  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | tivo If it is apple it will be expensive and stay within the apple ecosystem. The cable card system currently used in set top boxes is cumbersome. It will be interesting to see if they go with a cable card system or probably bypass it all together. I also wonder how this will affect tivo. | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Re: tivo I doubt it will affect tivo, I don't see them making it a set top box like tivo.
BTW ipad and ipods can already control a tivo via an app, how is this ground breaking again ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | | Given Apple's history I think it's safe to say that it will be something similar to a TV with 'Apple TV' built into it (you know the little hockey puck product that's not really sold too well). And a newer iteration of that same software, which is basically TV show rentals for a similar cost of going out and actually buying the DVD's. But with icloud now it may allow you to 'buy' and stream from icloud. All controlled via another expensive apple device (ipad, iphone, etc...). I don't think you'll see a tv that responds to voices in the room, rather to authenticated paired idevices. Otherwise you'd get people saying 'siri turn off' while they walk by.
I doubt it will do OTA as the future Steve envisioned was entirely on demand or streaming via the web type content. There's no reason to tivo if you can just get each episode of Jersey Shore for the low low price of 99 cents, a portion of which would be paid to the studio of course. Pick up a ball game for 3 dollars, grab an HBO movie for 5 and so on and so on. | |
|
| b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
1 edit | said by jgkolt:If it is apple it will be expensive and stay within the apple ecosystem. The cable card system currently used in set top boxes is cumbersome. It will be interesting to see if they go with a cable card system or probably bypass it all together. I also wonder how this will affect tivo.
If it is entirely IP streaming based then there would be no need for a cable card.
Personally I have no issue with cablecards and Tivo. When I got my Tovo-HD four years ago I called Comcast and asked about cablecards and they said I had to go to the office and pick one up, then install it myself, or they could send a guy out to do it for $75.
I went and got one the next day. Came home popped it in the Tivo and a screen instantly came up that said "Call this number for activation". I called it read a string of numbers off to the Comcast person and 30 seconds later it was on and running.
I haven't had to deal with the cablecard at all since then.
Seems like a solid technology to me and the cablecard is only $1.50 a month compared to $14.95 for a Comcast DVR. My lifetime subscribed Tivo-HD has already paid for it's self  | |
|
|  NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Actually installing cable cards into a TiVo has become much more easy than setting up TiVo the first time. Comcast even allows consumers to do it themselves. I did it with my new TiVo last month and I was surprised how well it worked. | |
|
 fuziwuziNot born yesterdayPremium
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Innovative! And within a year, Apple will be suing Samsung and others for copying the rectangular shape of their televisions.
--
Teabaggers: Destroying America is Priority #1 | |
|
|  CheesePremium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
kudos:1 | Re: Innovative! I believe they will. No doubt. | |
|
| | | No, not just rectangular, rectangular with beveled corners and flush bezels.
Looking at the current Apple Cinema Displays wonder if it will look something like that: »store.apple.com/us/product/MC007LL/A | |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | At this point.... I don't see how Apple has the ability to really 'crack' anything. Yes they can turn their existing devices into an ultimate remote, or build content delivery features (ala the AppleTV) into sets. But..... as witnessed by the SOPA/PIPA push, content owners are still willing to play 'whack-a-mole' and keep things the way they are, rather than change and adapt models of doing business to take advantage of the realities of a connected planet.
Until that happens, it's going to be very hard for Apple to find an opportunity to fundamentally shift the way content gets delivered.
--
Jeff Howe
Jeff's Blog - »www.ostjournal.net | |
|
| | | Re: At this point.... also the cable co are the ISP's for many users as well. | |
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Apple will need to stream its licensed content, bypassing the incumbent video providers if it's going to change anything (incumbent providers will clamp down enough to ensure that doesn't become too much of a threat). Or it will need to license iOS to STB manufacturers (I doubt Apple is willing to give up this control). I doubt that Apple is interested in manufacturing a CableCARD-ready AppleTV set top or new "real AppleTV". Seems like Steve Jobs' "bag of hurt" scenario all over again. | |
|
| | | Simplification. Instead of a 68-key remote control, you'll get a 5-key one. Instead of an incomprehensible program grid, you'll get iTunes style navigation. Instead of a separate display, tuner box, over the top box, and all the cables connecting them you'll get one device with a power cord.
Aggregation. Instead of using OnDemand for one program, Netflix for another, Amazon for a third, YouTube for a fourth, you'll have everything within reach from one device and one service.
Integration. All your content should work on all of your screens.
Reliability. It needs to work all the time.
Coolness. That's the one thing I don't get, but billions of people like shiny things.
