rudegarAug 23, 2010
from the looks of it then it will kill appletv but not because people with appletv will flush them down the toilet and get the new itv
but because apple will discontinue appletv
johnpaul191Aug 23, 2010
we sort of know what GoogleTV will do, this will probably be somewhat in the same ballpark. These devices are quickly making cable service seem incredibly archaic.
I guess it depends. If you sit in front of the TV 12 hours a day just looking for something to watch, then cableTV is for you. If you watch a handful of specific things (on your own schedule), one of these new devices makes a lot more sense. It's the evolution of the DVR that does not require 400 channels you probably never watch.
cusomanAug 23, 2010
Right.... just like Apple TV changed everything? People don't want a self contained ecosystem on their TV devices, they want free reign. While cable companies have the whole on demand thing already, and DVRs account for recording, I just don't see it offering anything groundbreaking besides maybe a user friendly interface, which is very nice, but isn't going to win any revolutionary awards.
timuscaAug 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
macparrotAug 23, 2010
Not saying you're wrong but many of the same things were said when iTunes added video content. The on demand ecosystem has not exactly wowed anyone as it's usually practically the price of a DVD for a 24 hour rental.
Anything from anyone that brings these prices down is a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
robohitlerAug 23, 2010
You already have a "self-contained ecosystem" on your TV device. You cable company dictates what you can subscribe to and in what combinations, for a fixed period and price defined by them.
The main reason he suggests it could kill cable is precisely because you wouldn't have all that dictated to you...it's an enormous assumption (which is the whole point of what he wrote, he presents none of it as fact) but if it came true you would no longer have to subscribe to a package of channels in order to get a certain programme or sport. Cable/satellite companies would cease to exist as they currently do, and the channels would sell content at a more granular level through the new type of set top box (likely to end up being Apple's, Google's and others).
I can't speak for how the US TV market works but here in the UK if i want to watch the Premier League football/soccer at home I have to buy the expensive package from Sky TV, which comes with about 100 channels I have no intention of watching. The sports channels I'd be paying for also screen stuff I'm not interested in 60% of the time. IF (and it's a big if) a new type of ecosystem appears whereby I can pay less by subscribing to only the content I want, then it will be a success.
The more likely outcome however is that the content owners split their channels into a more granular set of options which end up costing you more than the bundles did and the whole thing will go the way of Betamax.
cusomanAug 23, 2010
No I don't. I have something called an HTPC that gives me pretty much free reign. And it's for that reason that I don't have cable, nor do I need it.
macparrotAug 23, 2010
@cusoman
You completely missed his point. He wants to watch certain programming that currently can only be viewed if he also subscribes to a large package with lots of other content he has no interest in. IF channels can be broken down to where we can pick them on an individual basis as compared to being forced to buy a premium, then overall the prices should be lower (though we may pay more for individual channels as compared to all the channels offered). Your HTPC isn't going to give you live sporting events (or whatever content you care to name) only avaiable through a subscription of some kind no matter what you do to tweak it.
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
Well the Premier League are hardly going to hand over broadcast rights to Apple so the argument is kind of moot. In the meantime, the HTPC gives cusoman the option to view anything he wants INCLUDING Sky content.
Apple's only option here is to add another box to your (already crowded) TV cabinet because it's incapable of replacing any of your existing boxes. You'd still need your DVD/Bluray player, your cable box/Sky box/DVR and your XBox/Playstation/Wii. I'm not sure why they insist on persevering with this under these circumstances because there's nothing worse than having to sift through channels on a remote control looking for a particular device. It's just incredibly user unfriendly. Having to control it with an iPad rather than a universal remote just makes the whole experience more painful.
cusomanAug 23, 2010
@MacParrot
I don't see anything in there that even alludes to an "a la carte" style TV offering for channels. On demand programs is entirely different, I have hulu, netflix, etc on my HTPC and that's all I need for on demand programming. Cable companies will NEVER allow a la carte programming, it would hurt their bottom line too much.
I get what you're both saying in regards to live events, but when there's something like that I want to see, I hit a local sports bar only if I really want to see it. That being said, there are still ways to stream live TV to your set over the internet.
robohitlerAug 23, 2010
@jakem1 "Well the Premier League are hardly going to hand over broadcast rights to Apple so the argument is kind of moot. In the meantime, the HTPC gives cusoman the option to view anything he wants INCLUDING Sky content."
Nobody has suggested Apple will be responsible for owning and distributing content on this currently mythical device. The content owners, Sky in this case, would have to get on board and offer content through the new platform, and it'd be up to the platform to impose a more granular model as opposed to the strict bundles.
