Slashdot Mirror
Apple vs. Google TVs
This SFGate article begins,
"Apple and Google just kicked off the first round of their battle for the living room. Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead. It's still early, and this could change, but it looks like Apple is making an all-around smarter bet than Google." I haven't tried out the Google device yet. The Apple unit is decent, but it's so focused on TV rental that it makes it difficult to work with an existing library of media; between the transcoding, and tedious menu navigation... well, it's a good thing it's only $99. It's a dang cheap way to get your stuff on your bigger screens, provided you're willing to jump through the necessary hoops.
"Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead"
Really? Based on what I've seen so far, regular television manufacturers are in the lead.
the tivo premier integrates with cable service encryption schemes, supports any external hard drive, and provides all of the network functionality of the apple and google devices.
It's a dang cheap way to get your stuff on your bigger screens, provided you're willing to jump through the necessary hoops.
Roku Box or WDTV, anyone? No hoops to jump through there...or, if you have an Xbox 360 or PS3, TVersity is a FANTASTIC solution.
Living With a Nerd
Getting to stored media on a computer only requires 3 clicks. Hardly a difficult proposition.
Kill your television.
Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout
If I don't buy a palm-sized AppleTV, Steve Jobs may crush me with it. Seriously, billion-dollar company and that's the best picture they'd allow?
Although in all honesty, why are we talking AppleTV? Mac mini's are a little more expensive, but that (+boxee) has been my awesome set-top box for over a year now.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
Desktop: I run a formerly high-end 1600x1200 CRT that I could get for free at the curbside these days. The computer to which it's attached has been replaced (motherboard) at least three times during that CRT's life. We just had our discussion of "why can't I find LCDs at 1200 vertical pixels" a few days ago.
Connectivity: Dialup, DSL, cable, 4g wireless. Even these technologies have tended eclipse each other over periods of 3-5 years - still shorter than the time period you'd expect to get out of a $2000 TV.
Content Distribution: Ten years ago, you'd want Napster built into your stereo. Five years ago, you'd want a Gnutella client built into your TV. Three years ago, people who bought subscription music offerings got PlayedForSure.
Content Playback: Ten years ago, it was .MPGs and .AVIs. Five years ago, a DiVX at sufficiently high resolution could drag a single-core CPU to the ground. You really think that Google TV's gonna be able to render 3D-mega-HD-whatever in 2015-2020? :)
The things you use to get content have far shorter lifecycles than the products you use to view content. Embedding one within the other is a WOMBAT: Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time.
XBMC all the way ;)
Sony.
What's that? Is it some new form of torrent delivery system?
That is all.
If Microsoft would put a TV tuner in a revamped XBox360, that would be a killer gadget. Bing to search. wireless keyboard for hotmail and surfing. videochat via MS's chat client. XBox Live integration. Come on guys... get it together.
-- All this knowledge is giving me a raging brainer.
The author already had his mind made up even before he compared them.
- There is some rambling about input 1 and 2 and I'm not quite sure what he is getting at with that but the conclusion was Apple uses input 2 and that made it easier and therefore better. His criteria for "easier therefore better" gets lost when he talks about the Sony with built in Goolge functionality. With that, there is no external input 2 or what ever needed at all, it is built in! You can't get any more easier to hook up and use than that but somehow that simplicity gets no mention.
- He mentions that an official "Apps store" is in the works for the G device but Apple hackers will probably have something unoffical as well. So Apple hackers making an unoffical app store is a postivie or a negative? He did not clarify but was leaning toward a positive. I'm sure that unofficial app store will be seemless and easy to use for all of those people that bought the Apple device because it was simplar because the Google device using input 1 was too hard for them to figure out.
Bottom line... He cherry picked things and used different criteria to compare them. There is no technical content and no specs or options are even considered in his comparison of which is better. It was a useless and biased article from start to finish and 30 seconds of my life i will never get back. It is similar to a paid advertisement "editorial".
He was right on the cost, the Apple device appears to be $200 cheaper. We all know Apple made it's inroads from being cheaper.
Here's a thought, check out some already available embedded devices for home entertainment. They have some decent features, they are cheap and some can stream netflix, youtube, rss feeds, audio feeds, and even PPV movies from the large distributors like Paramount.
