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.
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
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.
What's that? Is it some new form of torrent delivery system?
That is all.
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.
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
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.
Plugging in one HDMI cable.
About 7 times the cost.
Best Slashdot Co
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
Not true. From the AppleTV web page:
Audio formats supported:
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.
Carol vs. Ghost
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.
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.
> 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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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?