@cusoman: Your HTPC may work for you but firstly it relies on more technical knowledge than the average person has, and more importantly you cannot legally get the blue riband content on it. Going back to the Sky TV example, what sells their platform is live sports. The company is only as big as it is today because they got the Premier League rights on day one and have largely kept them. You can stream extremely low quality feeds on the internet but it is not a viable alternative for most people. Sky have a toe in the water with streaming to other appliances already with a deal to let people view their stuff through an XBox...it is a relatively small leap to sell access to that content on a more granular basis.
As for your second comment about not seeing anything alluding to "a la carte" - that's one of the headline suggestions in the article we're all talking about which is why we're talking about it as an option. I may not have typed those words but I figured it was clear enough. Again returning to the Sky example, they've already sold access to only Premier League games but as a "top up" to your existing subscription. The model worked, all they'd need is someone else to handle the customer-side infrastructure (Apple, Google, etc) and they could consider selling the content without the wider subscription.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
Apple TV didn't change much, but then one could see it wasn't a particularly notable effort from the start, but rather a dedicated media extender for the household. They even announced it as "a hobby."
But it did get them in the space, and working out rental and other deals with publishers, so... if they channel their presence and effort into something serious and interesting?
Could be pretty transformative, depending on what they've come up with. I just tend to doubt that TV/movie would place any singular and unique advantage in Apple's hands that would A) give Apple too much power over them, and B) threaten their existing relationships with cable/etc. providers, hence limiting just how "interesting" it could be in that direction.
So... who knows? We'll see it when it's announced.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
protodonAug 23, 2010
I agree the reason why AppleTV won't take over is because you need to own everything you watch and you've probably already watched it. I do have dvds and files that I enjoy on my computer but I also enjoy the randomness of television. Same goes for radio. Why do we turn up a song or watch a movie on tv that we already have in our collection? Because it's a pleasant and enjoyable surprise.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
And where does the content for you HTPC come from?
grizzleytAug 24, 2010
Never underestimate the power of a good UI. There were smartphones that did everything the iPhone did, but the iPhone was easy and fun to use. Apple never really pioneers in the realm of "what" you can do, it's always been about "how" you do it.
dark4ng3lAug 23, 2010
Rumors are that this will use the AMD ontario platform.
tfratzkeAug 23, 2010
I love Kevin and have followed him for years, even going to a live taping of The Screen Savers once in early 2004. Kevin also predicted that TiVo was on it's way out and would fail. That was about 4 years ago. Nothing but rumors/speculation here.
amusedtodeathAug 23, 2010
Tivo has been on life support for years. It may take a little longer, but Kevin is right.
bobburn1Aug 23, 2010
Yes, he was "right" the same way I will be right in saying this: Obama is on his way out. See, a guaranteed thing that WILL happen EVENTUALLY was stated. However, Kevin stated it was "on his way out" soon, which hasn't happened in half a decade. That's not exactly "on its way out" f**k, that's an entire presidency.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Kevin thinks new Digg is a good idea too.
trs21219Aug 23, 2010
and you dont? the new digg is f**king awesome.
kidviciousAug 23, 2010
Digg has been constantly changing for as long as it has existed. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but it has never been static.
x9002Aug 23, 2010
OH SNAP
808atheistAug 24, 2010
I heard a rumor that Kevin likes eating Apple wang.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
I think Kevin had one to many cups of Apple's juice. Or in his case, wee.... tea.
scwatsonAug 23, 2010
ITV > iTV
kalahan6Aug 24, 2010
How can you even compare the two?
Besides iTV hasn't even been announced yet.
kitsuaAug 24, 2010
Only chavs watch ITV.
choaderboyAug 23, 2010
I think the man has some insight, though maybe not access to leaked info. The likelihood is that we'll see something soon. Google TV is just around the corner, and the Apple TV has been left alone too long. More thoughts on our blog:
http://blog.pebbleit.com/post/997791388/apple-tv-evolution
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jonmlmAug 23, 2010
sounds like a god damn nightmare to me
stubearAug 23, 2010
I wish Microsoft would release a device like this with Windows Media Center on it. I don't need a full blown computer system connected to my TV set, I just need a simple box that does one thing and does it well.
brennokAug 23, 2010
We may very well see something come CES running Microsoft Win 7 Embedded with Media Center.
crock2Aug 23, 2010
When has Microsoft ever made a product that "does one thing and does it well"?
suricouAug 23, 2010
Their line of mice was... acceptable. Nothing special, nothing noteworthy. But they worked as well as a mouse should.
Microsoft doesn't really have anything to do with those beside the logo though. They just contracted out design and manufacturer to an actual hardware company.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
or ANY thing well?
roontAug 23, 2010
Hmm.. well there was one thing... what was it called again..... oh right! Windows!
used by millions of people and thousands if not hundreds of thousands of corporations around the world. that to me sounds like it "did well"
suricouAug 23, 2010
Windows doesn't do one thing though. It's an OS kernel, and a GUI (tightly intigrated, which poses problems), and a media player, and a file browser, and a web browser, and a media center, and an email client, and a.... and so on. It's all these many little features, but they arn't made truely modular - they are all interlinked into one gigantic mish-mash of code. It tries to be everything, and succeeds at being a poor everything.