The goal of a company is to succeed to make money. If being "trendy" does it then it a better business model than the others.
Jump through what hoops? For many (most?) people, their video content will work fine "as is".
I'm confident I could give my grandmother a Roku Box or Apple tv and she could work the thing.
A google tv, I don't know yet...haven't used one.
However, most of these things can be duplicated on a assortment of devices. Personally, I choose the PS3 because I "maintain backups" of my media and watch them via dlna/upnp. Mind you, my television does that too but it's not worth switching devices for. (I don't have cable)
The slashdot user base is severely askew. Most of the people here could probably boot DSL on a toaster and stream media to it. Albeit, the frame rate on toast is pretty crappy.
With devices like these, you need to figure who they cater too.
Can the Apple TV device stream un-DRM'ed video/audio from a NAS box? All I see are rent, rent, rent and stream from my laptop running iTunes. I DON'T WANT TO RENT - I already have my CDs and DVDs ripped for my own use. Can the Apple TV box play them?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
No one really needs either of these systems yet.
What makes him think that I'll ever need it?
What's this need for TV?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
it's a good thing it's only $99
Oh no it isn't....
That's merely the entrance fee.. Admission to individual attractions, food, beverage and use of toilets is all extra.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Or if you don't want to build your own, what about Roku? Their lowest box is almost 1/2 the cost of the Apple TV. For $60 you get a pretty nice box.
"I don't own/watch a TV. PRAISE ME!" comments in 3... 2... oh, wait. Already happened.
If I bought the GoogleTV or AppleTV for my nearly 80-year-old parents would it (1) be able to connect to their old composite-only set? What about S-video?
(2) How easy would it be for them to use? Right now they barely comprehend how to change channels on the Digital-to-analog Converter box ("How do I get this damn TV Guide off the screen???"), so I'm a bit skeptical they could operate either of the internet-based boxes.
(3) Does it work over a 1000 kbit/s line? Or would they need to download first and watch later?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
.
Apple needs to support more of the non-Apple open codecs, e.g. FLAC for audio. There are too many websites offer high-quality audio (96/24 resolution) in FLAC. Apple is trying to get the web to conform to Apple's desires, instead of Apple supporting what is already out there on the web.
That article makes it sound like Google TV doesn't have Netflix etc. However it's been announced that it will indeed have that stuff.
You .. you realise that these are both devices that plug into the TV, right? I mean... if Apple wanted to sell me an actual TV for $100 I'd be all over it. You can't hardly get any kind of TV for that anymore.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
It's a different philosophy between the two, and it's best exemplified by the remotes. Google is going for the Google users who love beta products, and like to tech out, Apple is going for the Apple audience who like simple and refined products. The real-world impact of this though is simple: if I give my 65y/o father a Google TV remote, he'll have an aneurism, if I give him an Apple TV remote, he'll be fine.
The other thing that I think Google is missing is how badly people want to ditch their cable/sat providers, even beyond us techies, people are really sick and tired of paying a tremendous amount of money for something that sucks so much, and are well past ready for a viable alternative. I've done the math on my cable budget, and buying all the content I watch on iTunes is about $300-$400 a year, getting the necessary cable subscription is about $1,200 a year, and I have to skip the commercials myself and can't esal;y load them onto my laptop/iPad/iPhone. I think this is a case of Google trying to make a compromise with the existing structure to try and get in the living room and Apple giving people what they want in a new and purer form, establishment be damned.
Don't be surprised if you can't access certain shows/sites/media simply because Apple doesn't approve of your particular tastes or method of acquiring that content. Google seems to be a lot more forgiving in terms of what you can view, in my opinion.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
While it may not have new release TV shows (at this time), it serves me quite well for entertainment and only cost $8/month. What would that buy me on AppleTV or Google TV? Not as much media to watch, that's for sure.
At this point I'm not interested in apple tv or google tv. If I want new tv shows cable is still a better deal (or simply torrenting them.. it isn't illegal everywhere btw, we don't all live in the US). Netflix lets me watch all the older movies and tv series I want to watch more conveniently than brick and mortar renting and much cheaper than renting via brick and mortar or AppleTV or Google TV.
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
If Microsoft would put a TV tuner in a revamped XBox360
What kind of TV tuner? Are you talking ATSC, ClearQAM, CableCARD, tru2way, DirecTV, Dish, or whatever the European standards are? Or do you recommend a separate USB dongle for each?
