Not everything goes how we'd like and screaming kids are just one of the things we have to accept. Parents should, and generally do, use judgement when taking small children out, but we can't ban children from life's functions (nor should we).
People need to stop thinking so selfishly. Next time you hear a child scream just think about how good your life is and how much worse it could possibly be. If you're reading/. life can't be all that bad (thoug it could be better;-) ).
"The "typical home user" as you refer to him/her also does not want to use their TV as their computer."
Speak for yourself, but you mini isn't suited for that user, either. That's what the iTV is for (and the media center extenders that the iTV copied). I, and my guests, love browsing on my TV, but I have large RPTV sets that do 1080 and find them well suited to the task.
Remember that this all started with the claim that the mini was the ideal device to connect to the TV. No matter how you slice it, the mini isn't the right device.
"If I were wrong then HTPC's would be more prevalent than they are."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. There are plenty of reasons why HTPC's aren't more prevalent. We're in the early adopter phase right now. Windows solutions suck, Linux ones are even worse, and Apple offers nothing at all. Prior HTPCs were unappealing because HDTV didn't exist and HDTV adoption still isn't that great. Amazon and iTunes have just begun to offer a variety of content. The market is brand new.
"Clearly the consumer is looking for something better, and the mini is currently the most likely candidate being offered that a "typical home user" will get exposed to."
No, for your "typical home user" the iTV/MCE extender is. That appears to be what Apple thinks as well. Remember, Apple has a 5% marketshare; the "typical home user" uses a PC.
"Your setup is great and all that, but it's also costly and complicated to integrate for the "typical home user"."
My setup is costly but not complicated. It's simply two HTPCs and an additional application that syncs them. ---much simpler than your mini plus network fileserver plus backup solution. The reason mine is costly is that quality, silent HTPCs aren't cheap. A mini with additional RAM, addon tuners, and a separate fileserver, a backup device, and a backup solution would be equally expensive (per TV) and far more complex. A mac plus an iTV is more economical (but offers no backup solution) and that's the direction Apple is taking.
"Your HTPC should be a portal for media, not the full blown computer with fans, heat, noise, size, etc sitting next to your elegant TV/DVD/Receiver, etc."
My HTPC is a portal for media, it's a full blown computer (as is the mini) that is totally silent, compact, and styled to look exactly like a home theater component. It is far more compatible with the living room than a mini which is styled to look conspicuously like an Apple computer product.
"Those consumer devices are usually designed to be sleek and have a uniform feel."
Yes, like my HTPC and unlike the mini.
"It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong, that something *LIKE* a Mac Mini would be an ideal solution."
Of course opinions can be wrong. What gave you that idea? Of course, something *LIKE* a mini might very well be provided it offered more storage, more appropriate industrial design, and TV tuner options (like current HTPCs).
"You'll also note that my comment said they needed to add a built-in HD tuner and CableCard before the solution would work."
Then it wouldn't be a mini, would it? CableCard doesn't work in PC's and the cable companies don't want it to.
"I don't think that the ideal setup will entail the storage medium to be situated locally."
Then you don't understand the typical home user. Remote storage isn't something the typical consumer will even understand. On top of that, mac's don't do all that well as network filesystem clients. Hopefully Apple will fix that with Leopard. My PowerMac was easily the worst network client I've used in over a decade and my G4 mini was bad as well. They have some serious kernel locking issues to sort out.
"I think that most people who build up a large media collection will keep that on a data server somewhere so that they can maintain backups,..."
You don't need a remote server to maintain backups.
"...watch it from other systems in the house, etc."
Don't need a remote server for that either.
"In which case, all you really need is a network connection (could be terrestrial, could be wireless) to stream that media to a decoding / display unit, like the Mini."
Most households will have one HTPC, not several. In those applications, a remote file server serves no purpose, is hard to understand for the average user, costs more money and is less reliable. All this to make up for the fact that the mini is poorly suited to the task.
I personally have two HTPCs, each backs the other up, and each can play whatever content I have. I have no need or justification for a remote file server, my machines look far better in the equipment rack than a mini ever could, they are totally silent, have Core Duo processors, 1GB of memory and 1TB of storage, they both have HD tuners, and they both play ALL content available including DRMed WMV files and iTunes files should I want them. The mini can't hope to compare. Apple needs to replace the mini with a more capable box but instead they do the iTV:-(
"The original NT kernel was indeed very elegant, but couldn't deliver acceptable performance."