It's huge success is widely attributed as much to impressive business skill as to good technology.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
pirategaspardAug 23, 2010
They did, but didn't realize it: see XBox Media Center xbmc.org
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
It's called media center extender. And the PC doesn't need to be attached to the TV, just on the same network.
There are standalone units you can get with this but the most common one out there is the XBox 360.
spire3660Aug 23, 2010
Still need a full blown PC to feed it.
tcratAug 23, 2010
It's a goddamn shame PCs/laptops/netbooks are so rare these days...
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Exactly. It's just an Extender; it's simply a playback device (thin client, if you like) for a proper PC somewhere in the background.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
@tcrat: I know right. If only I had some sort of computer system already in my abode that could feed content to such a device.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to go lookup some information on Wikipedia by screaming crazy noises into the phone line.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
something like an eeepc with vcl?
meruruAug 23, 2010
So the TV will be $99 and the remote will cost $499?
user1236Aug 23, 2010
Just like the Mach 3 razor handles are free but the blades are 20 dollars!
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
hah. f**k i hate they charge so much. i've now gotten used to the cheapass 10 for 5$ razors
jrackowAug 23, 2010
I dugg you up, but you're paying for the technology in the razors. Not the handle. But I wish the price would come down a bit, too.
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
You can always go back to a single blade straight razor. Takes more work but its a hell of a lot cheaper.
Closer shave too.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Don't forget that the remote won't have replaceable batteries either so you'll have to buy a new one about once a year.
neutron7Aug 23, 2010
or have a new battery put in for $99
smendezzAug 23, 2010
But that wont be recommended, since it can be hazardous to your health.
kalahan6Aug 24, 2010
Only you will get a brand new iPad for $99 if the battery wheres out.
brotherfrancizAug 23, 2010
Don't forget about the paid content... and still needing to deal with targeted ads... and there will probably be many restrictions on the way you can consume the content that YOU PAID FOR.
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
Printers, Ink.
dismantlerepairAug 23, 2010
And the remote won't work if you're holding it the wrong way.
Closed AccountAug 24, 2010
And you can't watch porn on the tv.
davdevAug 23, 2010
Unless this can play every video I have stored on my server (mix of MXV,MP4,AVI, DIVX and Video-TS), I have no interest.
amusedtodeathAug 23, 2010
Both the iPhone and iPad can do this with AirVideo, so why shouldn't this product?
davdevAug 23, 2010
I have AirVideo on my Iphone. It doesn't play back Video TS folders and while the quality is fine on a 5" screen, I can't imagine it would be any good on a 50".
macparrotAug 23, 2010
You're most likely not going to get a box anytime soon from anyone capable of playing all those codecs AND have access to new content from the studios. The content producers of video still haven't learned the lesson the audio content producers finally learned. That DRM limits not only choices, but accessability and the means of regular people that actually want to pay for content at a reasonable price instead of pirating it. The music industry has seen downloads explode once DRM went away
suricouAug 23, 2010
Plus the consumer electronics companies, which Apple can now be considered, would be very unhappy able supporting divx or the mkv container - formats currently used primarily by pirates. They need to maintain a good relationship with the studios, and you don't do that by introducing features that are only of any use to pirates and people who want to watch home videos.
macparrotAug 23, 2010
That's a good point Suricou and I would add that DRM isn't going to go away if a lot of companies put out boxes already pre-disposed to watch codecs normally used for unpaid for content.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
You can get away with it to degrees. Many DVD players integrated DivX support, and the PS3 and Xbox 360 added it, too.
But yeah, for the most part that screens "WE LURVES PIRATES!" to the media publishers, so I don't expect to see major plans to integrate that kind of support. You're only going to get it the way you do now... using a PC, or hacking your device.
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
An HTPC is capable of playing all those codecs and you still have access to new content from the studios. Just because Apple don't offer one doesn't mean that others don't. In fact, it's because Apple are so committed to the studios that they'll never be able to offer customers something this flexible.
davdevAug 23, 2010
I do have an HTPC. My point was if I am going to switch to any CE device it has to be able to play all my files. I don't think that is ever going to happen though.