What NAS box with iTunes do you recommend? Is a Mac mini better enough than an ION nettop to justify the price difference? Or what point am I missing?
I think the one that will win is the one that will allows a harddisk with content to be wireless networked to all the boxes in a house. I already know people who have content centralized and can watch whatever wherever they are. If you dedicate a computer to serving content one can already do this with itunes.
Alternatively, plug an external hard disk into the box. Anything that comes with the box is going to be too small. I suppose the Apple TV will be hacked to allow this.
I am not sure what the transcoding issue is. The specs indicate it can play most standard formats. I know itunes has issues with some formats.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Huh, nope, not willing to jump through any hoops. Either the device works, or it doesn't go in my living room. If it comes bundled with shenanigans, I don't pay for it. Despite their really awesome products, I had to stop buying Apple gear a few years ago for that reason: the shenanigans made me feel like a chump, and that feeling wasn't worth the slightly nicer products.
... except in the sense that they both work through the TV. Apple's device is more of a media gateway for stuff you've already got through iTunes, as I understand it. Without significant internal storage, it doesn't seem like it can really stand as a platform on its own, with app support and development efforts. Even coupled with the TV rentals, it's mostly a quick and dirty way of making iTunes content useful through the TV.
On the other hand, Google TV seems like it's designed to be a real extension of the Android platform, with a full app community and a lot of functions that seem designed to augment TV. They want people to view the TV as something that you can do more than just consume stuff off of. Apple TV has some functionality in this direction, but just the lack of internal storage means there's only so far they can go.
In other words, Google is making a grab for the TV as a new development and consumer platform. Apple is trying to enhance its existing market share through giving people another reason to buy more contents. How are these especially similar, again?
About 7 times the cost.
Best Slashdot Co
I like the idea of these things but am not sure my 30GB cap will be of much use. Highspeed caps are an issue in my area.
"Apple and Google just kicked off the first round of their battle for the Internet speedlane subscription bundles. Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead. It's still early, and this could change, but it looks like Apple is making an all-around smarter bet than Google." I haven't tried out the Google Internet bundle yet. The Apple 'net is decent, but it's so focused on TV rental that it makes it difficult to work with... well, it's a good thing it's only $99/month. It's dang cheap...
Or buy a device that actually fits your needs, right out of the box?
I just bought a second Apple TV (the old model, it's only $149 on clearance with a 160GB hard drive)*.
The first thing I did was patch it using the readily-available patchstick software and it now has Boxee and XBMC on it. I get way more usage out of XBMC than Boxee, but that's just me. Presumably the new Apple TV will have similar hacks available for it real soon now.
The thing is, our main use for the Apple TV boxes is to use them as designed - to play our iTunes library of music, and look at our pictures from iPhoto. Honestly I've never even tried to watch anything other than a music video via the Apple software on the box. We have a library of videos and movies on a 1TB WD MyBook World Edition on our network, and we use XBMC to watch those.
The Apple TV is a great product, if you want to use it for what it's designed for. If, on the other hand, you want an open, hackable device, look elsewhere.
I have never understood why people think it's worthwhile to complain that a product that is marketed as a closed box, is actually a closed box, especially when there are other alternatives out there. It's like if I went out and bought a really expensive electronic toothbrush and then complained to everyone that it can't be easily modified to wash my car or polish furniture.
* I wanted the older model of the Apple TV because it actually stores all of your iTunes/iPhoto content on its internal hard drive, so you don't need a computer to be on in order to watch that content.
Putting moderation advice in your
A lot of commentators say that this tech needs to be built into the TV, but I disagree. Chipsets, storage and networking hardware are less expensive than display tech, but they also change and improve much more rapidly. People don't want to have to replace their entire TV just because some new networking standard came on the market, or because a new app requires more storage or a more powerful chipset than the TV has built in. In fact, I think the even digital tuners built into most HDTVs are obsolete because they only decode MPEG2, not H.264. We'll never see higher picture quality in traditional broadcasts or cablecasts no matter how cheap H.264 decoding hardware gets because that part of the TV is set in stone. It's most economical and convenient for the customer to only replace their set top box.