The kernel itself performed fine but other subsystems, most notably graphics, couldn't. As for elegance, you have any personal experience with it? I have, and the original NT shipped with a driver that I authored.
"The current state of NT is unfortunately not quite as pristine as you seem to believe."
When did I ever say that? The OS X kernel "is unfortunately not quite as pristine as you seem to believe."
"As an example, consider that scalable network stacks exist in Solaris."
Why should I? The subject at hand is SMP scalability, not Solaris network stacks.
"Apple has long trackrecord of actually embracing fairly radical change when necessary."
That certainly is a sound defense of OS X SMP performance you offered there. What does the absurd speculation about Apple switching to Solaris, scalable network stacks and dtrace name-dropping have to do with SMP scalablity between OS X and WinXP?
Flickr users are likely to be creative enthusists./. users are likely to be juvenile amateurs.
In both cases the popular equipment isn't necessarily the best. In photography it's not necessary to have the finest equipment to do the finest work (especially on the web) and those who have a true need for the best gear aren't likely to participate on a public website. As for/. you'd figure Apple had 80% marketshare.
"...but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I've heard is much more capable once you move past four."
Wonder where you heard that.
"That being the case, as multiple CPUs/cores become more commonplace, I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two."
Reputation maybe, after all OS X has the reputation of being God's gift in certain circles. Somehow I think reality will be different just as it is now. NT's design is vastly newer, was designed from the start as SMP and has supported large CPU counts forever. OS X, on the other hand, has the antique Mach at its core and still has serious locking issues that can seriously impede performance in certain situations. Apple hasn't offering anything beyond quad-core and only recently has it offered that. OS X may be a lot of things but fast isn't one of them. Microsoft has a huge headstart here.
"I'm still a firm believer that the Mac Mini is the best candidate (convenient design, DVI output, HD resolution output, remote control, networkable), they just need to add an HD tuner or two and CableCard support."
A convenient design is one that has an inadequate hard drive, zero exapandability, and required tuners attached to USB or Firewire? Don't forget that the mini can't take a real hard drive and not PC, Apple or otherwise, can take CableCard.
Any PC can offer DVI, HD resolution output, remote control, and networking. There are far better PC's for the job than the mini.
"Aside from a few MC*Es and Microsoft employees, I am aware of nobody who has ever (or would ever) connect their PC to their television."
Now you know one. I have PCs connected to TVs in two locations. Each is running 1080. Prior to my current apartment I used one connected at 720p.
"Microsoft zealots delude themselves into believing that something that doesn't work, doesn't have legs and is heading nowhere slowly actually has a chance of survival."
By that comment, I hope you aren't referring to me. I know that MCE is a piece of crap. MCE and Frontrow are equivalents on the two platforms, however.
"Front-Row is a product designed to be turned on and used with a remote with 5 buttons and no skills."
MCE would be if it didn't also have TV tuner/DVR functions. Only Apple thinks that users can't use a remote with more than a few buttons.
"The iTV (!!) box is designed and marketed to be plugged in to a television and used with no skills."
Where did they say that? The media center extender is the same product.
"It is also sold specifically to be attached to a TV to watch movies, it is not bundled into a general purpose PC guerilla marketing style by PHBs that mistakenly believe that once the user realizes he has a media center on his desktop that he will move his PC to the living room and attach it to his television."
Yeah, well neither is media center extender. In fact, the two are identical products conceptually.
"In comparison, MCE is something that is really only owned accidentally by people who don't even know they have it (because it was bundled with their PC from Best Buy), it requires the PC to be near the TV rather than on a desk and requires the user to know how to configure it and operate it with some crazy 300 button remote control (exaggeration, but the point is clearly made)."
MCE does not require a TV to operate. It's remote is not unlike thousands of living room remotes that people have already.
"It would probably require a class to get a user comfortable with the relationship between and configurations of MCE and Microsoft Media Player (and the derivitaves such as Amazon Unbox)."
Umm no. When using MCE you don't use WMP. Apparently you know nothing about MCE.
"It really doesn't matter if MCE can do any of the things that Front-Row does (which it really doesn't because Microsoft doesn't use zero-conf [bonjour] and whatnot)."
We all know that bonjour is a knockout substitute for DVR and live TV functions that MCE provides. Get real.
"The simple fact is, it is not designed or marketed in a manner that will ever be used that way by the common man."
By common man I assume you mean the 5% mac user. Of that I am certain.
"To say that something *can* be done is not the same as saying that people *will* do it. You *can* write an assembly language CGI script library for publishing a Blog site. But I doubt you *will*..."