Really, if Netflix watch now didn't force me to use the craptastic silverlight player there would be nothing a CE device can do better than my HTPC, but I wouldn't mind a small quiet and cheap device for my other rooms.
roontAug 23, 2010
but if you already have a device that does that... why purchase another?
darkshroudAug 23, 2010
A Western Digital Live TV plus will play all of that. It will also stream Netflix.
http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Media-Player-WDBABX0000NBK-NESN/dp/B003MVZ60I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1282581928&sr=8-3
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Flash?
chuckdeesAug 23, 2010
Most LCD TV's have VGA/DVI connections correct? So why would someone buy a separate internets TV box? When they have a PC.
smoken_dcAug 23, 2010
and most PCs have a HDMI out as well
macparrotAug 23, 2010
Because most people don't know how to set all that up. They want it easy and if there's one thing that Apple "usually" gets right, it's ease of use.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jakem1Aug 23, 2010
If you can juggle an AppleTV with all the other boxes that it fails to replace under your TV then you are quite capable of managing an HTPC.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
@jakem1 Tell that to my mom, who has a current gen AppleTV and seems to love it.
macparrotAug 23, 2010
@jakem1
Believe it or not I agree with you.The AppleTV was not the device it could have been. It could have had numerous HDMI in ports with some decent software switching with at least a DVD player built-in and stolen the market. But it was cramped and just yet another box to manage that in essense only played iTunes content so I didn't buy one.
However I disagree with you on HTPCs. Most of the ones I've seen still require quite a bit of set up which means the average consumer wouldn't bother (not have they)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
darrelcAug 23, 2010
because its shiny, white and made by apple.
uberdugerAug 23, 2010
Because people are idiots. With money.
maxijazz99Aug 25, 2010
Who are you poor genius?
locupletoAug 23, 2010
Small, quiet, plug and play. If someone puts that all together in a fully functional, inexpensive, reliable device you are gold.
People with computer aptitude don’t need it so much as others who just don’t have the time to muck with OS patches, security settings, hardware selection and the like.
Not saying this is that device. All devices get a lot of hype how great they are until once in the field who knows how it actually performs. People have been trying to marry the computer and TV for some time now no one has got it spot on and right for every house.
In my house more of us are watching more things directly off a computer.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mrspontaneousAug 23, 2010
Like the Boxee Box?
phillaholicAug 24, 2010
I want to love the Boxee Box, but the form factor is seriously horrible. That doesn't fit in with my entertainment center at all.
yage2006Aug 23, 2010
Many TV's also have allot of these features built in and some of them its even better fleshed out.
At least in regards to streaming content off your pc and not being ItunesCentric content.
bluesunshineAug 23, 2010
I can have iAds on my television now? I CAN'T f**kING WAIT FOR THAT
/s
timuscaAug 23, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
dcjoedogv2Aug 23, 2010
(suck suck suck)
WTF's that sound, oh that's you on Apple's OMG!@!!!!
darrelcAug 23, 2010
man I feel your enthusiasm :D
artworkz918Aug 23, 2010
you already have ads on your TV, it's what pays for all those shows you watch to be made in the first place
thesledmanAug 23, 2010
You know the Google box entire purpose is to display Google ads right?
dolomite808Aug 23, 2010
True, but Google ads have 30% less smug.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
I can have ads on my television now? I CAN'T FUC... oh, wait.
rhinitusAug 23, 2010
For someone who runs an company built on advertising, he should understand the crazy pitfalls of iAd.
iAd sucks even for mobile, which is a medium where the book hasn't even really been written yet. To think that content providers like NBC are going to abandon their existing ad model (where, you know, THEY have control - not Apple) is f**king crazy.
Content providers won't do it, agencies won't do it, and their clients won't do it. That leaves a total of 0 people to pay for advertising. Good luck with that.
hypocritediggAug 23, 2010
But you just LOVE Google's admob right? Dumb f**king hypocrite!
d0kken_Aug 23, 2010
This is going to be a flop. kevin rose is a clueless f**k
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
boohooo LEAVE KEVIN ALONE! boohooo
d0kken_Aug 23, 2010
lol
scientistblahAug 23, 2010
Well, somehow he has managed to start digg and transform social news, make a ton of money, and manage to continue to grow digg into what it is today. So "clueless f**k"? I'm not so sure.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
neodude237Aug 23, 2010
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
cfuseAug 23, 2010
If it makes me use iTunes for the media then I'd rather gouge out my eyes first.
amusedtodeathAug 23, 2010
What do you use instead? Seriously - I'm asking.
suricouAug 23, 2010
I use VLC. I don't bother with tags, so it works fine for me.
cfuseAug 23, 2010
At the moment, VLC (+ my brain) for everything on the computer (I used to use Foobar2000 for audio, but I haven't gotten around to putting on my machine after the last rebuild, and I'm not missing it). For the iPod that I never use, Floola.
The simple fact is that iTunes has a one size fits all mentality, so if like me you don't fit Apple's model of media usage exactly, then using the program is one long exercise in frustration. I think it works great for the people it suits - I'm just not that person.
mromniscientAug 23, 2010
$99?