So another reason why Apple's ahead of Google is that they're not bothering with TV integration for now. It's bad news for TV makers who had hoped to get customers to replace their entire TVs because one part had become obsolete, but that's such a bad value for customers that it wouldn't work even in a good economy.
No mention of Roku? $30 less than aTV, more content, better resolution...
;)
Disclaimer: I might or might not have worked for companies mentioned
"Apple and Google just kicked off the first round of their battle for the living room. Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead. It's still early, and this could change, but it looks like Apple is making an all-around smarter bet than Google." I haven't tried out the Google device yet...."
--- Then how on earth do you make any sort of judgment on it f you have no comparison?!?
This thing reads like a middle school compare-contrast paper. Isn't this guy allegedly a professional journalist or something?
Roku Box or WDTV, anyone? No hoops to jump through there...or, if you have an Xbox 360 or PS3, TVersity is a FANTASTIC solution.
By "hoops", I'm assuming the OP means "transferring your physical media to networked storage".
And you'll have to do that no matter what solution you use. The only difference is in what "hoops" you have to jump through. Some only need the DVD to be ripped. Others want it in divx or h.264 format.
I started out ripping all my movies to h.264, so I have very few "hoops" to jump through, and my files play on almost all devices out there, including ATV.
Magic doesn't work in my presence. My power of disbelief is too strong.
More importantly, what is this "broadcast" technology I keep hearing about? I say Westinghouse will OWN with this new tech.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I think people are missing the potential of Google TV as an add on to the experience, not as a replacement. Keep in mind that the google tv is different technology.... It's a 299 video overlay system... as well as a control module.
Think about the possibilities:
* on screen facebook/twitter notifications ..perhaps tied to search for the specific show you're watching...
* on screen email notifications
* in show IMDB lookup with show pause
* suggested dvd/blu-ray/streaming queue/dvr recording based on current show
* External Team Chat/Video conferencing while playing xbox 360/sony playstation
* Video conferencing in general -- grandma's going to have better interaction with her grandchildren when they live far away (yes this one applies to me)
* Pause tv based on caller id with a phone add on....
* Slingbox add on and now you can watch your entire library anywhere....
And that's 2 minutes of thought... i'm sure there are many more ideas out there..
What is so difficult about running iTunes?
In fact, Handbrake just made my life grand by allowing me to rip my entire DVD collection to an AppleTV format.
Don't want (or can't because you're pirating AVIs) to use iTunes, wait for 4.2 next month and push your library from AirTunes.
In the meantime, I have to reset my Xbox360 and DLNA server every other show because of a hiccup in the network that completely stalls feeds and registers files incorrectly as unplayable. AppleTV made my life easier. I don't rent with it either, no point.
Google has 0 devices right now that are compatible with "Throw" and that will only change to our cell phones, assuming you have Android and assuming they push the tech to Android, and assuming your carrier is going to allow you to update your Android OS to include the technology.
I haven't tried out the Google device yet. The Apple unit is decent, but it's so focused on TV rental that it makes it difficult to work with an existing library of media; between the transcoding, and tedious menu navigation... well, it's a good thing it's only $99. It's a dang cheap way to get your stuff on your bigger screens, provided you're willing to jump through the necessary hoops.
OK, after reading the article, and practically having a brain spasm from the complete degradation of intelligence, I had to go back and review the initial snippet posted and lets start from there.
First the reviewer (which by the first sentence can't even be considered a reviewer, but rather an Apple Fanboy attempting to get the jump on a story, and spin it their way) hasn't even used the Google device. By that statement alone, they can not say any round has gone to anyone, because they haven't even stepped out of the gate to make a comparison.
Next, they compare the price of a pay for service device to a free to use device. Ok, what's the long term cost comparison? If the first gen google device is 300 dollars, but connects you to free/pay services, what type of costs are you going to incur over the use of the product, and how much would a person have to dish out to the apple device for comparable service?
Next they refer to Google going after source1 or whatever they call it. Now I am a videophile, so I have just a few connections on my TV, and my receiver. With that being said, most are full... But I can say this for certain, there is no first and second connection on either. The AV Ports may have a 1 and a 2, the HDMI ports may have a 1 and a 2, there is also the CbTV/Sat port, and the aux port... They are just monikers. To say that Google is looking to replace the Cable box (which is the mis-informed implication, and by mis-informed, they take a piece of information that may or may not be correct, and turn the direction of it into something that is incorrect to cause the reader to be mis-informed about the actuality of the situation) has nothing to do with the complexity to connect the device. Seriously, who wrote this? A 10 year old child wanting to be accepted for being cool and liking something?
