Slashdot Mirror


Steve Jobs's Big Miss: TV

jfruh writes Steve Jobs was a well-known audiophile and music lover, which helps explain why Apple transformed the music industry in the '00s with the iPod and iTunes. But according to a new biography soon to be released, Apple may have failed to do the same for TV because of Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. One of his first acts upon returning to the company was to kill the flashy, expensive 20th Anniversary Macintosh, in part because it had a built-in TV tuner. "Apple will never make a TV again," Jobs declared.

135 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Which explains the ATV. by UncleRage · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's gotten lackluster support across the board. For a device with a lot of potential, it's got a lot of ugly bumps.

    --
    #SickNotWeak
    1. Re:Which explains the ATV. by swb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm curious what more it's supposed to do.

      I can only think "run apps" but you can mostly do that with mirroring which eliminates a whole lot of ugly compatibility issues (for Apple, and app developers) even if the experience is lacking in some ways. Even with apps, the whole interactive controller issue gets kind of weird if a phone, tablet or the remote doesn't make sense.

      By and large, Apple TV does what its supposed to do -- play media on your TV from your phone, tablet, PC or streaming.

      The lack of an Amazon Instant app is annoying, but Netflix is there. The rest of the content is kind of ho-hum, but then again, mirroring and airplay solves some of those issues, like Amazon Instant or many other media playback apps.

      I think a lot of people would like the Apple TV to be "more" of something, but so many of those things are a weird fit or hinge on other lateral expansions like more input devices or something else or end up overlapping with what it does now but without a significant expansion of functionality.

    2. Re:Which explains the ATV. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      For most people I know, they do their digital tv viewing via game consoles.
      Xbox, play station or wii. Apple TV, chrome cast, etc... Are nearly all just tv. So it isn't so popular.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Which explains the ATV. by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Things use the bluetooth for audio so i can listen in bed with headphones or controller support, or run Plex client. You now the most basic shit a box like can do. I have 3 Apple TVs rotting in my closet because they refuse to innovate on it AT ALL. Every TV in the house had an ATV on it, until i got sick of them doing nothing. I replaced them with Chromecast, Android TV Nexus Player and Fire TV stick. ALL of them beat the pants off ATV.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:Which explains the ATV. by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      The lack of an Amazon Instant app is annoying, but Netflix is there. The rest of the content is kind of ho-hum, but then again, mirroring and airplay solves some of those issues, like Amazon Instant or many other media playback app

      Quote for Truth. That's basically my only gripe about AppleTV. No freaking Amazon Streaming. I get Amazon Streaming on my PS3 and my iPad and iPhone, but not on my AppleTV WTF? Why wont Amazon support AppleTV? While the 1st gen Apple TV didn't do too much for me, since buying a new AppleTV last year, I've almost all but stopped using Amazon Streaming because I can't be bothered to switch over to PS3 just to watch a couple TV shows on Amazon they don't have on Netflix. The Man in the High Castle pilot was the sole exception over the last couple months. And the "recommended" way to watch Amazon Streaming on Apple TV is to use AirPlay -- a BS proposition, since you're streaming from the internet to one device, then locally restreaming to the AppleTV -- way to clog your network. Perhaps I should cancel my Prime Membership when it comes up -- I'm not buying so much off Amazon these days and not using their streaming service at all since buying my new AppleTV unit. When HBO GO does become available on AppleTV for $15/month the benefit of the "HBO Collection" on Amazon will be lost.

    5. Re:Which explains the ATV. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Quote for Truth. That's basically my only gripe about AppleTV. No freaking Amazon Streaming. I get Amazon Streaming on my PS3 and my iPad and iPhone, but not on my AppleTV WTF? Why wont Amazon support AppleTV?

      They won't support Android, either, or at least they historically haven't done so. Only recently have they opened up their client to the majority of Google TV devices, let alone general Android devices.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Which explains the ATV. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      How does that work? He's been dead for a couple of years now.

      You think Tim Cook is doing seances with him? It would explain a couple of things....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:Which explains the ATV. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the one thing apple doesn't do, and the only thing that matters, is to integrate all channels and sources into a singe interface. you can search for breaking bad and netlix pops up, you can search for KUWTK and E! shows up, you can search for GoT and HBO shows up. this is the only thing that will truly "solve" tv.

      the joke is on people who think Apple missed out by not producing their own tv, as opposed to a set top box. looool. tvs have razor thin margins and people will hold on to a set for 10 years. sounds like a shitty business to be in.

    8. Re:Which explains the ATV. by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      I cast from Chrome on my Mac to Nexus Player on the TV in my office every single day......

      "Oh, new Star Citizen trailer? That needs to be seen on the 55" plasma." Click cast and its done...

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:Which explains the ATV. by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      Ugly lady bumps?

    10. Re:Which explains the ATV. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I watch tv with no computer needed. Also I don't wag h every day. You should get a hobby #LAME

    11. Re:Which explains the ATV. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Think of a big screen all in one computer with multiple remote tablets. Each participant gets their own networked tablet which they can view their own particular output whilst controlling the outcomes on the big screen in a multi-user environment. We are maturing into a computerised environment and the push is already occurring into making it an inclusive, shared with those around you environment, rather than an exclusive, disconnecting from those around you environment. You are looking at more digitised board gaming , easy to learn, short play times and high re-playability, more interactive and more visual, taking into account the outputs on the individual tablet, rather than the big screen. Obviously tying this back to internet play, for when not all players are in the room.

      So it is not a TV, it is simply a big screen 50 inch or greater all in one computer with tablets 10 inch or greater as the remotes (plural, more than one can play at a time with a user name - password master tablet ie sudo stop changing the fucking channel ;D). Dumbly consuming content would be the least of it's roles.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:Which explains the ATV. by narcc · · Score: 1

      They won't support Android, either, or at least they historically haven't done so.

      Are you sure? Every Android thing I've connected to my TV, for years, has supported Amazon Instant, my old Visio CoStar, Roku, even my Blu-ray player.

      As far as I can tell, they've supported a wide variety of Android devices from smart tv's to streaming boxes longer than the service has been called "Amazon Instant".

    13. Re: Which explains the ATV. by sosume · · Score: 1

      In which case, a USD 30 Raspberry Pi with kodi/xbmc beats them all, in price, performance and included features.

    14. Re:Which explains the ATV. by swb · · Score: 1

      a BS proposition, since you're streaming from the internet to one device, then locally restreaming to the AppleTV -- way to clog your network.

      I need to get some monitoring going and test various airplay options, because I have a suspicion that where it can, the device may pass off the stream URL to the AppleTV so it streams natively. Obviously, in some cases it can't and this is where I think the difference between airplay and airplay mirroring might come in.

      Overall, I agree with the notion that it's kind of bogus solution and about the only time I use it with any intensity is browing YouTube on an iPad but playing videos on the TV. The browsing is simply better on the iPad.

      But, on the other hand, even if it is a kludge, it's a pretty great kludge because it works. I have my ATV on a wired gigabit connection and the access point iDevices connect to is 2.4/5Ghz N, so network performance hasn't been an issue. I could see where it could be an issue if it was all wifi.

    15. Re:Which explains the ATV. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Are you sure? Every Android thing I've connected to my TV, for years, has supported Amazon Instant, my old Visio CoStar, Roku, even my Blu-ray player.

      Yes. Only a handful of Google TV devices, mostly based on Gingerbread, have been supported until fairly recently. Most of your generic chinese sticks (mkXXX) didn't work. Very recently most Android devices have been permitted to use Amazon video, but there's still some devices where it seems like it should work but it doesn't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Which explains the ATV. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      A fix for PLEX, that doesn't even involve jailbreaking: http://www.idownloadblog.com/2...