I'll believe that when I see it.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
That's for the remote.
bobburn1Aug 23, 2010
$99 for something you can already do with your pc for less than $30 if you don't have the cables, etc necessary? Wow, sign me up.
jabbrwockeyAug 23, 2010
HDMi cables go for $3-5 on ebay these days. Bluetooth mice and keyboards $20-60, depending on when you look.
mromniscientAug 23, 2010
Yeah... but $99 is really cheap in the cult of Steve Jobs.
cleverboyAug 23, 2010
Y'know, its hilarious. Apple Tv is $229, and folks say "Over priced!" and resort to picking through eBay to find a better value and laughingly show you their revived noisy power-hungry XBMC.
Now, the rumor is Apple has targeted $99, and people are chortling about their comparison to how they can extend their personal computer for less money...
This is ridiculous because if they were honest, they'd see that the ROKU HD is $99, defines "HD" as 720p, and would until the iTV, be the cheapest HD Netflix player on the block. So, why is $99 "Apple prices"? Answer: It's not, you're just being weird.
Now, if you like the Roku... add to that, access to iTunes content streaming from your computer, custom TV apps/games from the App Store, access to free ad support a la carte stations, and photo/videos sharing with other iTV users. I'm sorry, but there's quite a bit of value there.
If its for real.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Hahahahahah! No, it won't!
punkcatAug 23, 2010
compelling argument.
entrepreneur75Aug 23, 2010
There are no ads on Kevin Rose blog .. Why is that so
wilhoitmAug 23, 2010
Because he is already filthy rich! ;-)
jonjonr6Aug 23, 2010
Just don't hold the remote wrong or the channels won't change.
psisarAug 23, 2010
I'll bet Canada is going to get shafted by this like we always do :(
seroevoAug 23, 2010
We really do get raped.
I'd be happy if I could just pay $10/month for the HD box and $30 for the Super Sports Package, but I can't. To get any cable at all it starts with the 60+ channels and box rental, so it's $60 off the bat, THEN you get to add the $30 for the Sports Package (and all plus tax).
So just to watch some sports in HD, even if it's NHL playoffs carried on basic cable, t's minimum $60. To watch the games I want to watch in the regular season (San Jose Sharks and Oakland Raiders) It's $100/month.
It's hard to sit down it's so sore.
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
Thats cable in america too. Why are you getting raped?
bartledooAug 23, 2010
I'm pretty sure seroevo was talking about cable in America (the Canadian part of America).
bytor4232fbAug 23, 2010
Until home Internet is more reliable Cable is going nowhere. I hardly ever am able to get through a movie on Netflix without it flaking out on me.
punkcatAug 23, 2010
need a new provider, sucks that it isn't always an option but netflix works like a charm for me.
my isp probably hates me that i use it just like tv.
locupletoAug 23, 2010
Guess it depends on where you live. My home internet is up nearly always and is fast. never have a problem watching movies instantly from Netflix.
But you have a point, we need good internet connections like this for everyone.
mrspontaneousAug 23, 2010
Are you sure it's your ISP and not your modem/router?
suricouAug 23, 2010
$99? No way. The only way I can see that working at all would be as a deliberate loss-maker like games consoles, with the money coming via the content. Which means Apple would have to DRM the thing to such an extent it would only play content from the Apple store, otherwise they wouldn't be able to take their cut.
But even if that is the plan, it doesn't seem very Appely. They don't do low-cost hardware. Ever.
jshhmrAug 23, 2010
Well, they DO low-cost hardware, but they charge the customer a s**t load for it.
suricouAug 23, 2010
True, actually. With the exception of the Mac Pro, their hardware doesn't seem espicially advanced or well-designed. A lot of effort goes into superficial details of style, but not into the functional aspect - thus fiascos like the iPhone antenna, the macbooks that will absolutly refuse to eject a copy-protected CD*, battery ageing of non-replaceable batteries, the ease with which displays can be scratched. Form over function.
*Some forms of audio CD protection make the drive firmware lock up. No firmware, no eject button. And it reads the CD before checking the button on powerup...
tungsakAug 23, 2010
What? I thought Apple TV did that already, No?
If I recall correctly this was what they said when Apple TV released years ago.
So now the iTV will change everything again?
Does this "expert" actually know anything at all.
Shouting the same change mantra every time Apple release new products doesn't seem very expert to me.
fredfredricksonAug 23, 2010
The only thing Kevin Rose is an expert on is Digg, and even that's debatable. Pownce was a failure, and the new Digg is the suck.
zetsurinAug 23, 2010
Yeah, great so I will need to ask Steve Jobs if it's ok to switch on my TV? No thanks.