Both devices have their points, and both have their negatives. I have a natural fear for Apples rights and property management, and a natural fear of Googles obsession with personal information. So, I am most likely to go with Google, since it's easier to mask personal information than it is to hack the rights of stuff you spent money on, and suddenly can no longer access (or worse, apple changes formats, than your old stuff becomes dated... again).
http://www.dishnetwork.com/googletv/
I'm pretty sure that if Apple introduced the iButtPlug tomorrow millions of Aple fanboys would be proselytizing about how awesome anal play is tomorrow night.
Truly a revolutionary experience. Revolutionary and magical.
GoogleTV and AppleTV are low end devices that do not play back all file formats.
Popcornhour http://www.popcornhour.com/onlinestore/index.php?pluginoption=catalog is was ahead of the game. The model C200 networked media player will play back any file format and has provision for a local hard drive or blue ray drive.
The C-200 supports NFS, SMB, FTP, and multiple streaming protocols. It also has a built in bit torrent client for media downloads.
I've had mine for a year and am very satisfied. It probably won't work with iTunes, but then, I'm not in to proprietary formats that cost money and are infected with DRM.
Same here. Although I primarily use Plex for media, netflix, hulu, etc. It will re-encode MP4 audio on the fly to AC3 for those external tuners, supports Lanczos3 for resizing on those big TV's, and it plays pretty much anything you throw at it.
I did a little surgery on the drive bay so that I could cram a 1 GB drive in there (takes a bit of chopping at the plastic bits to make the 12.5 mm fit) but it makes a fine HTPC. It also comes with a built in SPIDF which is nice. All it required was a DVI to HDMI cable, and a TOSLINK cable that I picked up for about $2 bucks.
http://www.amazon.com/6ft-Toslink-Mini-Cable/dp/B000FMXKC8
And I say ... really? That's your main point? Contrary to what the author thinks, no user will have a preference -- trust me.
I don't because of real experiences with real people, and the combination of cable plus boxes like the AppleTV.
The fact is that people still want live TV- that is, TV where they watch a show when it broadcasts. Of course that's totally true for sports, but even for sitcoms it remains true. People aren't happy having to wait even a day to watch stuff they know is on.
That's why secondary is a smarter bet, because it doesn't mess with watching live TV and is more like hooking up a game console than a cable box.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You can get a used xbox 360 for about $120 from Gamestop now. That's what I've been using to get my media onto the big screen and it works great.
Wait, I thought the cycle of life was they poo on us and we poo on them? Can I not trust Disney films for my science? Or was that South Park? I often confuse the two.
I've had the WDTV for over a year and it's an awesome device for playing your own media (works with almost any type of video file you throw at it including DVD .iso files). The Plus version adds netflix streaming and would be the one I would get now if I were purchasing it for the first time. I have mine hooked up to an external USB drive with my media stored on it.
God is imaginary
Of course Apple is in the lead. Hasn't 'Apple TV' been around for _years_ now? I mean, sure, they have a new version of the device now, but my girlfriend got an Apple TV about two years ago....
Also, I'd just like to say that TV is dead.
I'm just waiting to hear that someone's cracked the bootloader on the Apple TV so I can toss *nix distros on it. Cheapie lil ARM sandbox.
When comparing two devices and one supports piracy better than the other, always bet on the one that sails the high seas. Where would the iPod be if it didn't support mp3s?
We'll be plugging our cheap Apple TV boxes into our Google-TV enabled HDTVs. The article misses the point that TVs will come with Google's offering built in, where Apple is too selfish to partner with anybody, ever, unless they eventually have their own Apple HDTV range. For a long time now HDTV makers have been putting more and more in to their TVs with DLNA, USB media, Streaming, YouTube etc, partly because consumer lounges already have too many boxes with blinking LEDs a pile of remotes and a tangle of cables back there. Apple kinda understood this by making their box as small as they could.
Google actually getting their kit *IN* Sony HDTVs is kind of a game over for Apple
Somehow Apple will still ten million boxes, but yet again they'll fail to rule the earth.