Can Apple pull it off? I think perception is the key. They don't have to accomplish any of these things as long as people think they get them. | |
|
| | talz13
join:2006-03-15
Avon Lake, OH | Re: At this point.... said by verolom:Simplification. Instead of a 68-key remote control, you'll get a 5-key one. Boxee box did this, and I hate them for it. | |
|
| | Well Heres a Thought If they can get the Kardashians off the air that would be a big plus. | |
|
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FiOS
| O/S built in HDTV, the revolution is beyond ONE company within 5 years it will be common for a HDTV to have one or more of the smart features such as an operating system now enjoyed by IOS tablets & Android devices. that combined with the internet will change what the world watches and many of those streaming tv local & international blocks on content won't be enforceable anymore. | |
|
| |  Airplay and Multicasting
| |
|
| | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting Hence source-specific multicast was defined (IGMP3). The router would have to support this. | |
|
| | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by verolom:Hence source-specific multicast was defined (IGMP3). The router would have to support this.
Even Source-specific multicast fails miserably with Airplay. | |
|
|  Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Seeing as how these are designed for use around the house how is that even a remote possibility? We aren't talking about a device designed to stream from work to home or your house to your neighbors, there are other devices designed for that - and besides Apple iCloud service is setup so that you can stream your content directly from Apple anyways. | |
|
| | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by Count Zero:Seeing as how these are designed for use around the house how is that even a remote possibility? We aren't talking about a device designed to stream from work to home or your house to your neighbors, there are other devices designed for that - and besides Apple iCloud service is setup so that you can stream your content directly from Apple anyways.
DLNA and its ilk has zero issues streaming amongst subnets.
One doesn't need multiple locations to have more than one subnet...
Apple has purposely modified a fundamental element of IP to isolate its devices -- this has nothing to do with the venue, as it doesn't faciliate an enhanced ease of use in a home vs. work scenario. It also makes it harder for me to stream my content from my wired network to my wireless network, based on how my network is configured.
I'm sure they have justification, but the model hasn't been followed by any other home entertainment device. I can enable multicasting amongst subnets with any other device as the host and have zero issues.
For some, this is a genuine disadvantage, and merits highlighting. | |
|
| | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Re: Airplay and Multicasting For 0.01% perhaps. My network has zero problems with my wired and wireless devices being on the same subnet at home. | |
|
| | | | b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by Count Zero:For 0.01% perhaps. My network has zero problems with my wired and wireless devices being on the same subnet at home.
Agreed, in fact I see no reason why in a home setting you would separate wired and wireless devices to their own subnets. | |
|
| | | | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Re: Airplay and Multicasting I cannot either. The only time i would do would be if I had a "guest" network, but then I would not necessarily want them talking to my home devices so... | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by Count Zero:I cannot either. The only time i would do would be if I had a "guest" network, but then I would not necessarily want them talking to my home devices so...
What works for you doesn't necessarily work for others.
At any rate, everything except Airplay supports such a configuration, since they support the multicast standards appropriately.
Why embrace a feature reduction that limits choice for those that want it? Nonsense. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting An eloquent response to Apple fanboys defending the usual limitations and breaking of standards they are known for. | |
|
| | | | | | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Well do share why your network requires this type of setup? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by Count Zero:Well do share why your network requires this type of setup?
You really are a zealot if you think AirPlay, the only streaming option that breaks multicast on purpose, requires justification for not purposely breaking multicast.
cdru just have an example. By segregating the WEP devices into their own VLAN and using access-lists or other firewalling methods, the integrity of the rest of the network is protected. It's a smart option where hardware is capable, and only AirPlay lacks support.
Did I mention that AirPlay is the only option that doesn't support this? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Re: Airplay and Multicasting Yea I use WPA2 protection with a 20 character password and access lists. Didn't anyone tell you WEP is insecure?
If AirPlay doesn't work for you buy another solution. Apple has pretty much set things up so that you can stream all your
Media directly from them. Your appleTV doesn't even need to talk to a computer anymore these days.
--
Check out my site: »web.mac.com/jwsmiths
Play Mafia!: »Pub Games | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Furthermore I think that it may be worth pointing out that since Apple is the only device maker of this type that also is a major content distributor and has deals with the major movie studies and music labels. It is possible that they do not enable this feature as part of their deals with the content industries. Early versions of iTunes allowed for streaming across the internet but they had to remove that when they launched the iTunes store to make the labels agree to go along with them.
So while it is convenient for you to say "whaa... Apple doesn't do what my insanely esoteric network requires in order to accomplish simple tasks" it is possible this limitation wasn't initially made by Apple at all.
--
Check out my site: »web.mac.com/jwsmiths
Play Mafia!: »Pub Games | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Airplay and Multicasting My esoteric network only becomes a limitation when faced with AirPlay.
As for WPA being more secure: duh. Not all devices support WPA, but using vlans and acls significantly reduces the risk.
