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.

Comments

Based on what we've seen so far

[Culture20]

"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.

Re:Based on what we've seen so far

[cgenman]

Don't forget that if we're talking about set-top boxes to access network content, the Xbox 360 is in the lead, followed by the PS3. Way behind them are the Apple and Google TV's.

Re:Based on what we've seen so far

[bhcompy]

Really? You have the 360 over the PS3 in this regard? PS3 works with standard media servers, has a great freeware media server that transcodes on the fly, doesn't double dip your wallet for netflix like the 360 does, and has a much smoother multimedia interface

Re:Based on what we've seen so far

[cgenman]

I'm just talking in install numbers and cultural penetration. The PS3 is a great media device, though it would be nice if Netflix didn't require a disk.

Re:Based on what we've seen so far

[Yvan256]

About two weeks ago I installed Netflix on a PS3, directly from the "app store" or whatever Sony calls it. Small download, installed it, logged into my Netflix.ca account and watched a few minutes of some movies to check out the quality.

For the Wii, however, it still requires a disc.

Re:Based on what we've seen so far

[tzanger]

No, there was nothing *illegal* about modifying your XBOX. It's against Microsoft's plans for the intended use of said box, but no, it's not illegal.

FTFS

[Pojut]

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.

Re:FTFS

[KillaGouge]

for the 360, I've found that PS3Media Server is better than TVersity. At least with PS3MS I can choose to use subtitles and alternate languages in MKVs.

Based on what I saw in the article

[Wrexs0ul]

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

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[the_one_wesp]

I agree. I took one look at that picture of Jobs and my first thought was, "Watch out for crazy Steve!"

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[commodore64_love]

>>>why are we talking AppleTV? Mac mini's are a little more expensive

Little? The article says the V2 AppleTV is just $99. MacMini + Boxee is about 8 times more. As for the picture, Steve Jobs can't help that he got old. Someday you & I will look the same.

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[sl0ppy]

i'm curious what you're using for netflix on the device. i've tried understudy and boxee, and was sorely disappointed with the issues of both. i purchased the appletv solely for netflix support, but would still be happy to go back to just my mac mini (which is used for playing audio/video off the local network, hulu, boxee, sapphire, etc via front row).

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Someday you & I will look the same.

I don't care how old I get, I'm not wearing turtlenecks.

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[babyrat]

a 'little' more expensive? $700 vs $100? That sounds like a LOT more expensive to me.

 

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[peterskm]

I've used Zinc for Netflix as well as watching it through the web browser.

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[similar_name]

I use a computer I found next to the dumpster as my media box.

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[TrancePhreak]

It's like $10/mo extra for basic HD cable. Some channels broadcast HD over the air. OTA/cable HD means 1080i, so FW400/USB2 should be fine.

Re:Based on what I saw in the article

[mldi]

I have an Asus Eee nettop box (atom+ion) running XBMC that's running fantastic for me. Costed me about $250. Plus, it can actually output 1080p, not to mention being able to play literally everything I've tried to throw at it, including all my MythTV recorded content. I looked at AppleTV, but it couldn't do hardly anything I needed it to do, but I guess that's what I'd expect out of something that costs $99. For that price, I'd opt for an even cheaper streaming media player (like O!Play) that can play a lot more content but with less of a pretty interface.

Missing the point.

[Tackhead]

initially available as part of a $300 set-top box from Logitech, or as part of a high-end line of TV sets from Sony.

...initially available as something that costs more than a decent HTPC, or as part of a $2000 TV that (given that you paid $2000 for it) you'll probably keep for 5-10 years, or long after Google TV has been replaced with something else.

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.

Re:Missing the point.

[Darkness404]

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? :)

And you really think your TV that is 1080p is going to support 4320p content when its released? So long as the GoogleTV box can play 1080p back on your 1080p TV its not going to matter if it can play 4320p or whatever content because the extra resolution would be lost because your TV is only capable of supporting 1080p.

Re:Missing the point.

[nine-times]

Sounds like you are describing DLNA.

I guess so, except well supported by everyone and without problems. I want to be able to watch whatever TV shows and movies I want on any hardware device I want. I want multiple choices in "video service providers", being able to make decisions based on the price and the quality of service they provide rather than the hardware support they have available.