Manurfacturers rule in a huge TV industry, Google respects that, Apple doesn't realise just what it's up against.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
They are actually in the lead in internet set top boxes right now, at least for internet streaming. If you haven't heard of them or haven't checked them lately (I thought until recently that they were only Netflix boxes), they start at $60 for similar features to the new Apple TV, they already have 75+ apps/channels available (including Netflix, Amazon VOD, Pandora, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc), expected to increase to 100 by the end of the year, DLNA local media streaming feature is coming soon, Hulu+ also coming soon. It's really thriving and unquestionably the best deal for this type of device right now.
Oh, since this is Slashdot, you may also like to know that anyone can develop an app for it, with free tools in Windows/Mac/Linux, according to their developer page: http://www.roku.com/developer
Unfortunately, Apple's marketing might and fanboy army are probably going to crush them in the marketplace. Google probably won't be far behind either. Roku are also not helped by (to my understanding) not being available at brick and mortar retail stores, but you can get them at their own website, at Amazon.com and probably at other online retailers as well.
This looks like what I'd like -- do you ever have it play DVDs from ISOs over SMB shares, and does it do it OK without barfing/freezing/etc?
That's what I'd like.
Mobile phones are coming with HDTV built in now. You plug it into your TV & audio system and play your media on a big screen.
Add a bluetooth keyboard and mouse as well and you've got a personal do everything computer in your pocket. Plus it makes phone calls.
e.g.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLJsPpNcEig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AZh1X2Vj_0
Deleted
This looks like what I'd like -- do you ever have it play DVDs from ISOs over SMB shares, and does it do it OK without barfing/freezing/etc?
That's what I'd like.
I've played 1080P MKV's residing on a ReadyNAS raid array via NFS without issues. I've also used SMB with a standard defintion transport stream (.ts) file residing on an AZBox networked satellite receiver without issues.
I do most of my viewing from the local hard drive (1TB) because my Popcornhour box travels a lot. I use SMB to load the hard drive from where-ever and the backups are kept on the Raid array.
I use an HTPC for all my media viewing. All these various set top boxes just seem to the same thing while trying to provide a consumer friendly simple interface. Google TV appears to be a much more novel approach as it doesnt connect to an new port on your tv it sits in line between your cable/sat box and your tv providing an overlay that will enable you to enhance what your viewing on cable/sat, browse the internet, or stream all without changing your input. It will be very interesting to see how this will affect advertising on broadcasts opening the door for google selling ads based on what your watching and perhaps showing those ads instead of whats being broadcast.
is all you should ever need
I personally use one of those devices from Western Digital which are $50.
Why would you want to purchase crappy VoD services full of DRM and only providing a handful of stuff when you can get whatever you want and more in true high quality and without restrictions?
That doesn't really answer the question.
I also need a device that will stream DVDs from an iso format. I need tot urn on and off subtitles.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Popcorn hour supports toggling subtitles and audio streams via the remote and playing dvd and bluray isos. It really is a nice little solution.
Popcornhour http://www.popcornhour.com/onlinestore/index.php?pluginoption=catalog is was ahead of the game. The model C200 networked media player will play back any file format and has provision for a local hard drive or blue ray drive.
The C-200 supports NFS, SMB, FTP, and multiple streaming protocols.
This looks like what I'd like -- do you ever have it play DVDs from ISOs over SMB shares, and does it do it OK without barfing/freezing/etc?
Another option you might want to look at is Patriot's $99 Box Office Media Player. I don't have one, but I just read about it in Anandtech's new Apple TV review as an alternative that "will play virtually everything you have, regardless of container or format."
The specs page lists support for UPnP streaming and "[MPEG-2] MPG/MPEG/VOB/ISO/TS/TP/M2TS", but this avsforum post indicates it might meet your needs. From the post:
TO START
PRESS ANY KEY
Where's the 'ANY' key? I see Esk, Kitarl, and Pig-Up...
That's true, but if I'm going to spend the money on one of those, then why wouldn't I just fork out a little bit extra and get a Mac Mini? The added advantage of a proper computer is well worth the extra dough and it'll run whatever OS I want. Going with Apple hardware doesn't tether you to iTunes.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Really? Any format?
You and I define Any in an entirely different way.