The only thing that will change is the name, and they'll be rightfully sued for using the iTV brand. This is the same company that started suing companies for using the word pod, remember. I will enjoy seeing the shoe on the other foot.
thesledmanAug 23, 2010
Apple knows about the name. The knowingly did it with the iPhone and iPad. They are willing to pay whatever it takes to get the name and have the money to do so.
Not sure what you mean by having to ask Steve about switching on your TV? Do you need to ask Steve about switching on your iPod? iPhone? iPad? I doubt you own any Apple products at all and are just a hater talking trash without actually owning or using any of it.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
iceysanAug 23, 2010
ITV has been around for over 50 years and built everything on the name, one of the main tv channels in the UK, Apple won't get the name.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
"Apple won't get the name."
In the UK.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Meh, Kevin Rose... Buried.
wildsheepAug 23, 2010
buried dead, I hope, smary lil fag
kangouliusAug 23, 2010
What an idiot. Say goodbye to your monthly cable bill.... BUT HELLO to a multitude of monthly TV app subscriptions!
phillaholicAug 24, 2010
Last time I checked, you have the choice to purchase either. You can get at least 70% of the great shows on Television with a $20 antenna. Pay an extra $75 for shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, e.t.c off itunes or something and you've filled the gap (except for sports).
wesw02Aug 23, 2010
The last thing I want is apple to control another device in my house. It might be could for those who are not technically inclined, but I prefer to have DIY HTPCs.
smogerAug 23, 2010
PlayOn + any game console FTW.
krandenAug 23, 2010
I for one hate the fact that my television does not have enough DRM
teknic111Aug 23, 2010
That's funny, I read the same thing last week here...
http://jet-stream.nl/blog/2010/08/apple-itv/
clockb0xAug 23, 2010
According to the latest Engadget report on the new AppleTV, it's only going to support 720p. Without 1080i/p I don't see iTV beating cable satellite.
johnpaul191Aug 23, 2010
Well, Netflix currently only streams 720P and I think it looks same or better than our HD cable 1080i feed.
This is where it gets tricky. Resolution is not everything. I know Comcast compresses the s**t out of our cable, even if it is sending 1080i. If you have Comcast HD service, try flipping between their feed and the HD air service. The over-the-air 1080P destroys what out cable box sends out (via high quality HDMI cables bla bla bla).
When it really shakes out, I think at least 75% of people have their HDTVs hooked up wrong. Look how many people listen to crappy MP3 files instead of CDs or vinyl. The convenience of this would go a long way (if it is similar to what GoogleTV is pitching).
If you sit on a couch 12+ hours a day smoking pot and watching TV, then this is probably not for you. If you have a job and leave your house, but still watch some TV shows.... these solutions make a lot more sense. I will easily go a week or two not watching anything more than the local morning news. If I did not have housemates, I would never pay for cable that I literally may not use for a month at a time.
Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
Yeah, I hate that about Comcast.
"Comcast: We have the most HD channels and they all look like s**t so we could fit them all in."
clockb0xAug 23, 2010
That's a valid point, a lot of the cable companies compress the channels so much they would be better off using the same bitrate and downgrading to 720p.
I guess my main point is why would you design a piece of hardware and limit it to 720p? Even if Netflix et. al. is only 720p right now, broadband speeds keep increasing and in a couple years 1080p will be standard. Youtube already has some stuff in 1080p. Granted, it's not BluRay quality, but I see no reason to purposely handicap your hardware.
cleverboyAug 23, 2010
@clockbox "--why would you design a piece of hardware and limit it to 720p?"
You mean like Roku HD ($99)? It's a usability issue no doubt (among other things). 720p more often than not, is indistinguishable (by most consumers) from 1080p, while streaming MUCH better over most Internet connections. The degree of advantage you gain is negligible by jumping to 1080p. Moreover, everything HD in iTunes right now its 720p. This issue is a non-issue for most consumers who still happily watch upconverted DVDs on their 1080p 55" sets.
johnpaul191Aug 23, 2010
I am pretty positive the Roku is not physically limited to 720P, but that is what Netflix tops out at. *IF* Roku tops out at 720P, it is because they started as a Netflix interface, and there was no need for anything better.
Really the burden of 1080P is on Netflix (or Apple, or any other content sources). There is a significant increase in file size when you jump from 720P to 1080P. That means there is a massive increase in what they have to store on their servers and what kind of traffic they have to handle. There is also a valid question/concern as to how many people can reliably stream 1080P video in the US. I don't think we could with a cable modem that is generally fast for US standards. We would be doing a lot of buffering for the hiccups we encounter.
Add the bandwidth caps that Comcast and most other providers are putting on their "unlimited" service and people watching tons of content would exceed their limits with 1080P content.
cthellisAug 23, 2010
I don't believe any broadcast provider is currently pushing a good 1080p image out there. It's not particularly meaningful unless they can do it at a good bitrate, either.