      Been available for almost 2 years. You're welcome.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    17. Re:Which explains the ATV. by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      No, the reason Apple can't 'solve the TV problem' is because Apple is squarely a mobile-device company and TV is not a mobile problem.

      i thought we were talkking about the company that has been making macintosh desktops for 30 years.

  2. Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. by koan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I agree with him, he was %100 correct in this regard.

    Only the bean counters would want to dabble in that banality.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, netflix, hulu, hbo, bbc, ... all morons. Seems like he couldn't think outside the box.

    2. Re:Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. by Macrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Medium meaning requiring a tuner for broadcast/cable/satellite which is a horrible user experience.

      Jobs was seeing the future of internet streams.

    3. Re:Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course there are some great documentaries, and original series. But there is a HUGE a difference between the majority of TV shows, which is mostly the crap of unReality shows, and movies that companies like NetFlix focus on.

      Steve's Job opinion on TV wasn't wrong; his mistake was tossing the baby out with the bath water.

    4. Re:Steve Jobs's disdain for the medium. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if your cable goes out, you can still watch shows your DVR has already recorded while it is out. Can't keep streaming while the 'net is out, though. Both have their ups and downs, so let's be fair and acknowledge them all-around.

      That said, if you're lucky enough to have two or more decent internet providers in your area and can afford service from at least two of them, at least one of the downsides of streaming disappears, making it much more attractive than cable and a DVR. That's where I am right now: one connection for home office use and another for streaming/gaming, local dns server and two gateways on the same network so I can switch between connections simply by changing the gateway. I've never had the DSL go down in 3 years and the cable has been stable for the 3 month's I've had it, but I have tested simulated outages (disconnect the ethernet cable from one gateway or the other) and the setup works well. Both POTS and DOCSIS networks would have to go down in order for me to have an autage; but, then, my router can use my Android phone as a modem, so as long as I have an LTE or HSDPA signal, I can still stream reliably; streaming still works with a bit of buffering over HSPA, as well. Basically, if I can't get to Netflix or Hulu, something is very, very wrong.

      A DVR can't have that kind of redundancy; cable goes out and, like you said, no watching or recording live stuff.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  3. Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This just in... Steve Jobs has bad judgment. Details at 8.

    1. Re:Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      This just in... Steve Jobs has bad judgment. Details at 8.

      This just in... Apple makes Billions of dollars while company after company doing things the way idiot geeks suggest goes out of business.

    2. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Apple III should have been evidence enough of that years ago.

      Really? Still brining up the Apple ///? That was 1979, man.

      and according to Woz, the Apple /// was the result of "design by committee". Jobs was only one voice.

    3. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Billions made stealing others work. Steve is still a hack.

      What work has Jobs stolen? Or are we back to the (still incorrect) Xerox meme, that has been mis proven time and again?

    4. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      He was also a poseur. He was such an "audiophile" and music lover that he couldn't even play an instrument or sing...

      As a musician, and an audio aficionado (not to be confused with an audiopile), I don't think it is a requirement to be a musician to enjoy music, nor to appreciate good audio reproduction.

      Wow. Just. Wow.

    5. Re:Breaking News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone that uses the term poseur is a poseur.

    6. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      You can enjoy music without being a musician, but to label yourself an "audiophile" when you don't even understand the basics of music composition or how to play a base level instrument like a piano or guitar is ridiculous. I doubt Steve could even read music.

      At best, Steve Jobs was a music dilettante.

      I don't think Audiophile means what you think it means. Audiophile and Musician have only one thing in common: Music. One requires skill on at least one instrument. The other requires only a set of ears and a brain to process the periodic changes in atmospheric pressure we learn to interpret as "music"; no "musicianship" required. So, what you are saying us that no one except musicians should own a stereo; because they are not equipped to "appreciate" the difference between a Close-n-Play and high-end Audio Playback gear, right?

      And there are millions of musicians, if not billions, who cannot read music notation, you effete asshole.

    7. Re:Breaking News by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Very well put. Reading music has jack-all to do with being a musician; it's useful if you want to reproduce someone else's music, or transcribe your own for someone else to reproduce, but that is merely a useful function for a musician, not the essence of musicianship. I'd like to elaborate, for the benefit of the AC you replied to.

      I dabble in music. Some of my stuff is pretty good, most is complete garbage, and I don't consider myself a musician by any means. Whether or not I consider myself a musician (or would expect anyone else to) has nothing al all to do with my poor ability to read music (mostly as a factor of always having been able to play by ear and not having read sheet or tab since elementary school) and everything to do with the fact that the decent music I'm able to produce is mostly the product of trial and error, rather than an in-depth (beyond the fundamentals) understanding of exactly what I'm doing. It's a hobby, something I'll spend a night one every few weeks, and maybe, someday, I'll spend the time to learn music theory more in-depth and start making more consistently good music, but it's not likely. If I did, though, you can bet I'd consider myself a musician, whether or not I could read music; as would many other musicians.

      Even the fairly good music I produce hs limited by my poor mixing and mastering which, in turn, are both limited by my equipment. I simply don't have a decent setup for simulating various listening environments and speaker types, which makes mastering a track to sound good on all of them an impossible task for me. That said, I do manage to make things sound excellent on the equipment in my office, living room, and car, as well as several headphones of varied quality, and my laptop and phone; you'd think that'd be enough, but the same track sounds like crap in my wife's car and my friend's stereo.

      In fact, macs4all, I'd like to ask, given your claimed background, if you'd be so kind as to give me some pointers on that front.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    8. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Even the fairly good music I produce hs limited by my poor mixing and mastering which, in turn, are both limited by my equipment. I simply don't have a decent setup for simulating various listening environments and speaker types, which makes mastering a track to sound good on all of them an impossible task for me. That said, I do manage to make things sound excellent on the equipment in my office, living room, and car, as well as several headphones of varied quality, and my laptop and phone; you'd think that'd be enough, but the same track sounds like crap in my wife's car and my friend's stereo. In fact, macs4all, I'd like to ask, given your claimed background, if you'd be so kind as to give me some pointers on that front.

      Well, I'm all self taught on those things; though I do have a fair bit of experience.

      I understand completely what you mean about checking your mixes on several different headphones, earbuds, plus on your stereo, in your car; then trying it out somewhere else and it sound like dogshit. Been there, done that, too many times to count. I have found that you can't mix and EQ to perfection on any one system (with the possible exception of a compensated studio-monitor system); because you are simply compensating for that system (and if speakers, room) anomalies, and if you start bouncing around from system to system, all you do is start making the whole thing more and more extreme and peaky. And then it REALLY sounds bad elsewhere!

      Because you can buy a pretty stellar set of headphones, and even earbuds, for much less than an even slightly better-than-average stereo (and then we have to have a properly-treated room to put it in), I tend to gravitate toward mixing (studio mixing, live mixing is a whole different story) with them. A lot of people still think it's heresy, and if I had a proper studio, I'd agree; but for home recording, you just can't beat headphones/earbuds. I don't want to start a brand-war, so I won't get into brands/models, but just do NOT get ones that sound too "good" (enhanced bass and treble), because you will end up with stuff that sounds simply awful!

      I don't know what instruments you are recording, or what your budget is; but you can invest a king's ransom in microphones, or you can shop wisely. But without further details, I can't make any specific recommendations. One general rule of thumb is that microphones that are good for live applications are rarely good for recording, and vice-versa. There are exceptions; but that's a good generalization.

      I know most of this too generalized to be of much use; but without more specific questions, and perhaps a few samples of some stuff you think needs work (with a decent encoding technique and bitrate), I can't conduct a studio-craft class in this manner, sorry!