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'd sure like to see you write a CGI script in assembly. I don't think you quite know what you're talking about there.
First off, I was not the one to confuse Frontrow with iTV nor was I the one to make the senseless comparison between iTV and MCE (you were). You may believe that attaching a PC to a television is worthless but there are very good reasons for doing it and many failed attempts in the past (because TVs had horrible resolution). Now with HDTV and a sufficiently large screen, PC usage on the TV is a very effective experience and my media center PC is the most used computer in the house. Once Apple invents the idea, I'm sure you'll understand.
Now, if you're the type that wants the PC in one room and the TV in another then the iTV may work well. Windows had that solution first, though, and you could buy that now if you liked. Apple has most definitely not come up with anything new in the iTV.
Perhaps, but you certainly made some absolute statements, some of which aren't supported by facts. For example:
"This system will certainly be easy easy." "Not only is it simple, but it doesn't break the user's metaphor for how these things work."" "Xbox 360 breaks the metaphor." "then I go to the movie store on the xbox. I browse and press download." "But the issue here is that the experience seems a little more confusing, just a little harder to deal with." "Apple comes around with a thing that is like an ipod for your tv."...
Yes, it's a fact that Apple has their ease-of-use schtick down to a fine art, and when you look at the solution they're putting together it looks suspiciously like what MS has been trying to do only longer. Apple will market their way into convincing buyers that they are somehow unique and innovative with iTV even though it's a clone of an MS product. There's plenty of evidence that many here have already been duped.
Ultimately, if Apple's iTV product and their iTunes/Frontrow software all work together well then they will lead in the market. MCE works horribly but MS has already had 3 versions of it and is about to release its fourth. Personally, I don't want an extender like iTV. I want to browse on the HD TV itself. I want a mac that can record or interface with the new TIVO, that looks like a stereo component, and has 2 3.5" hard drive bays.
"As someone who only lightly follows product releases, I look at both the media center ability of the 360, and the media center ability of the iTV. But it's only the iTV that's simple enough for me to understand how it works by just looking at a picture of the product."
Really? You can tell to work it just by looking at a picture of the product?
Why don't you buy a dedicated media center extender then instead of an XBox? They're cheaper and perform the identical function that iTV does. In fact, one could say Apple copied the idea. Here's a picture so that you can know how to use it:
"However, I also agree with some of the posters that this is a temporary situation. We will see HD content as soon as Steve can deliver it."
Perhaps, but the same is true for "Steve"'s competitors.
"Steve is probably pulling his typical genius manuevers on them."
Haha
"With the new Front-Row box it becomes possible to sit on your couch and surf through your movie collection and (presumably) watch previews and order new films for your collection all with your remote.It is simply the most eloquent PPV system ever conceived and it turns your mac or PC into a media server on the sly."
Frontrow is Apple's weakminded copy of MCE that can't do recording. What you're referring to is iTV. iTV is far from "the most eloquent PPV system ever conceived", it's in fact a direct copy of Microsoft Media Center extender.
"Amazon Unbox really is (unbox - no box, no Front-Row). All the disadvantages with none of the advantages. Sad, really."
Amazon may well be sad, but it's conceivable that it can use existing media center extenders and it could use them before Apple even gets iTV to market.
so you're suggesting that they add a hard drive through USB, then add tuners through USB, then add software to the menus to enable recording? I think not.
The iTV is a dumb head that receives content from an iTunes server. The PC is what would be used for recording (except Apple doesn't do that itself). Get video into iTunes and the iTV can play it.
"Xbox 360 breaks the metaphor. Ok, so I want to buy a movie. I plug in my xbox 360 (wait...isn't that for games?) then I go to the movie store on the xbox. I browse and press download. Ok...where are my movies living now? On the xbox? Uhhh..ok...but what if I turn off the xbox?"
Don't know why you assume this. The XBox360 is a multifunction device so you'll need to set it into media extender mode (or buy a fixed function extender just like the iTV). After that, there's no reason the experience will be any different than Apple's. You assume that the mac user buys his movie through iTunes and then assume that the XBox owner does not. Why? The Xbox owner can buy his movie on the PC just as well. Even the interface shown in the iTV looks suspeciously like Media Center.
"But the issue here is that the experience seems a little more confusing..."
How can you possibly know that? The iTV isn't even shipping and MS isn't selling movies yet (unless you count Amazon). You're just making this crap up.