I want to be able to use my XBox to buy a movie from iTunes or use a AppleTV to buy a movie from Amazon without needing Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon to have made prior deals (other than agreeing to use the same formats/protocols). I want to be able to watch Hulu shows on a iPad or a Zune or a set-top box without needing special permission and special software via Hulu Plus.

All of these companies keep crippling their own services, introducing artificial restrictions, and then asking for additional money to let you do the things you should have been able to do from the start. They need to get their shit together, or else we should find a way to bypass them.

TV?

[frank_adrian314159]

What's that? Is it some new form of torrent delivery system?

slanted author

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:slanted author

[nine-times]

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.

The point he's trying to make is that Google seems to be trying to get in the middle of your primary TV viewing-- I gather from the article that it's supposed to sit between your cable box and your TV. He's saying that might be scary for some people, since part of the continued success of cable TV is that it's "the devil you know" and people are comfortable with it, so they may not want Google screwing around with that experience.

Meanwhile, the AppleTV (in the author's view, at least) is not supposed to screw with your cable TV experience. Instead, it's an additional device, perhaps taking the place of a DVD player. So the author is saying that this is less scary, and probably more likely to work.

So that's what the "input 1 vs. input 2" thing is about.

There is no technical content and no specs or options are even considered in his comparison of which is better.

In fairness, it's probably not the technical specs that are going to make these devices more or less successful. Qualitative experience and availability of content are much more important for most people.

Re:And the winner is......

[Skraut]

Wish I could find a cheap XBMC or Plex Set Top Box. That's all I really want.

Re:MS - get you're game on

[Dan667]

I just read someone that was pissed that they could not let their wife watch netflix on the 360 while they played games on windows live. Thanks, but no thanks. Never is going to be that great.

Prey.. meet bait.

[EasyTarget]

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.

Re:Prey.. meet bait.

[AmigaHeretic]

it's a good thing it's only $99

That's like saying:
Comcast cable boxes are FREE!!

Re:Prey.. meet bait.

[nine-times]

No, it's a little more like saying "An iPod nano costs $150". Sure, you have to buy albums from somewhere if you want to play music on it, but the device is $150, and you have no obligation to pay anything on top of that if you don't want to.

Wait for it...

[Quiet_Desperation]

"I don't own/watch a TV. PRAISE ME!" comments in 3... 2... oh, wait. Already happened.

Re:Wait for it...

[Myopic]

Well, the important thing is that you have found a way to feel superior to those people, who feel superior to you. It's a wonderful cycle where everybody wins.

How easy are they?

[commodore64_love]

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?

Re:How easy are they?

[dzfoo]

There's a lot of misinformation out there, so let me try to answer this with as many facts as I can:

1. No, only HDMI is supported.

2. It ranges from the "very easy" to the "virtually impossible" depending on what you expect them to use it for. First, it comes with a very simple remote control with only 4 navigation buttons (up, down, left, right) and one "Enter" button, organized in a circle like the old iPod scroll wheel. The remote control also has two comfortably large sound volume buttons. Second, the user interface is so darn intuitive, that it is designed to be fully navigable with just the remote control. Choosing a movie to rent and view is as simple as two or three clicks away.

But that's just it. If all they plan on doing with it is renting movies from iTunes or Netflix with their AppleTV, it's as easy as a toaster. However, it won't "play" TV. It doesn't have a TV tuner, so if they want to watch TV, they will need to interface with their TV's remote or control panel to switch from external input to the internal TV tuner. If they can manage this, then there's no problem. Your comment suggests that they won't. That said, this is the same for anybody who has a DVD player or any other external device hooked up to a TV.

And if they have a personal computer running iTunes, they can play all their music, videos, pod-casts, and photos from it using the same simple interface in the AppleTV as for renting movies--but someone has to show them how to get the stuff in their PC in the first place. Again, if they can manage this, the rest goes swimmingly.

Note, however, that a personal computer and iTunes is not necessary to access the online iTunes store.