    9. Re: Breaking News by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      And of course the GP missed out on all the varied music around the world that only recently was written down to "read". India. With an incredible breadth of music, I have never seen taught via sheet music (or seen sheet music for that matter) as it is almost all ad lib. And many other cultures (almost all outside Europe) never felt the need to write down a score.

    10. Re:Breaking News by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Anyone that uses the term poseur is a poseur.

      Present company included?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    11. Re: Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      And of course the GP missed out on all the varied music around the world that only recently was written down to "read". India. With an incredible breadth of music, I have never seen taught via sheet music (or seen sheet music for that matter) as it is almost all ad lib. And many other cultures (almost all outside Europe) never felt the need to write down a score.

      Yes, but like he said, they aren't musicians, because they don't have a music degree, and haven't played with a symphony orchestra. So they're just fakes.

      First he says one is not worthy if the cannot play an instrument or read music. Then when I informed him I could do both, he moved the goalposts to "have a music degree and have played with a symphony orchestra." Did you catch that? And he deliberately "misunderstood" that I was talking about my recording and mixing skills as self-taught, and immediately declared me a "fake". Hilarious... I'll just bet he's the life of the party...

      In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: "What a Maroon!"

    12. Re:Breaking News by narcc · · Score: 1

      Would you rather they bring up the Lisa?

    13. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Would you rather they bring up the Lisa?

      Have at it. The Lisa was a wonderful piece of hardware, extremely well-designed and built. Also had the world's first integrated "office" package (and not by Microsoft, neither!). Just a little too far ahead of it's time. And too expensive.

      I see by your sig, however, that you are unlikely to agree with the entire concept, regardless of its success or failure as a product.

    14. Re:Breaking News by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

      You really should read things said about Jobs of that time frame; that man had the tendency of making sure his voice is the only one that counted.

      --
      ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    15. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      You really should read things said about Jobs of that time frame; that man had the tendency of making sure his voice is the only one that counted.

      Jobs was an egotistical asshole. I know; I met him at the Apple booth at the CES(?) show in Chicago in 1978 or '79, and I instantly despised him. Jeff Raskin, on the other hand, enthusiastically dragged me back into a little side-room to show me the (still-draft) documentation for the not-yet-released Apple Disk system, and what was to become Apple DOS 3.1 . So yeah, I get it.

      But what I neglected to say in my original comment regarding the Apple /// suffering from "committee design", was that that statement came to me directly in an email from Steve Wozniak. He further clarified that it was specifically the design spec. That the Apple /// emulate an Apple ][ not only perfectly, but also ONLY (in other words, things like Text Color could NOT work in Apple ][ mode). This lead to an insane amount of additional hardware (remember, they couldn't just emulate a bunch of glue logic in an FPGA or CSIC, but had to add 74-series packages by the handful. And then, the straw that broke the Camel's back: The fact that all that extra logic had to be connected somehow; which, since affordable PCBs were only available up to two layers, meant that what would now be easily-attainable trace widths and "pitch" had to be used, with up to THREE traces going between IC PINS, leading to the massive mechanical reliability problems in the first 2 revs. of the PCBs. The board-stacking connectors were also a problem...

      But no one ever notes that all of these problems had been ironed-out by rev3; but by then, no one cared.

    16. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Sorry for unintentionally misspelling Jef Raskin's name. Damned Autocorrect (really)... And sorry for the un closed parenthesis. I hate that!

    17. Re:Breaking News by macs4all · · Score: 1

      • Android's notification center for iOS
      • Windows Phone's multitasking implementation for iOS
      • Quick settings (from both WP and Android)

      And it continues still:

      • Keyboard typing suggestions
      • Third party keyboards
      • "Flattened" UI design
      • "OK, Google", "Hey Siri"

      Although I shouldn't be responding to a pusillanimous AC, I'll bite. And I will counter with only one thing stolen from Apple, and unlike you, I will back mine up with documentation. But, my one stolen thing neatly trumps ALL of your supposed "stolen features". Ready? Here we go. The thing that was stolen from Apple is simple:

      iPhone.

      Now what, bitch?

    18. Re:Breaking News by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm all self taught on those things; though I do have a fair bit of experience.

      So you're not legit. I should have figured.

      Come back when you have a music degree and have played with an orchestra, junior.

      Pah, you come back when you're a Professor of Music (and not at some shitty college in Wherethefuckistan) AND you've conducted an orchestra AND you've written at least one country's national anthem AND I can hum at least one of your tunes from the title AND you have been at number one in the classical music charts for at least four consecutive weeks AND you have been listed in the Top Ten Musicians of All Time AND you've been dead for at least a hundred years.

      Then we'll talk, amateur.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    19. Re:Breaking News by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Anyone that uses the term poseur is a poseur.

      Only if they're speaking English and say it with a French accent.

      Et maintenant, revenons a nos moutons.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:Breaking News by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So in order to be able to appreciate music, you also have to be able to create it now?

      You're a fucking idiot.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  4. He was wrong, but not how you expect by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Jobs, as it turns out, was completely wrong about the integration of television and computers.

    â€oeWe donâ€(TM)t think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge,†Jobs told Macworld in 2004 when discussing the 20th anniversary of the Macintosh. â€oeWe think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.â€"

    Now most of them use the "computer" to discuss weighty matters like how "this one for my niggas, I woulda said it was for the bitches but I dont got shit for bitches... .Shame on all you niggas all on the Instagram stuntin' for them bitches frontin' under pictures!"

    Heady stuff from @DocFromDaGloâ--ï¸

  5. Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Or perhaps Pearl Jam were "Steve Jobs" fans
    or more likely, they've never known each other

    While Pearl Jam received four awards at the 1993 MTV Video Music Awards for its video for "Jeremy", including Video of the Year and Best Group Video, the band refused to make a video for "Black" in spite of pressure by the label. This action began a trend of the band refusing to make videos for its songs. Vedder felt that the concept of music videos robbed the listener from creating their own interpretation of the song, stating that "Before music videos first came out, youâ(TM)d listen to a song with headphones on, sitting in a beanbag chair with your eyes closed, and youâ(TM)d come up with your own visions, these things that came from within. Then all of a sudden, sometimes even the very first time you heard a song, it was with these visual images attached, and it robbed you of any form of self-expression. "Ten years from now," Ament said, "I don't want people to remember our songs as videos.

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

    1. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What a load of pretentious crap. At the very least, film a video of yourself singing the song in concert. That way the TV viewer is no more influenced by the visual than the concertgoer. Considering Vedder's fight with Ticketmaster, he clearly didn't object to the concert experience.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Woah, woah. Fear and hatred of children is firmly in the domain of Cowboys fans, not Republicans fans.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Republicans fans are just called Republicans, by the way.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    4. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There is no way MTV would have rejected a Pearl Jam video in the early 90s. Contemporaries like Smashing Pumpkins "Cherub Rock" were just simple videos of the band playing.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's not very original. They should call themselves the Dawg Pound or something.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      You have a lot of twos in your UID. I'll accept the off-topic moderation, I just had to point that out.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    7. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you speak "leet", like I do, those are the letter z.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    8. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you find this to e a tired joke by now but *snore*.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    9. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Tired! Ha! I get it... Good Year?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    10. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Don't tread on me *rimshot*

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    11. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Ugh. I guess I just have to roll with these jokes.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    12. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      This conversation is going downhill really fast

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    13. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That video is, quite literally, the band playing their instruments. Sure, they added some crappy after-effects and swooshy camera work, and the setting is a tree instead of a stage. But it is a zero-budget video with nothing but the band playing music.

      Sound Garden "Fell on Black Days". Alice In Chains "Man in the Box" has a few cut-aways, but is about 95% the band playing. One of their others was "them playing in a pit" - don't remember the song.