"The previous barrier to mp3 player adoption was the complexity in sorting music and getting it on the device."
There you go making stuff up again. mp3 players were in their early adoption phase when Apple entered the market. Apple didn't do anything differently, they just made players that were prettier. Agreed that MusicMatch was a POS but iTunes was not "easier to use" than other jukeboxes fundamentally. The barrier at that time was simply unfamiliarity and lack of quality products in the market.
"Apple comes around with a thing that is like an ipod for your tv. Easy. The consumer will not be afraid of this because they already have an idea of how this works..."
More crap you're just imagining and stating as though it were fact. The iTV hasn't shipped and hasn't proven itself to anyone. The fact is that it's simply Apple's me-too version of the media extender which MS has already do and brought to market. Nothing we have seen so far demonstrates that it's better than the Windows equivalent. It may be but we have to wait and see.
"The objection to the xBox 360 is that people think of it as a game console and using it to download movies is going to sound complex, even if it isn't."
That's because you've assumed how it works even thought it doesn't.
"So like a sibling poster said, the major innovation here is marketing..."
Except he was being sarcastic.
"Let's be serious...microsoft does not have a reputation for ease of use."
Yes, more clever marketing from Apple.
I have used Media Center and I have an XBox 360. Frankly, Media Center sucks but it's miles ahead of Apple's equivalent right now. iTV changes nothing. I would prefer a mac that's suited to connect to the living room TV via 1080i or 1080p and offer better storage options than the mini. If they offered that they'd stand a chance of actually being better than MCE.
Re:Another example of the "Old Boy's Network"
on
HP's Dunn Stepping Down
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
No need to attach her gender to the issue. Criminal is enough.
Curiously, I've always felt that board members were inherently criminal;-) For the most part, board member seats are used to gain inside access to politics and favor within other large corporations. It's scary to see just how interconnected boards really are.
Note that the post I commented on referred to PowerPC in the server room. It has never had presence there with the minor exception of the recent IBM G5 blades.
"Note this is distinct from POWER, which was IBM's branding of their architecture for their microprocessors."
IBM makes lots of processors including PowerPC embedded processors and POWER processors for their server line. POWER was the name of ONE of their architectures. POWER and PowerPC are not the same. Apparently the will be in the future. Goodbye PowerPC. We won't miss you.
"Ah, ok. right. what was it then? he could have just said "I'm not going to answer that question. I don't care" - his answer stated that he sees no future in apple."
He did not say that. First off, it was an interview of MD and had nothing to do with Apple, yet the journalist decided to ask MD what he'd do if he was taking over Apple as Jobs was. His initial reaction was that he wouldn't take that job. When pressed for an answer, he said he'd liquidate the company.
That should surprise no one who understands MD's business viewpoint. MD did not desire to comment on Apple as he no interest in a capital-intensive, high margin business. I've tried to explain that to you, but I don't think you are interested in understanding. His response was "my opinion doesn't matter because i'm not suited to be CEO of Apple".
"sales of desktops (which are what I meant) are stagnating...i'd say wait five years."
businesses need desktops yet people have been predicting notebooks to replace desktops for over 10 years. it won't happen, but if it does Dell sells those notebooks. Apple does not sell into business; they've tried, failed, and given up. Closed systems, like you mentioned, don't play in business either.
"the fact is that it didn't...(this is just brain dead, I don't believe I'm actualy continuing this silly argument)"
I can't help that you aren't able to think objectively. It's your problem, not mine.
"Oh sure! that strategy worked great for them with thier mp3 initiative."
Look who's complaining about silly arguments! Apple badge-engineers just as Dell does and it's not hard to find successful Dell badge-engineered products. Their monitors are very successful.
"Anyway, it was FUD, and has been proven to be wrong."
It wasn't FUD nor proven to be wrong. FUD is a technique of misinformation meant to harm a competitor. MD was pressed by a journalist to comment on another business that he didn't consider a competitor and he never predicted Apple's demise. He himself said that he would not be a good candidate for the job.
"Fighting over the comodity PC sales in this day and age is like fighting over Minicomputer sales in the begining of the 80s."
Only if you believe that PCs are destined to disappear from the market (which I'm thinking you do). PCs aren't disappearing. On the contrary, PCs are not being phased out of business and that's where Dell and its large competitors do their volume.
"Dell knows this (hence Mp3 players, alienware, XPS, etc) - but they don't have the R&D knowhow and the right brand recognition to make a viable play in this field."