You define 'Any' as a set that includes the ones you like, and ignores others because you like them.
I define 'Any' as any, which would include the custom format I use in some of my hardware projects, which I assure you, the C200 won't support anytime soon.
Stop being such a fanboy, and remember that 'Any' does not mean 'the types have need of', otherwise Microsoft is equally correct in saying 'Windows can play any file out of the box' because WMV is the only one that matters too him.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Ya, set top boxes are nice, i'm sure.
I have a xbox 360, and when i get done with it's jtag hack (took a break from it, slight problems, stupid dvd drive eject button won't power the system), but I don't plan on using it for media streaming.
I do though, have my workhorse computer connect to my 1080p. I can browse the web, watch streaming crap if I wanted to (I don't, prefer to download then watch), shit, I can play games on it if I want. But then, my TV is like 3 feet from my computers, so using a mouse it's a big deal, as I have a table right there.
So I guess i'm not the consumer they are looking at, since I don't have a living room or family room (studio apartment).
But I do like the idea of Google TV sitting between the cable box & my TV. Why? Because I refuse to pay for the extras of cable, like DVR. Depending on the control you can have with Google TV, it might be nice. But honestly, I'll probably just use a computer, since I always have extra ones lying around.
Be seeing you...
Meh, I'll stick with my XTreamer thanks. Cheap, flexibly and useful.
Google TV vs Apple TV vs Going Out & Getting Some Fresh Air & A Social Life.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I just bought a samsung 55 inch LED, it has two USB ports and a media player app built-in. Threw my MKVs and divxes at it, it would play everything.
VLC server, geexbox, XBMC, "plugging a computer into the teevee" and so on... They're obsolete to me now. Even my internet/TV provider's box has usb plugs and can read even the most obscure, piraty formats ever.
I'm kinda dubious towards this "technology". It would have been cool FIVE YEARS AGO!
I'll rephrase: Popcornhour advertises that it will "Play Anything"
These are the formats listed in the specifications:
Supported Media File Formats
Video containers:
MPEG1/2/4 Elementary (M1V, M2V, M4V)
MPEG1/2 PS (M2P, MPG, DAT, VOB)
MPEG2 Transport Stream (TS, TP, TRP, M2T, M2TS, MTS)
AVI, ASF, WMV
Matroska (MKV)
MOV (H.264), MP4, RMP4
Video Decoders:
XVID SD/HD
MPEG-1
MPEG-2 MP@HL
MPEG-4.2 ASP@L5, 720p, 1-point GMC
MPEG-4.10 (H.264) : BP@L3, MP@L4.0, HP@L4.0, HP@L4.1
WMV9 : MP@HL
SMPTE 421M (VC-1) : MP@HL, AP@L3
Audio Containers:
AAC, M4A
MPEG audio (MP1, MP2, MP3, MPA)
WAV
WMA
FLAC
OGG
Audio Decoders:
Dolby Digital
DTS
WMA, WMA Pro
MPEG-1 Layer 1, 2, 3
MPEG-4 AAC-LC
MPEG-4 HE-AAC
MPEG-4 BSAC
LPCM
FLAC
Vorbis
Audio Pass-Through:
DTS, DTS-HD HR, DTS-HD MA
Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby True HD
Other Formats:
ISO, IFO navigation
AVCHD navigation
Blu-ray** ready (requires addition of compatible BD-ROM and at least 2GB USB memory stick)
Photo Formats:
JPEG, BMP, PNG, GIF, TIFF
Subtitle Formats:
SRT, MicroDVD SUB, SSA, SUB/IDX
DRM
Cardea DRM (WMDRM-ND)
Janus DRM (WMDRM-PD)
That's true, but if I'm going to spend the money on one of those, then why wouldn't I just fork out a little bit extra and get a Mac Mini? The added advantage of a proper computer is well worth the extra dough and it'll run whatever OS I want. Going with Apple hardware doesn't tether you to iTunes.
Mac Mini is double or triple the price depending on which version you get. I looked at Mac Minis before I bought the Popcornhour but at the time, HDMI wasn't supported. It is supported in the current version.
Im more interested in the relationship between iOS 4.2 and the apple tv. Hopefully games can utilise the streaming video to apple tv. Imagine angry birds on a 60inch lcd *drools*