Must I mention again that this is a feature reduction you are defending?*
*if you consider not breaking TCP a feature. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Count ZeroMD2BePremium
join:2007-01-18
Warner Robins, GA | Re: Airplay and Multicasting And you ignore entirely the possibility the decision to make that limitation wasn't even apple's. | |
|
| | | | |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
·Frontier FiOS
| said by b10010011:Agreed, in fact I see no reason why in a home setting you would separate wired and wireless devices to their own subnets. My kids Nintendo DS units don't support WPA or WPA2. They only allow WEP. I don't want to use WEP for my main network due to it's insecurities anymore. While their segregation is more then just separate subnets, all the same arguments still apply. | |
|
| | | | | | b10010011Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA Reviews:
·Comcast Formerl..
| Re: Airplay and Multicasting said by cdru:My kids Nintendo DS units don't support WPA or WPA2. They only allow WEP. I don't want to use WEP for my main network due to it's insecurities anymore. While their segregation is more then just separate subnets, all the same arguments still apply.
Okay, that makes sense, but it still leaves your internet connection open to WEP cracking.
I had the same problem and solved it with a Nindendo WiFi adapter.
»www.google.com/products/catalog?···wQ8wIwAA | |
|
| | remember CAPS Lets not forget cable ISPs that have rolled out CAPS for monthly usage. This will choke streaming and alternate options. | |
|
| | They are just doing this to get a patent on rectangle tvs And then sue everyone. Apple is becoming a glorified patent troll. | |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA Reviews:
 ·SONIC.NET
·RoadRunner Cable
| Its the Content [licensing], Stupid! Google already blew a half-billion or so not learning this lesson.
Adding interactive voice response to Google TV ... will not "make it easier to access online video content" - only encourage the content owners to block more devices trying to leech their works.
The crowning achievement of Jobs wasn't his development of a cult brand, but his ability to lead the five major recording labels by the nose to the iTunes Store Summit and get them to agree on uniform pricing models.
If Apple wants its TV product to have any meaning, it needs more than your "me too" choice of overpriced PPV, Netflix, Amazon, and Roku channels. It needs an iTunes Store model - where content never disappears, starts cheap and gets cheaper with time, and allows cable channel subscriptions by the day, week, or month. | |
|
|  firephotoKDEPremium
join:2003-03-18
Brewster, WA
·Frontier Communi..
| Re: Its the Content [licensing], Stupid! said by elray:Google already blew a half-billion or so not learning this lesson.
Adding interactive voice response to Google TV ... will not "make it easier to access online video content" - only encourage the content owners to block more devices trying to leech their works.
Yes, damn them people at Google who had the nerve to give the customers access to a web browser that didn't prevent people from going to cbs.com or nbc.com or abc.com or fox.com or mystinkinbilliondollarpileofcashfromtelevision.com and watch content from those sites. What a bunch of sorry leeches at Google...
Or back in reality the stupid greeddy tv people could just admit they want you to watch their tv content out of schedule on low resolution devices via a pay per the byte subscription service from a cigar room buddy company and not via some dumb pipe that crushes corporatism with every freely streamed bit down the tube.
--
Say no to JAMS! | |
|
TheMGPremium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:1 Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
| I agree with one thing... ...traditional TV must die.
Ideally, I'd like to see cablecos and telcos become "dumb pipe" providers. All TV content will be on-demand streaming and download over the internet, at reasonable prices.
I'd like to see the concept of television channels and scheduled programming disappear completely.
Unfortunately this is probably a pipe dream. | |
|
| | | Re: I agree with one thing... +1 | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by TheMG:...traditional TV must die.
Ideally, I'd like to see cablecos and telcos become "dumb pipe" providers. All TV content will be on-demand streaming and download over the internet, at reasonable prices.
I'd like to see the concept of television channels and scheduled programming disappear completely.
Unfortunately this is probably a pipe dream.
Not everyone agrees with you.. I for one of millions don't.
Sorry, but not all of us want to have to sit down and hunt for shows to watch. Some of us like to watch TV and fall asleep on the couch or in bed doing so. I do this a lot.. I don't care to wake up and have to find another show to start...
...also, there are many shows that just don't work when you go and find them to download via a stream. Also you have a problem where live TV shows run on regular scheduled times. There are in fact people that plan their evenings around regularly scheduled shows as part of their evening.
While people like YOU would like to see linear TV die, it won't happen.. not for a long time, if ever.
I can certainly see the 2nd rate tiers of TV go to an OnDemand model and in many cases already have. So really, what are you trying to tear down, and why do your extremist views seem to trump the desires of everyone.. are you someone that just knows what's best for everyone? .. do you have this notion that everyone must conform to your styles? .. you know, because you've figured it out and like you said, it has to die.
I thought this site was a collective of people that believed in competition. Competition exists only when people aren't forced into something based on one model or path.. and that's what you're suggesting.
So tell me, why can't you just support innovation and let the overall market decide? Outside of that, your argument is simply arrogant and self serving at best.
Also, not everyone wants to have to whip out their credit card every time they want to buy something.. some people just want a predictable monthly price for what comes to their home. What you're advocating brings us back to the days of metered long distance and ANY of us that were around for that painful era can't forget the monthly bills upwards of $200 a month. No thank you. | |
|
|
|