      Don't get me wrong, I hated crappy videos like that... but they were all over the place. That is part of the reason I stopped watching MTV.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    14. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Aren't you civil? Good choice posting anonymously.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Steve jobs was a "Pearl Jam" fan by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      No, you just aren't pleasant to talk to.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  6. Doesn't matter... by rnturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The big Internet suppliers have done a bang up job of turning the Internet into TV anyway. Even better than TV from the perspective of the advertisers; you only see one advertisement at a time when watching TV. On the Internet they are able -- with the cooperation of the web page designer -- to have you seeing as many advertisements that can be fit on the screen. Content? Heck... that stuff just gets in the way of -- and takes away space for -- more advertisments. (More and more web sites seem to have used http://websitesfromhell.net/ as a design manual; especially some of the advertisement-heavy examples.)

    The pathetic thing is that I don't know of a single person who clicks on ads -- except by accident.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Doesn't matter... by Tom · · Score: 1

      On the Internet they are able -- with the cooperation of the web page designer -- to have you seeing as many advertisements that can be fit on the screen.

      There's advertisement on the Internet? You poor fool must be surfing without an ad blocker, who inflicted such cruel and unusual punishment on you?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  7. A miss?! by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Really?

    A miss?

    Are you confusing TV with watching video content on your computer because those are two entirely different things and Steve supported the latter. He probably realized that slaving PCs to broadcast/scheduled TV was a non-starter... Just as making PCs have built-in FM/AM Tuners would've been.

    http://www.businessinsider.com...

    I'm not saying Steve was a prophetic genius as he certainly made mistakes and it's wholly possible he disdained TV because he didn't want the cable companies like Comcast to get a foothold into his control of the industry. But this was far from "a miss".

    1. Re:A miss?! by khallow · · Score: 1

      Have to agree. Where's TV going to be in a couple of decades? I think it'll have the status of FM/satellite radio at that point, except you risk getting a ticket, if a cop catches you watching TV while you drive.

    2. Re:A miss?! by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Too true. There are much larger misses to be pointed out. Anyone misses opportunities because we're finite human beings.

      As for me, I wish they would have thought out iTunes better. It's a clunky beast and moving the iTunes library around is annoying.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    3. Re:A miss?! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      iTunes is a compromise between Apple and the music companies. More than anything, its the underlying reason why the music companies licensed to Apple. They could promise full end to end control of the music (at that time). Itunes is what it is due to political forces FAR MORE than technological ones.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:A miss?! by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I've had a PC running Windows Media Center recording TV on the broad cast schedule for about 10 years now. It currently has 6 tuners (records 6 things at once) for cable broadcasts, and an older tuner to pick up FM on occasion. I can watch live TV/radio, schedule recordings or watch recordings from anywhere in the house that has a TV via Windows Media Center extenders, one Ceton Echo extender and a few Xbox 360s. I can watch iTunes videos or play music, Amazon streaming, or transcode (on the fly) pretty much anything else without any effort by myself or anyone else in the family. With RemotePotato, I can also do anything that I can do in the house from anywhere with a fast enough Internet connection. I can watch TV on my phone, my iPad, or any laptop (we all use OS X, but Windows is easier) in the house.

      To put it bluntly, my PC that is slaved to broadcast/scheduled TV kicks the living shit out of every DVR on the planet you've ever seen or known about, especially the shitty ones that the cable companies provide. Whats more important, it means I'm not slaved to the schedule or the commercials.

      There are many PCs that come with built in tuners still to this day, as well as a few laptops, though you won't find a laptop that takes a CableCARD as best I can tell, where as full sized PCs or devices like the HDHomeRun Prime do.

      I'm fairly certain the only miss here is your analysis.

      http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

      http://www.silicondust.com/pro...

      http://cetoncorp.com/

      The only miss here is your knowledge on the subject. Either that or your a cable company shill still trying to kill the CableCARD requirement.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:A miss?! by macs4all · · Score: 1

      I've had a PC running Windows Media Center recording TV on the broad cast schedule for about 10 years now. It currently has 6 tuners (records 6 things at once) for cable broadcasts, and an older tuner to pick up FM on occasion. I can watch live TV/radio, schedule recordings or watch recordings from anywhere in the house that has a TV via Windows Media Center extenders, one Ceton Echo extender and a few Xbox 360s. I can watch iTunes videos or play music, Amazon streaming, or transcode (on the fly) pretty much anything else without any effort by myself or anyone else in the family. With RemotePotato, I can also do anything that I can do in the house from anywhere with a fast enough Internet connection. I can watch TV on my phone, my iPad, or any laptop (we all use OS X, but Windows is easier) in the house.

      To put it bluntly, my PC that is slaved to broadcast/scheduled TV kicks the living shit out of every DVR on the planet you've ever seen or known about, especially the shitty ones that the cable companies provide. Whats more important, it means I'm not slaved to the schedule or the commercials.

      There are many PCs that come with built in tuners still to this day, as well as a few laptops, though you won't find a laptop that takes a CableCARD as best I can tell, where as full sized PCs or devices like the HDHomeRun Prime do.

      I'm fairly certain the only miss here is your analysis.

      http://windows.microsoft.com/e...

      http://www.silicondust.com/pro...

      http://cetoncorp.com/

      The only miss here is your knowledge on the subject. Either that or your a cable company shill still trying to kill the CableCARD requirement.

      Yeah, if there was any serious "miss" in the HTPC/set top box arena, it was that Microsoft didn't market Media Center correctly. It does seem to be the top of the food chain when it comes to HTPC. I am a huge Apple fan, but I *almost* want to set up a WMC machine myself.

    6. Re:A miss?! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Have to agree - the one piece of Microsoft software that I use, is Windows 7 Media Center. It's probably the best solution I've seen yet when combined with a Ceton tuner. The only shortcoming I've found is from Time Warner abusing the "broadcast flag" to encrypt everything that they can, so that I'm limited to playback on Microsoft platforms that understand the DRM.

      Time Warner can suck a big fat one for that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  8. Jobs' views on TV not a secret by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People are thinking less than they used to. It's primarily because of television. People are reading less and they're certainly thinking less.
    [...]
    When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.
    [...]

    http://archive.wired.com/wired/archive/4.02/jobs_pr.html

  9. passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by johncandale · · Score: 1, Insightful

    TV is dead anyways. I am no fanboy but this makes me like Steve Jobs a little more. The fact that he liked some things and hated others gave the company a vision and gave him a passion. Google could learn from this instead of scattershotting with everything with 'me too products' that fail and just hurt the brand ( and waste money). TV in that era was especially bad, I can't stand people that like sitcoms. protip=friends, the big bang theory, and cheers are all the same show. A bad one.

  10. No opportunity by Kohath · · Score: 2

    TV does not offer a company like Apple much opportunity. There's no UI problem that keeps people from being able to get the most value out of their TV. People won't buy an easy to use TV at a big premium over a regular TV. This is why Apple was never going to make a TV.

    The only thing people really want from their TV is cheaper, more conveniently delivered content. Apple has no TV content, and there's no way for Apple to make money offering others' TV content at a cheaper price. And there's no way to sell a new premium TV based on cheaper TV content -- the premium you gained on the TV would be more than lost on the content discount.

    1. Re:No opportunity by bkmoore · · Score: 1

      TV does not offer a company like Apple much opportunity....There's no UI problem that keeps people from being able to get the most value out of their TV...

      Go back 10- or 15- years, the UI problem with TV was on-demand content delivery. Remember mailing DVDs back and forth or trips to Blockbuster with the constant reminders to "be kind and rewind?" But agree with you that the opportunities of content delivery are limited at best when your business model is hardware centric. Other than a set-top-box or connectivity with a Mac / iPod, there's not much else Apple could sell in the commodity TV market.