What about DVDs? The AppleTV does not have a DVD drive in it. Nor does iTunes, which means that even if they put the DVD in their personal computer's player, it won't stream to the AppleTV. Someone will have to help your parents encode their DVDs into an iTunes-friendly format. This is easy to do with many readily available tools, but it is not built-in. However, once all videos are in, it all works easily and intuitively, so maybe it's the price to pay to set them up at first.

Alternatively, they could play DVDs on a regular DVD player, and switch inputs as normal.

3. 1000 Kbit/s line? That's 1 Mbit/s, it should be fine. There is no "download first and watch later". The AppleTV only streams its content, it does not download for later viewing.

The AppleTV is primarily designed to be an interface for streaming digital content into your TV. The digital content is expected to come from iTunes--either your iTunes client on a PC, or the online iTunes Music/Video Store. It also allows streaming from YouTube and Netflix. For these narrow uses, it is superb. And to be honest, that's pretty much what a lot of people need (I personally do not watch regular TV, only Netflix and my purchased DVDs, which I have encoded into iTunes already, so for me it is a dream.)

The rental prices range from $0.99 for TV shows to $4.99 for the latest movie releases. The selection of movies available for rent is wide and varied, and includes many new releases. For TV shows, only a few networks have joined so far, but presumably the list will grow eventually. TV shows will be available the day after they first air, completely commercial free, for $0.99 cents.

It is up to you (and your parents) to decide if this will suit your their TV watching habits. And even if they do not have any streaming needs today, consider that it may be the most accessible distribution channel for entertainment in the near future, and therefore the AppleTV may be viewed as an investment.

You may want to check out the glossy marketing material available from Apple directly:
        http://www.apple.com/appletv/
Also, I personally find it helpful sometimes to use the Online Store Live Chat feature and ask questions directly from a representative.

          -dZ.

the transcoding...

[QuietLagoon]

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,

.
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.

Re:the transcoding...

[yabos]

Apple's A4 chip that powers the new Apple TV, iPhone and iPod Touch only supports certain formats in the hardware decoder. They don't seem to like allowing software decode which is why there's no mkv, divx, etc. support.

Re:the transcoding...

[dzfoo]

Not true. From the AppleTV web page:

Audio formats supported:

• HE-AAC (V1), AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF, and WAV; Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound pass-through

If what you want is for Apple to support specifically FLAC, then say so. Do not taint your comment with inferences that Apple only supports its own proprietary standards.

Many of the standards supported by iOS devices in general, and AppleTV in particular, are indeed what is already out there on the web and supported by many other major consumer device vendors, including Television Sets and media players.

They may not be royalty-free or have an open source implementation available, but that is hardly the same as trying to get the web to conform to Apple's desires. Besides, this is a device to be used with a TV, not a web browser.

        -dZ.

Re:One thing I can't find

[Anonymous Coward]

Some NAS boxes have iTunes sharing.

Re:MS - get you're game on

[nine-times]

No, we don't need a TV tuner built into these boxes-- we need TV production companies to jump onboard some kind of TVoIP scheme that allows us to stream their shows to whatever set-top box we choose without going through a cable company. We need to be able to get movies and TV shows streamed to the set-top box of our choice, rather than have Microsoft put another monopolistic layer on top of the monopolistic cable company's crap.

Re:3 Menu Clicks

[h4rr4r]

Plugging in one HDMI cable.

A little more?

[wiredog]

About 7 times the cost.

Why not run Boxee on the old Apple TV?

[name_already_taken]

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.

Re:Why not run Boxee on the old Apple TV?

[Chyeld]

No, it's as if you went out and bought a really expensive electric toothbrush and found out that half the cost was the extra gadgetry they've introduced to ensure that you can only use their brand replacement heads and toothpaste.

I don't mind closed boxes being closed. I mind extra effort being put into keeping the closed box closed, after I buy it, for no good reason and plenty of bad ones.

If I decide to turn my toothbrush into an electric buffer, I'll take the heat for the appropriateness of the task. If I can't decide to turn my toothbrush into an electric buffer, simply because the manufacturer has included a sensor that detects the surface being brushed and refuses to allow the motor to run if the composition is anything other than calcium, then that's not a problem with my expectations, that's a problem with the manufacturer.

Don't build fast changing tech into the TV

[Vegan Pagan]

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.

Popcornhour Networked Media Players are the Best

[Junior Samples]

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.