And frankly, considering the bandwidth concerns all the telecoms have right now, I don't expect any solid push to to that level, or any competent deliver.
mydiggloginAug 23, 2010
I just built an HTPC. I use OS X and Linux most of the time. I hardly ever use Windows. What did I put on the HTPC? Windows 7. MythTV is a huge pain to set up still. OS X or anything Apple has out right now is lacking in the capabilities. FFS, I can't play back movie files out of my AVCHD video camera. I can import and edit them in iMovie, but not just hook up, transfer files, and play them. Windows 7 Media Center is pretty damn good, and it supports third-party plug-ins. Audio over HDMI worked out of the box with Clarkdale. Now, if Google wanted to make MythTV a good product, they could, but it would take quite a bit of work... I won't mention Blu-Ray playback, oh wait, I just did.
temsiAug 23, 2010
Mac Mini + Boxee.tv = WIN
Sorry for using that meme, but it's quite efficient.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
"Say goodbye to your monthly cable bill."
and say hello to a ridiculously expensive internet connection.
alpha19Aug 23, 2010
And fee system through Apple for buying every TV show, song, video clip, movie, and even the ads they're sending to you that they're already getting paid for. Happy happy joy joy.
el_jefeAug 23, 2010
How do you figure that?
I already pay $55 a month for 20meg service to the house. All he is saying is that you should be able to cut your Cable/Sat. bill that is probably an additional $60 to $120 a month since you will get the same content over the internet connection you are already paying for. Frankly, if I can get it over the internet these days I don't watch it. I cut the Sat. bill out about 3 years ago and haven't looked back.
Not to mention wouldn't you like to pay for the content you actually consume versus being locked into expensive packages the cable/Sat. companies require just so you can watch a couple of shows? I would much rather have the A La Carte system. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
remember when an internet connection was $20 a month? i do.
plus the number of people who rely on the web to deliver their television is practically non-existent compared to those who use the cable company.
prices are rising even without devices like this. the moment your cable/internet provider starts to see their business leaning to one side or another, so will their prices.
supply and demand. simple economics.
el_jefeAug 23, 2010
Yeah I remember. $20 a month for 36kbps dial up. I will gladly pay $55 a month for 20 meg service.
I have not noticed prices going up. Actually I have seen increases in speed with prices staying flat. So what prices are going up? I find it acceptable to pay more for service with more speed. If the speed wasn't going up and the price was I would be concerned. But with the increased price comes the benefit of more speed. Five years ago I paid $45 for 3 meg service, then $55 for 6 meg service, and since then speed has keep going up and the price stayed the same. In fact you cannot even get the plan I'm signed up for, Verizon FIOS 20 down /20 up. Now if you ordered it you get 25 down for the same price. .
Some of what you said scares me. Internet providers are in the business of proving access to the internet. They are not like Cable /Sat companies that have to pay for the rights to broadcast the content to you and then pass that charge to you. This is one of the main points in the fight for Net Neutrality...perhaps you have heard of it.
ISPs are not providing the content. They are not licensing the right to rebroadcast the websites, blogs, and services you are consuming on the internet. They are simply providing access. They shouldn't be charging you based on what you are accessing. A bit is a bit. They are charging you based on the speed of your connection, or should be. They do not have to cover costs of licensing the content. They cannot sell something they don't have the rights to. ISPs should be able to charge for different tiers of speed, but they should charge you based on what websites you visit. That would be like buying a car only to realize that now you have to pay extra to access certain cities or neighborhoods.
And as far as the consumers, once they realize they can get the same content over the internet connection they already pay for that they pay cable companies out the nose for I think you will see a mass exodus.
Now I am not naive enough to believe that some sites will start having to charging for access. See Hulu. They have to pay for the content they are rebroadcasting, and in those cases I think you will see some websites charging. But the ISPs are paying that license so they should charge you extra to access Hulu. That should be your choice. Again, ISPs just provide a way to navigate the internet. They provided you the vehicle. To access stuff the attractions its fair to assume there might be a cost. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
wow. all those words, and you're still off-topic.
it's not about what ISP/Cable companies SHOULD do, it's about what they WILL do. we can't argue ethics when we have little to no control over how these companies will charge us for content access.
and it's great that you've been able to escape the greedy clutches of the cable companies. but if you think you've found the golden loop-hole around network television, you're delusional. the point is simply this... if they start losing cable/sat viewers to streaming content, there WILL be a price shift. if you think your $55 /month is safe, i suggest you get your gloves, cause you're in for a fight.
also, why do you think ISPs and Cable companies are mutually exclusive? the majority of ALL internet connectivity is served up through bundle packages offered by *ehem* cable companies (see charter, at&t, etc).
and that's all i got to say about that.
protodonAug 23, 2010
Didn't he or someone say this when AppleTV originally came out? Because that hasn't changed s**t.
thahmzAug 23, 2010
Won't Xbox Live be giving you US at least HD sports events for the price of the normal Gold subscription?