    2. Re:No opportunity by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      As if Apple's thing was "easy to use". Apple makes jewelry - design/style first, ease of use second. Admittedly, they don't let ease of use get too terrible, most of the time, but style always comes first.

      TV is what the peasants watch. There are expensive TVs, but there can't be an "upper class TV". Fashion is all about pretending to be upper class* by buying over-priced status symbols, and Apple has had very few misses since Job's return in that regard. TV certainly wasn't one of them.

      *The actual upper class, of course, doesn't go in for status symbols, but for expressions of either taste or conformity, but the US fashion scene is really centered in "ostentatious high income" people, not the tiny upper class anyhow.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:No opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think an iTunes/App Store like store for TV-programs is still missing. The ability to buy a subscription on the TV-shows you like, with the ability to offer free TV-shows, not restricted by the regional restrictions set up by the current media businesses is something that's still missing. The online streaming services like Netflix don't offer a service to buy program per unit. You can only choose to pay for a monthly subscription that includes all programs in their collection, which is still missing many popular programs.

      A TV-store where you can buy any program that has ever been broadcasted. Where you can buy an episode of a 1960 drama serie for a fair price, and that will be part of your collection for the rest of your (or the service's) life, with an ability to buy an entire season (just like a single song vs the whole album).

      These things are still missing. You can subscribe to a Spotify like service, but you can't buy per episode, with a trailer to see what a TV-series is about. With an iTunes like television store you could actually buy things that you can 'own' like you can 'own' a DVD. The streaming services who offer a pay / episode only grant you a one time play, or a play as much as you want for the next 24 hours, but not a pay once an download it to your device (with a 'lifetime' grant to redownload the content).

    4. Re:No opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As if Apple's thing was "easy to use". Apple makes jewelry - design/style first, ease of use second. ... Fashion is all about pretending to be upper class* by buying over-priced status symbols.

      No... those are just the lies you tell yourself so you can feel like you're better than all those "sheeple". Apple makes products that are enjoyable to use. That means a combination of ease of use plus looking and feeling good. People buy their products because they enjoy using them, and that is literally the only thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about specs and checklists? What good is a 10% faster processor in a phone that looks and feels clunky?

    5. Re:No opportunity by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      To me, the iPhone 6 Plus looks and feels clunky. It also costs about $50 less than my Nexus 6, while being less capable. My wife adores it, though, so I got her one. iOS is a fine table OS, though; the iPad Air (with a case on it, as I feel it's just too damn thin to hold comfortably otherwise) beats any Android tablet I've ever touched. Honestly, though, the only reason I replaced my 17" MBP with another Mac when it died (rather than switching back to the PC that was already at my desk) is that I have a client who uses some Mac-only applications that I also have to be able to use. There's nothing wrong with the new MBP I bought, there's just nothing compelling about it, either, for $2700.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:No opportunity by lgw · · Score: 1

      People buy their products because they enjoy using them, and that is literally the only thing that matters. Who gives a fuck about specs and checklists? What good is a 10% faster processor in a phone that looks and feels clunky?

      For sure, a mechanical watch gives a warmth and vibrance to your records that digital just can't match with synthetic diamonds; I mean, somehow you always know, and anyhow spring colors are so last week it's like she doesn't even follow fashion it's hand built, you know, and other cars may be faster but look at those lines, it just makes me feel good when I wear it!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:No opportunity by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Even worse, taking a look at an iPhone6 I have no desire to replace my Nokia N900 with it. More shiny but less features than a phone that's over 5 years old.

    8. Re:No opportunity by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Right? I've gotten used to everything I can do in Android, mostly in the way of customization, but also the features of the phones themselves; my last three phones have been able to record 4k video, the last two have had excellent optical image stabilization and QHD displays, I only recently decided it was acceptable to give up the SD slot and removable battery because I really wanted a Nexus device. Then, there's the apps; I've bought many apps (but Android users don't buy apps, right?) that I'd have to re-buy on iOS; I've browsed the iOS app store and there are no replacements for some of them, like "Sleep as Android", which I use nightly; the closest replacement for that is FitBit's own sleep tracker, which lacks several features including realtime sleep tracking that adjusts your alarm time the ensure it isn't waking you during a period of deep sleep and the ability to record and catalog the noise you make while sleeping (I've gotten some good fart recordings out of that, and one of me whining at my cat for meowing in my ear).

      I know someone's going to argue with me over this, but once you're used to (and invested in) the Android platform and have any manufacturer's flagship device released in the past 3 years, any iPhone model is a huge step down in every way. I'm typing this on a retina MacBook Pro and bought my wife an iP6+ without hesitation, I don't hate Apple or iOS by any means, I just feel that Apple puts their OS on substandard hardware when it comes to phones; though the do manage to build tablets that are worthy of the OS offering. That's the same issue I had with Palm's WebOS; the OS was beautiful, but the hardware was abysmal.

      Mind you, I own apps on both platforms as I previously owned an iPad (which I passed along to my wife because I wasn't using it -- about 2 months before I ended up having a legitimate business need for it) and will likely own one again soon. I don't even care about the lack of customization on a tablet; I don't carry it with me everywhere like I do my phone, it's not my alarm clock and communications hub like my phone, I'm not constantly looking to it for quick bits of information (which are best accessed as quickly as possible) like my phone; if I'm picking up the tablet, I'm going to be using one or two applications for a while, where the interface of the OS will largely stay out of the way; on my phone I interact with the OS a lot more, so being able to customize that begins to matter, a lot.

      Most apple users I know seem to understand this and I don't typically get into iOS-vs-Android arguments with them every time one side or the other releases something new; I can actually discuss the different features of the phones and OSes with these people, it's quite great. I do have one iTard friend who praises everything Apple; such conversations always result in him getting very defensive, but even he was disappointed by the new MacBook, so I'm starting to see that there's hope for him.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  11. I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

    You can get pretty much any size and style of TV from a number of different vendors in a wide price range to fit any need whatsoever. You can even buy a projector if you want to turn your entire wall into a TV.

    All that Apple needs to make is a little box that plugs into the HDMI port on that TV. That's IT. Once that's done, when you turn on the TV you get the "Apple experience" and full access to their ecosystem of TV shows, movies, and music.

    The reason Apple hasn't made a TV is it's not a product segment where they can really make a difference. It would be equivalent to Apple making a power strip.

    1. Re:I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by macs4all · · Score: 2

      You can get pretty much any size and style of TV from a number of different vendors in a wide price range to fit any need whatsoever. You can even buy a projector if you want to turn your entire wall into a TV.

      All that Apple needs to make is a little box that plugs into the HDMI port on that TV. That's IT. Once that's done, when you turn on the TV you get the "Apple experience" and full access to their ecosystem of TV shows, movies, and music.

      The reason Apple hasn't made a TV is it's not a product segment where they can really make a difference. It would be equivalent to Apple making a power strip.

      What people forget is that Apple DID make a computer/TV hybrid, long ago. It was cool for its day, featuring a 68030-based PowerMac 550 all-in-one computer, and a custom TV-tuner card, which even let you do screen caps of the TV image. Apple figured it was perfect for the college-dorm market, with limited space. There was even a cool black one. Quite sexy looking.

      They sold about 10 of them.

      So, you can understand Apple's reluctance to get involved in TV again.

    2. Re:I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      The Macintosh TV was a road apple. It only had one expansion slot that had the TV capture card in it. It was slow for its time. You couldn't even watch TV in a window; it had to be full screen. There was no way to record video.

      If they had made it more capable, they might have sold more. But it was cheaper to buy a faster Mac and put a cheap TV next to it, than to buy the Macintosh TV. I know; I was there.

