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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I have a Mac Mini with 1.5 TB drive hanging off of it as my home media server. It also has a EyeTV adapter for DVR duties. I used to have it hooked directly to the tv but that would slow it down when trying to stream files from it to other iTunes computers in the house. Ended up moving server to different location (next to router on shelf) and then putting in a couple ATV1's. Now that the server's not actually playing movie files but just streaming them, it works pretty well. Have had 3 different movies running and the same time and no hiccoughs. It also streams live tv from the EyeTV tuner to our iPhones and iPod touches. Since I'm not really storing any real amount of data on the AppleTV's, a version 2 with no hard drive would would out great for us.
Oh yeah, do my ripping on an iMac and it writes the output directly to a folder with folder actions set to add to iTunes on server.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Wow, I remember my dad buying a Tivo in the mid 90's, back when external hard drive enclosures were either SCSI or Parallel.
Which of those has an SATA adapter available and which of those adapters works with Tivo?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.