Dell, by virtue of its immense size, recognizes that it must diversify its markets and it has done so. Dell doesn't have to have R&D to slap its name on consumer electronics products. The world is littered with successful companies that do just that, some (like Sharper Image for example) even do it with premium products. Your examples aren't even that relevant. One has failed and the other two have not.
"I don't know the extent of involvment and testing dell does with Intel, but this argument sounds like bullshit to me (and it's totaly irrelevent to this disscussion)."
Dell was Intel's largest partner and biggest contributor to Intel's development of their own OEM motherboard business; a business Apple now uses for its motherboard designs. Dell contributes heavily to Intel's development of future MB's and chipsets. Yes, the point is irrelevant but all of yours is as well. No, it's not bullshit, though your likening of Dell to SGI is.
The fact was that Apple was staring at a future much like SGI did. It's stock was in the tank, it's computer hardware uncompetitive, it's OS antiquated and its developer base disappearing. Apple reinvented itself and is successful today but that doesn't make it's history any different nor make Michael Dell's comments at the time any less correct. I seriously doubt MD cares whether Apple succeeds or fails. If Apple succeeds, all MD cares about is if he can profit from it. MD sold iPods while he could, he sold HP Laserjets while he could, he expressed interest in sell OS X for PCs. Michael doesn't care what the customer wants to buy, he only wants to sell it to him.
Slashdot Mirror
...and don't document your training.
Not everything goes how we'd like and screaming kids are just one of the things we have to accept. Parents should, and generally do, use judgement when taking small children out, but we can't ban children from life's functions (nor should we).
/. life can't be all that bad (thoug it could be better ;-) ).
People need to stop thinking so selfishly. Next time you hear a child scream just think about how good your life is and how much worse it could possibly be. If you're reading
"The "typical home user" as you refer to him/her also does not want to use their TV as their computer."
Speak for yourself, but you mini isn't suited for that user, either. That's what the iTV is for (and the media center extenders that the iTV copied). I, and my guests, love browsing on my TV, but I have large RPTV sets that do 1080 and find them well suited to the task.
Remember that this all started with the claim that the mini was the ideal device to connect to the TV. No matter how you slice it, the mini isn't the right device.
"If I were wrong then HTPC's would be more prevalent than they are."
I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow. There are plenty of reasons why HTPC's aren't more prevalent. We're in the early adopter phase right now. Windows solutions suck, Linux ones are even worse, and Apple offers nothing at all. Prior HTPCs were unappealing because HDTV didn't exist and HDTV adoption still isn't that great. Amazon and iTunes have just begun to offer a variety of content. The market is brand new.
"Clearly the consumer is looking for something better, and the mini is currently the most likely candidate being offered that a "typical home user" will get exposed to."
No, for your "typical home user" the iTV/MCE extender is. That appears to be what Apple thinks as well. Remember, Apple has a 5% marketshare; the "typical home user" uses a PC.
"Your setup is great and all that, but it's also costly and complicated to integrate for the "typical home user"."
My setup is costly but not complicated. It's simply two HTPCs and an additional application that syncs them. ---much simpler than your mini plus network fileserver plus backup solution. The reason mine is costly is that quality, silent HTPCs aren't cheap. A mini with additional RAM, addon tuners, and a separate fileserver, a backup device, and a backup solution would be equally expensive (per TV) and far more complex. A mac plus an iTV is more economical (but offers no backup solution) and that's the direction Apple is taking.
"Your HTPC should be a portal for media, not the full blown computer with fans, heat, noise, size, etc sitting next to your elegant TV/DVD/Receiver, etc."
..."
:-(
My HTPC is a portal for media, it's a full blown computer (as is the mini) that is totally silent, compact, and styled to look exactly like a home theater component. It is far more compatible with the living room than a mini which is styled to look conspicuously like an Apple computer product.
"Those consumer devices are usually designed to be sleek and have a uniform feel."
Yes, like my HTPC and unlike the mini.
"It's my opinion, and opinions can't be wrong, that something *LIKE* a Mac Mini would be an ideal solution."
Of course opinions can be wrong. What gave you that idea? Of course, something *LIKE* a mini might very well be provided it offered more storage, more appropriate industrial design, and TV tuner options (like current HTPCs).
"You'll also note that my comment said they needed to add a built-in HD tuner and CableCard before the solution would work."
Then it wouldn't be a mini, would it? CableCard doesn't work in PC's and the cable companies don't want it to.
"I don't think that the ideal setup will entail the storage medium to be situated locally."