WDTV

[SiChemist]

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.

Re:One thing I can't find

[frinkster]

My understanding is that it can't. I believe you need to have your content in an iTunes library on your computer. Furthermore, I have read that an Apple TV won't stream content on a NAS that can otherwise host an iTunes library; the library actually needs to be on a computer.

This is a myth that Apple themselves have been perpetuating. I don't know why they make it so hard to find this information on their website but it is there.

The Apple TV can subscribe to video podcast channels and happily stream your media library from anything that can run a basic Apache installation. Just dump your media library information into an XML file (as described in the above link) and point your Apple TV at it.

I find it absolutely amazing that the actual Apple TV section of their website makes no mention of this feature. You do not need to submit it to iTunes for review/approval. You just host it on your own home network.

Re:What NAS box with iTunes?

[cynyr]

http://www.deleet.de/projekte/daap/daapd/ any NAS box that is open enough to let you run linux on it. I'm not sure DAAPD works well anymore, or for videos, i have no idea if it does videos or anything, i hvan't needed to talk to an apple only client in years now.

Re:What hoops?

[oh_my_080980980]

"I'm not seeing the point of an Apple TV for most people, it doesn't solve any problems. If they really want to stream content the easiest way would be to just buy a cheap HTPC and set up their favorite media center on it, and then they could play DVDs/Blu-Rays/Netflix/YouTube/etc all from one device."

Yeah just what you need another loud, hot big box computer to sit next to your tv....really, that's your solution? Really? Most people don't give a flying fuck about DVDs or Blurays or what you ma call its. They want to watch a movie. It's called on-demand. It's called streaming.

Do you understand anything? Grandma and Grandpa would be just as happy with an Apple TV where they rent a movie from the comfort of their own home and watch it on TV. No need to rent or buy.

And seriously, you don't need a separate computer to be your media server unless you are a retard that doesn't have a networked TV!

Re:3 Menu Clicks

[Gilmoure]

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.

Roku is actually in the lead

[Optic7]

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.

Re:tivo premier blows them both away

[BronsCon]

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?

Re:tivo premier blows them both away

[BronsCon]

i've been using SATA exclusively since the late 90's

[Citation Needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_ATA

Assuming you mean 1999, when Tivo came out, you're still about 4 years early, guy.

Re:3 Menu Clicks

[jedidiah]

> Getting content INTO iTunes is as simple as choosing File->Add To Library

No it isn't.

First you have to convert it into something that iTunes will accept. Apple is very picky in this regard.

Claims like these would work better if there weren't MythTV users with obsolete Mac minis lying around.

Re:tivo premier blows them both away

[BronsCon]

Considering that SATA didn't exist until 2003, I mean you're full of shit.

Re:The Biggest Addiction In The U.S.A:

[badboy_tw2002]

If you want a link to the story, just ask. You don't need to post this kind of stuff to get the link:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-constantly-mentioning-he-doesnt-own-a-tel,429/

Bittorrent + simple TV media player

[loufoque]

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?

Re:Bittorrent + simple TV media player

[Nyder]

Not everyone wants to break the law.

Which is good for those of use who don't care. You keep paying the people who make the stuff, and we will just watch it.

I must point out, laws are made to be broken. And it's our duty to break stupid laws.
Anyways, any laws made for corporations & religions, I tend to ignore because they aren't made for the good of all people, just made for a select few.

Re:Bittorrent + simple TV media player

[loufoque]

Depends, do you realize that what you are doing likely requires breaking the law. If you're one of those 'I don't watch copyrighted content' then just go fuck yourself because no one cares.

Possibly. I download TV shows the day they air, but I have no other solution if I want to see those shows anyway since it might take years for them to ever arrive in my country, if they even do (and if they do, they're usually crippled with some horrible dubs).

Re:3 Menu Clicks

[jedidiah]

> What do you have to convert it from? Stop using silly oddball formats and you won't have that problem.

Yes, because we all know that the only standards that matter is the standard defined by how Apple does things.

Forcing you to convert whatever video you might have is NOT user friendly. It's the sort of thing that really only a geek could deal with.

That's probably why Apple does it.

It restricts the world of video for the non-geek to the iTunes store.