    3. Re:I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The Macintosh TV was a road apple. It only had one expansion slot that had the TV capture card in it. It was slow for its time. You couldn't even watch TV in a window; it had to be full screen. There was no way to record video.

      If they had made it more capable, they might have sold more. But it was cheaper to buy a faster Mac and put a cheap TV next to it, than to buy the Macintosh TV. I know; I was there.

      I was there, too. I had a consulting client who had one for a few years, and actually ran his Architectural consulting business on it, plus published the first edition of his heavily-illustrated Stagecraft book on it, too.

      I agree that the Apple TV was too weak, but it was at least an attempt at a good idea. And having only one free slot on a computer that was a "consumer"-intended product, especially a Mac, was hardly an impediment to most. Since that was a 68k All-In-One Mac, I believe it would have been a PDS slot, and other than the cool Apple //e Card, and I believe an Ethernet card, I don't believe much was available for that slot.

      Oh wait... I guess we're both wrong. According to this, the AppleTV had NO expansion slots.

    4. Re:I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The LC 520 / Performa 525 / 550 that the Macintosh TV was based on had one PDS slot. I believe they took away the slot and soldered the TV tuner where it was supposed to be.

      My dad had a Performa 525 with the Apple II compatibility card in it, and it was quite the solution for it's day - he could still get into his ancient VisiCalc spreadsheets that he'd figured out way back when for formulating bovine nutrition, and I still had (at the time) something modern for doing homework on, and playing the odd game. And, in the Apple II environment, if you wanted to add one of the many hardware additions that was available for the Apple II, it was drag-n-drop emulation.

      Pretty cool stuff for 1996.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:I don't see why Apple needs to make a TV... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The LC 520 / Performa 525 / 550 that the Macintosh TV was based on had one PDS slot. I believe they took away the slot and soldered the TV tuner where it was supposed to be.

      My dad had a Performa 525 with the Apple II compatibility card in it, and it was quite the solution for it's day - he could still get into his ancient VisiCalc spreadsheets that he'd figured out way back when for formulating bovine nutrition, and I still had (at the time) something modern for doing homework on, and playing the odd game. And, in the Apple II environment, if you wanted to add one of the many hardware additions that was available for the Apple II, it was drag-n-drop emulation.

      Pretty cool stuff for 1996.

      I think you're right about the Tuner card occupying the PDS slot. Where else would it go?
      br> Yeah, my boss had a 550 with the //e Emulation Card in it. It WAS cool! You could even hook one of the 5.25" Floppy Drives (the ones with the nasty ALPS mechanisms and the DB-25 connector) or "DuoDisk" drives (or the RARE! Lyra 3.5" Apple ][ Drives!!!) to it, and yet still hook up to AppleTalk for Printing and Networking.

      I still have a working Performa 575 that that card would work in; but they are REALLY hard to find! Oh wait... Maybe not...

  12. Re:Why do you hate on Steve Jobs? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Anyone listening to music that's less than 18 years old is a pervert?

  13. I don't see it as a "miss" at all by msobkow · · Score: 1

    I use a monitor that has built in speakers with an HDMI cable to the box provided by my IPTV provider.

    The built-in tuner that that monitor has is completely useless because the only places in Saskatchewan that still have TV broadcasts are Regina and Saskatoon -- the towers in every other location across the province were shut down when the switch to digital was made.

    You can't use the digital tuner with the IPTV or cable providers here; you have to use audio/video or HDMI inputs.

    Let's face it: outside of a few metropolitan areas, broadcast TV is already dead. Once the broadcasters got a taste of cable companies paying them carriage fees, OTA broadcasts were doomed.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Why did they shut down broadcasts during the switch to digital? Digital broadcast TV is much cheaper to maintain than analog broadcast TV was, so it seems a bit odd. You get to run 4 channels on the same transmitter that only did 1 before, and you save on power as well.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    2. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You live in Saskatchewan. You and the other 6 people there don't count.

      Seriously though, are you sure its not just that you live in a very rural destination.

      In the states, broadcast TV is MEANT for areas outside of the metro centers since thats the only place that cable providers really provide services. Once you get out of high density areas, cable ceases to exist and you have to get data via broadcast.

      We also have a mandate that all cable providers have to support CableCARD, which means you can use whatever device you want, they can't lock you into their crap hardware.

      The digital transition made OTA services better since the same towers covered larger areas instead of less.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      That's lame. I guess you can still get satellite TV though.

    4. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by msobkow · · Score: 1

      The towers used to be owned by separate companies: CBC and CTV, plus Global in the Saskatoon and Regina markets. So what good is being able to squeeze another three channels into the allocated bandwidth when there aren't three other channels to broadcast -- save for your own competition, who have their own equipment?

      As far as penetration goes, most people either subscribe to SaskTel (IPTV) or to Access Cable, or have subscribed to one of the satellite providers if they're on a farm. The number of people left in this province who want broadcast TV is very low -- mostly people who didn't want or couldn't afford to upgrade their sets to HDTV units in the first place.

      Even in Regina, I didn't know anyone who used OTA broadcasts. Those who had HDTVs wanted more selection and subscribed to SaskTel or Access, those who had SDTVs didn't have tuners capable of receiving the broadcasts and therefore still subscribed to SaskTel or Access for "legacy" connectors to their old TVs.

      Personally I suspect that the only reason there are still broadcasts coming out of Saskatoon and Regina is there is probably some legal requirement that there be a broadcast tower if you have a studio for the channel in a given market. The studios here in Yorkton were shut down several years before the DTV switch was made, so there was no legal requirement for them to continue broadcasting here.

      It's not like channels earn money by broadcasting any more. As I mentioned, most people are not watching OTA broadcasts any more, and the cable/IPTV companies pay the broadcasters for the rights to carry their channels; OTA broadcasts do not generate any such revenue stream.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by amorsen · · Score: 1

      In Denmark, several muxes are run pretty much the same way any cable TV operator would, except the build-out costs per subscriber are obviously lower because no cables need to go into the ground. Broadcasts are encrypted and people buy cards which unlock the channel packages they decide to pay for. Just like cable, but with somewhat fewer channels.

      It seems like you would be able to cover the majority of the residents of Saskatoon with a single antenna mast. That should be plenty to make it economically viable. Particularly if the mast is already there with power and everything available, just waiting for equipment.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      And, as someone that fired Time Warner's shoddy excuse for a DVR a year or so ago, I have to say that CableCARD has been an incredible success. Moving from their shit hardware to mine + CableCARD paid for my hardware in 8 months of not renting their hardware I hate, and I'm now saving money over what I was paying before, for an improved service level and massively expanded capability.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  14. Define "Lackluster" by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's gotten lackluster support across the board.

    I'm curious why you think an HBO exclusive deal to stream without a cable subscription on AppleTV is "lackluster". I wasn't ever going to get an AppleTV myself but that sealed it (along with the price drop).

    The only thing the AppleTV is missing that many people might want, is Amazon Prime... and there's a lot of overlap between them and Netflix, which Apple does have.

    Apple has been treating AppleTV as a hobby, sure, but that doesn't mean the support for AppleTV has been at all lackluster.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Define "Lackluster" by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      It's gotten lackluster support across the board.

      I'm curious why you think an HBO exclusive deal to stream without a cable subscription on AppleTV is "lackluster". I wasn't ever going to get an AppleTV myself but that sealed it (along with the price drop).

      Hopefully, your ISP isn't Comcast.

      Comcast has blocked access to "HBO Go" on Amazon, Roku, and Sony Playstation. It's likely that they'll block "HBO Now" on Apple TV as well. That's actually one of the reasons HBO made this three-months exclusivity deal with Apple, because it's hoping that Comcast backs down against Apple.