If you hold the remote wrong it will lose the signal probably too >_>
darkshroudAug 23, 2010
Xbox Live also gives Netflix streaming and eventually will have Hulu Plus as well.
Add in a Windows 7 media server on your home network that can run DVR functionality from a cable card or OTA with an antenna and then you can get rid of cable or at least the boxes. Apple can go to hell.
maliciousmoAug 23, 2010
I don't think the Xbox Live deal includes NFL, though... Which sucks
seroevoAug 24, 2010
It still isn't a valid alternative to cable.
Both the MLB and NHL offer online streaming for a price, but all local games will be blacked out.
For example, in Toronto, whether you have cable or not, all Maple Leafs and Blue Jays games will be blacked out for either service.
Additionally, in the case of the NHL where all playoff games are broadcast on local cable (regardless of team) the service isn't even available.
jrackowAug 23, 2010
Very funny, ThaHMZ. Geez. It's only the part where you would normally hold it. If you just train yourself a different way, you're good in the hood.
bluebirdgmAug 23, 2010
(reposting my comment on another thread)
Apple has had some amazing success with creating innovative new products, cornering the market on them, and watching the other companies play catch-up. This isn't one of those times.
With all the functionality that's integrated into Blu-ray players, game consoles, TV sets, and set-top boxes like the Roku, WDTV, Vudu, Popcorn Hour, and Boxee Box, this is one market where Apple is lagging way behind. AppleTV may have debuted earlier than most of these products, but Apple neglected it for so long that there's no way they can duplicate their iPod/iPhone/iPad success with iTV. They need to come up with something better than what's already out, and this doesn't even come close to that. This should've come out two years ago.
snaxieAug 23, 2010
MAGIC! A device that does something that other devices already do....with the Apple logo on it. MAAAAAAAAAGIC!!
alpha19Aug 23, 2010
But it's so simple, someone that doesn't care who spoon feeds them can do it!
darkshroudAug 23, 2010
It's still not as good as the competition, almost all of which have support for Netflix streaming for starters.
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
And costs TWICE AS MUCH!
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
but is WHITE AND SHINY!
korvan504521Aug 23, 2010
stop RUINING OUR MOMENT!
rovaAug 23, 2010
You sound like someone who doesn't understand the difference between an armani suit and a track suit.
superherofiveAug 23, 2010
"Apple will be releasing the new iToilet in the Fall of 2011! It will allow the user to download their fecal matter directly to their iToilet using an in-house technology created specifically for the iToilet. The iToilet will be running the popular iOS and allow the user to download apps directly to their iToilet through the use of in-house wireless technology! The only downside, if you can even call it that, is that the iToilet will not support Flush. This will change the way you relieve yourself. Hell, this will change everything."
-Kevn Rose
dopreAug 23, 2010
MAGIC!
insanebrainAug 23, 2010
Why it won't work :
>Video sharing/streaming/recording apps, interactive news apps, and of course games.
.. and of course a price we don't want. HD recording a tv program that is aired is currently still free.
>With Apple's iAds, content producers (eg. ABC/NBC/etc.) can directly monetize and distribute their content.
Ads SUCK. Targeted or not, they will always suck, so I don't want to have a platform that is very good at showing me ads.
>Sharing pictures/videos from your iPhone will happen with the push of a button.
One push of a button. How many times have I heard that before. Guess what... nobody ever made a app that actually does what you want with a push of a button.
>The iPad will turn into one big badass remote control
Say what ? Do I need to buy a IPad to control my iTV ? No thanx.
>You'll be able to editing videos, control games, and extend the interactive television experience. Imagine watching monday night football on the TV while viewing/exploring other camera angles on the iPad.
The concept of watching to is still to watch tv. I don't want to see a football game from 6 different angles. I just want to watch the game.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 23, 2010
>.. and of course a price we don't want. HD recording a tv program that is aired is currently still free.
Most users pay every month for their DVR as leased from their cable/sat provider.
>>Sharing pictures/videos from your iPhone will happen with the push of a button. One push of a button. How many times have I heard that before. Guess what... nobody ever made a app that actually does what you want with a push of a button.
iPhone + MobileMe already does this. The only difference was the receiving user needed to have a Mac with iPhoto for it to automatically update.
>Say what ? Do I need to buy a IPad to control my iTV ? No thanx
I agree.
>The concept of watching is still to watch tv. I don't want to see a football game from 6 different angles. I just want to watch the game.
NFL RedZone.