      If Comcast doesn't back down, I guess you'll be stuck watching Game of Thrones just like the rest of us through your TV screen via your computer, because Comcast doesn't block computers, it just blocks specialized TV devices.

    2. Re:Define "Lackluster" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It's limited but consider that is basically most of this years Game Of Thrones season, and as a result must have cost Apple quite a bit of money... again that is the opposite of "lack of attention".

      Even though the window seems small it is a huge opportunity to push sales of AppleTV now at a low price, ahead of probably a large AppleTV revamp later this year, possibly with third party apps on the AppleTV.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Define "Lackluster" by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      The AppleTV sat in the corner of Apple Stores for a long time, doing pretty much nothing. I worked at one between "real" jobs about five years ago, and whenever a customer noticed the AppleTV and asked about it, I described it as "Apple best-kept secret". Not that it was a difficult secret to keep, because there was almost nothing to say about it. I don't recall ever selling one. Granted, that was a rather different device from the current streaming box (my other pitch line was "an iPod for your movies"), but it was definitely a "hobby" in the same sense that the IRS defines one: something you do on the side without expecting to make any money from it.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Define "Lackluster" by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Comcast lifted the HBO Go on Roku (at least) restriction months ago.

    5. Re:Define "Lackluster" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Even though Apple doesn't push it nor does anyone else (as you noted), it sure seems like they have sold a lot of them anyway. With some marketing on HBO's part I think they could sell quite a few more...

      Given how rarely they change the hardware I'll be Apple is actually making a pretty good margin on the AppleTV too.

      It also makes a lot of sense for many people to stream video from all kinds of applications from other networks (like Lifetime or Bravo or whatever), I'll probably be using it for that also.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Define "Lackluster" by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      If they're selling a lot of them, that's something new. As I said: I went a year without selling one.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  15. The 20th Anniversary Macintosh by Kremmy · · Score: 1

    That model of Macintosh was a Road Apple. It had specifications that put it in line with Macintosh models that cost half as much. It was notoriously bad for what it cost, what was in it, and how it held up in real world usage. In 1998, Apple released a Macintosh model for 1,299.99 called the "iMac" that performed better than the $7,500 20th Anniversary Macintosh.

    It had nothing to do with the TV tuner. That Mac was junk.

    1. Re:The 20th Anniversary Macintosh by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      12,000 only made; never intended for mass production.

      It was a Jony Ive concept machine - the iMac G4 didn't debut an LCD desktop until almost 5 years later.

    2. Re:The 20th Anniversary Macintosh by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It was a PowerBook 3400 in desktop plastics with some other crap bolted on, and some fancy speakers.

      It's good that they only did a limited production run, because it was garbage compared to other desktops they were shipping at the time for far less money.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  16. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by Art3x · · Score: 1

    TV is dead anyways

    Not only are people cutting the cord, but the new generation is not even buying the large screen to put in their living room. Instead, they're using their laptops and tablets.

  17. "Viewing" Viewing Evolution in real time by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs had a habit of looking 10-20 years into the future for where Apple would move to in product use. Cable with 300 channels is doomed and SJ saw that. Why do I need a TV to view the one or two programs I want to see at night? Why do I need a "big screen" for news?

    Young people are more interested in mobile and sharing clips, than most older people and that is evolution. Older retirees often look at TV as a companion or avocation in lieu of something/anything else to do.

    I see cable and even fixed mega-size TVs as dinosaurs. You want a big screen, go to a movie house.

    1. Re:"Viewing" Viewing Evolution in real time by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was more in line as to why there's no FM tuner in iPods. That way you need to buy shows/music/movies from iTunes.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    2. Re:"Viewing" Viewing Evolution in real time by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I love streamed video content. I love it so much that I have a PLEX server and every frame of video I own has been converted to MKV and is available at a few presses of the remote. That being said, the idea of "you want a big screen, go to a movie house" is ridiculous - you need look no further than the sales of HDTVs since they hit the market to see that.

      I don't want to pay $13 to sit in their uncomfortable chairs and deal with all the inconsiderate assholes that go to movie theaters. I want to pay far less than that, stretch out on my nice leather couch, and still get premium video quality and surround sound.

      And I do, with what I own in my house. And I don't have to pay exorbitant prices for refreshments. And if I need to use the restroom, the playback pauses and waits for me to get back.

      You call cable and fixed TVs dinosaurs, I call the movie theater that predates them the pool of muck the dinosaurs crawled out of.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Doesn't compute. by quax · · Score: 1, Insightful

    He was also CEO of Pixair and clearly got movies.

    Nowadays it's all about recreating movie atmosphere in your living room.

  19. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by theVarangian · · Score: 2

    TV is dead anyways. I am no fanboy but this makes me like Steve Jobs a little more. The fact that he liked some things and hated others gave the company a vision and gave him a passion. Google could learn from this instead of scattershotting with everything with 'me too products' that fail and just hurt the brand ( and waste money). TV in that era was especially bad, I can't stand people that like sitcoms. protip=friends, the big bang theory, and cheers are all the same show. A bad one.

    I agree, the future of visual entertainment is streaming, not selling people an obscenely expensive and bloated package of crappy TV cannels just so they can watch a handful of them to catch their favorate shows. If the Steve saw that coming over a decade ago thn swearing that "Apple will never make a TV again" sounds more like farsigtedness than an oversight. There is a reason people use bittorent and it's not that all bittorenters are cheapskates (althoug may motivate some of them) it's more that they like the convenience of the on-demand delivery mechanism.

  20. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by johncandale · · Score: 1

    No TV tuners thou

  21. Shows by JBMcB · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the future is subscribing to shows instead of channels. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a couple dozen really good shows to watch, than $100 a month for those same good shows, plus 200 other shows I never watch.

    --
    My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    1. Re:Shows by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Subscribing to shows instead of channels was (is?) the iTunes model of selling TV. I don't think the market wants that. (Which is good, because it would it would spell the end of the "sleeper" hit, or most niche programming.) Ye olde radio, traditional basic cable, and the current popularity of streaming music all point to a desire for access to a general mass of content, for people to select from without a whole lot of thought.

      In the next several years I think we're going to move to a hybrid subscription-to-channels/libraries model, where people pay a monthly fee to ESPN, HBO, Syfy, WWE, Golf, or some other collection of content that appeals to their interests (much like people used to subscribe to magazines), along with a general service or two like Hulu or Netflix which offers a package of content that roughly corresponds to the old broadcast and basic-cable networks.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  22. How's it a miss? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Sounds like he didn't "miss" at all. He made a deliberate decision, and stuck with it. This is just one of those things where some moron looks backwards and assumes things had to be a certain way.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  23. Re:Why do you hate on Steve Jobs? by macs4all · · Score: 1

    Stop the name calling, you insensitive jerk! How would you like to be called an audiophile?

    TRULY LOL!!!

  24. Was it really a big miss? by cashman73 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Was it really a big miss? Or was it intentional? Maybe the reason why Steve Jobs steered Apple away from making a TV was that he foresaw the complete disaster in the TV and cable industry, and saw everything moving online. Even with iTunes, you've been able to buy TV episodes and movies there for at least a decade. And TV viewing is shifting towards online streaming on other devices that Apple has dominated (iPhones, iPads, etc) for several years now. There's already plenty of manufacaturers making large screen televisions, and in the past 10-15 years, that has shifted from CRTs and analog to flat screens and digital. There was no reason for Apple to get into the business of making large screen TVs when all that was going to shift anyways. Apple TV was sufficient to allow those that cared to bring digital content to their big screen TV, but Jobs didn't care much for that medium, so Apple stopped at that.

  25. Don't care. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Really don't care.

  26. Steve Jobs's Big Miss: TV .. by DougPaulson · · Score: 1

    If the future of the Web is 'television' then he didn't miss much ...

  27. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

    If it was bad then it is worse now. You had TV Series. A lot was sitcoms sure but you had sci-fi, action, etc as well.

    Today you have reality shows and news you've read on the Internet two days before.

  28. TV was not Steve Jobs' big miss by GrumpySteen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Skipping conventional medicine and trying to treat his cancer with alternative medicine for as long as he did was a much bigger mistake.

    1. Re:TV was not Steve Jobs' big miss by rainer_d · · Score: 1
      Probably.
      But he could also have died during that "routine" operation. Or left in a coma, because the doctor or someone on his team screwed up.
      Nobody can say that for sure.
      What we can be quite sure of is that Steve Jobs, when he realized that a fruit-juice diet wasn't really helpful and pursued the "conventional medicine"-path, woke-up from the operation soon knowing that he was basically living on borrowed time.
      In the remaining time, he created (and drove his employees very hard) a lot of new or updated products that laid the foundation for Apple being more than a very big company. Apple is now really an empire.
      Whatever you think of him - he made more of his life than most of us can dare to achieve in three or four lives.

      As for TVs - I'm glad Apple skipped that. Just look at the mind-bogglingly brutal deprecation these things have come under recently.
      TVs selling for thousands a couple of years ago can now be had for hundreds.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
    2. Re:TV was not Steve Jobs' big miss by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      Alternative medicine guaranteed that he would die sooner than later.
      Routine operation, while it did have risks of a quicker death, at least had a good chance of extending his life.

  29. USB dongle by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

    Seriously, $30 retail for a DVB-T tuner to watch free to air digital...

    Another FUD article denigrating the great leader? Jobs missed nothing.

    Of course Apple ][ machines used TVs for output via RF modulation.

    1. Re:USB dongle by jrumney · · Score: 1

      To use a USB DVB-T dongle, you need a USB port. Preferably not the one that your power cord is plugged into.

  30. Conflicts w/ his first biography by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    At least, I was assume it was in his biography (as I never read it). But when it came out, there were quite a few reports that Jobs said he had figured out TV interfaces:

    It's entirely possible that because he didn't like the TVs, he had come up with a better UI ... but we haven't seen a dramatic revision of the Apple TV since he died ... so we might never know what it was that he came up with.

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  31. Baloney by Whatchamacallit · · Score: 1

    Just because Apple hasn't released a TV solution beyond the AppleTV doesn't mean they are not working on it. Just because Jobs killed a TV project also doesn't mean anything. Jobs killed absolutely every project except for Pro laptops & desktops and Consumer laptops & desktops when he took over as CEO. Apple was about to collapse, they were about 4-6 weeks away from financial ruin. Drastic measures had to be taken.

    Apple is the only company that can disrupt the TV/Movie industry and deliver such an experience to the regular consumer. No one else can pull it off. The problem is cutting deals with the networks and content owners. HBO is one of the first. HBO has finally realized that Game of Thrones is the most pirated show on the Internet. That is because there are a hundred million plus people who wish to see it but cannot for various reasons. Most of them would pay if there was a way to do it without needing a cable or satellite contract. They have finally opened their eyes and seen the light. They can make more money selling direct worldwide then they ever could by bundling with cable and satellite. Once their sales numbers release, it will begin to make sense to other networks. They might be restricting the streaming to AppleTV and perhaps just the USA for the moment, but they should be ramping up their ability to stream to people worldwide. Because thats were the money is and that's where your customers are. Someone in South Korea, Germany, etc. should be able to connect to HBO Go and subscribe.

    The level of piracy is constantly increasing and what's worse for the dinosaur media is that it is getting easier and easier and more and more user friendly. So much so that the executives for these companies should not be sleeping at night. The new consumers want the content but they want the freedom to view it on their own terms. They don't want DRM, they don't want restrictions nor barriers, they don't want annoying ads and they are willing to pay but not too much.

  32. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    I've never been pissed off about a show being cancelled before. This one did it, though.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  33. HBO Go is not the same thing as HBO Now by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    What you are talking about is HBO Go, which requires the streaming application to verify you are a valid subscriber - only right now that verification system is failing on Comcast:

    "Comcast doesn't really give an answer other than to say the massive (and soon to get much larger) company only has so many people available to ensure TV Everywhere authentication works on new devices"

    HBO Now (I think that's the new name) is a totally new AppleTV only app, that you pay HBO directly for a subscription - it has its own authentication system, and is basically just like Netflix only with HBO. There's no reason to think it will not work.

    Personally, I think it's insane HBO has two different systems, but there you have it...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  34. he was right, but ahead of his time by Tom · · Score: 1

    TV is a declining medium. 15 years ago, when I removed the TV from my home, I was an exotic. Since then, more and more people I meet also don't have a TV, especially young people. And a lot of the others use it to watch movies from DVD or download/streaming, not any TV station.

    It's big still and thanks to exclusive deals for events like olympics and world cups, it will stay around for many more years, but it's a medium on the way to exit, and two generations from now it will be part of media history like gramophone records or cassette tapes.

    Innovation in this area will only speed up its decline. Heck, even the "Apple TV" thing doesn't really do television - it replaces television with iTunes media consumption.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  35. Was it a mistake? by dbIII · · Score: 1

    TV tuner cards have been available for ages but hardly anyone bothers to put one in a PC.

  36. Cable TV provider Killer by dlt074 · · Score: 1

    the HBO deal, is the death of cable tv companies as we know it. they may even know it. this is really huge and a big win for everyone. no government imposed fake, net "neutrality" needed, the quasi free market working it out.

    when the consumer can pick and choose the channels they really want to watch, and only pay for those, you win and the producers of real content win.

    I wonder if this deal was in the works when Steve Jobs was still around, because if so, he really did revolutionize tv as we know it in the late 20th and early 21st century.

    those of you not understanding the significance of this deal, you will in a few years. wait for it...

  37. Re:passions count. 'me too!' products suck anyways by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

    I agree, the future of visual entertainment is streaming, not selling people an obscenely expensive and bloated package of crappy TV cannels just so they can watch a handful of them to catch their favorate shows.

    I worked on an "IPTV" project 10 years ago when it was all new and whizz bang, but unfortunately it requires a half decent Internet service, which sadly even 10 years later most people don't have access to.

  38. Distinction Between TV and TV by misterduffy · · Score: 1

    It didn't start with the Apple TV or even the Anniversary Mac. Apple got straight into delivering on demand TV into the home with the advent of broadband: There are no definitive details on how or why the project was cancelled, but it's right around the time Jobs made his comeback. Personally, I think he liked the idea of the project but knew it was sub-standard and didn't yet know how to do it 'the Apple Way'. Once the iPod came along and changed the way we listen to music, he had the means to change the way we watch TV and the Apple TV was born (an iPod for video). Remember the distinction between TV (as in broadcast programming) and TV (as in the device). The former is analogous to the record labels - Apple is neither a record label nor a TV channel, but makes a great technological middle-man. The latter is the means by which Apple gets into the living room (much as it did with the Airport Express for music) but it couldn't do that adequately until the technology became available.

  39. You keep using that word... by Jawnn · · Score: 1

    (audiophile). In the context of iTunes, which sells low-fidelity recordings in mp3 format, I do not think it means what you think it means. I'm no golden-ear audiophile, but even I can hear the difference between an mp3 and any of a half dozen lossless codecs. For all practical purposes, one can not buy quality audio in digital (no physical media) form. The reason for that is mp3, and the blame for that we may rightly lay at Apple/Jobs' feet.