Then you don't understand the typical home user. Remote storage isn't something the typical consumer will even understand. On top of that, mac's don't do all that well as network filesystem clients. Hopefully Apple will fix that with Leopard. My PowerMac was easily the worst network client I've used in over a decade and my G4 mini was bad as well. They have some serious kernel locking issues to sort out.
"I think that most people who build up a large media collection will keep that on a data server somewhere so that they can maintain backups,
You don't need a remote server to maintain backups.
"...watch it from other systems in the house, etc."
Don't need a remote server for that either.
"In which case, all you really need is a network connection (could be terrestrial, could be wireless) to stream that media to a decoding / display unit, like the Mini."
Most households will have one HTPC, not several. In those applications, a remote file server serves no purpose, is hard to understand for the average user, costs more money and is less reliable. All this to make up for the fact that the mini is poorly suited to the task.
I personally have two HTPCs, each backs the other up, and each can play whatever content I have. I have no need or justification for a remote file server, my machines look far better in the equipment rack than a mini ever could, they are totally silent, have Core Duo processors, 1GB of memory and 1TB of storage, they both have HD tuners, and they both play ALL content available including DRMed WMV files and iTunes files should I want them. The mini can't hope to compare. Apple needs to replace the mini with a more capable box but instead they do the iTV
"The original NT kernel was indeed very elegant, but couldn't deliver acceptable performance."
The kernel itself performed fine but other subsystems, most notably graphics, couldn't. As for elegance, you have any personal experience with it? I have, and the original NT shipped with a driver that I authored.
"The current state of NT is unfortunately not quite as pristine as you seem to believe."
When did I ever say that? The OS X kernel "is unfortunately not quite as pristine as you seem to believe."
"As an example, consider that scalable network stacks exist in Solaris."
Why should I? The subject at hand is SMP scalability, not Solaris network stacks.
"Apple has long trackrecord of actually embracing fairly radical change when necessary."
That certainly is a sound defense of OS X SMP performance you offered there. What does the absurd speculation about Apple switching to Solaris, scalable network stacks and dtrace name-dropping have to do with SMP scalablity between OS X and WinXP?
No, it would be far better to do more conventional research. I would never consider such a useless statistic.
That was just what I was thinking.
/. users are likely to be juvenile amateurs.
/. you'd figure Apple had 80% marketshare.
Flickr users are likely to be creative enthusists.
In both cases the popular equipment isn't necessarily the best. In photography it's not necessary to have the finest equipment to do the finest work (especially on the web) and those who have a true need for the best gear aren't likely to participate on a public website. As for
"...but that OS X does a better job of dividing tasks sanely to more fully utilize the chips and from what I've heard is much more capable once you move past four."
Wonder where you heard that.
"That being the case, as multiple CPUs/cores become more commonplace, I think OS X will end up with the reputation of being the faster of the two."
Reputation maybe, after all OS X has the reputation of being God's gift in certain circles. Somehow I think reality will be different just as it is now. NT's design is vastly newer, was designed from the start as SMP and has supported large CPU counts forever. OS X, on the other hand, has the antique Mach at its core and still has serious locking issues that can seriously impede performance in certain situations. Apple hasn't offering anything beyond quad-core and only recently has it offered that. OS X may be a lot of things but fast isn't one of them. Microsoft has a huge headstart here.
"I'm still a firm believer that the Mac Mini is the best candidate (convenient design, DVI output, HD resolution output, remote control, networkable), they just need to add an HD tuner or two and CableCard support."
A convenient design is one that has an inadequate hard drive, zero exapandability, and required tuners attached to USB or Firewire? Don't forget that the mini can't take a real hard drive and not PC, Apple or otherwise, can take CableCard.
Any PC can offer DVI, HD resolution output, remote control, and networking. There are far better PC's for the job than the mini.
"Aside from a few MC*Es and Microsoft employees, I am aware of nobody who has ever (or would ever) connect their PC to their television."
Now you know one. I have PCs connected to TVs in two locations. Each is running 1080. Prior to my current apartment I used one connected at 720p.
"Microsoft zealots delude themselves into believing that something that doesn't work, doesn't have legs and is heading nowhere slowly actually has a chance of survival."
By that comment, I hope you aren't referring to me. I know that MCE is a piece of crap. MCE and Frontrow are equivalents on the two platforms, however.
"Front-Row is a product designed to be turned on and used with a remote with 5 buttons and no skills."
MCE would be if it didn't also have TV tuner/DVR functions. Only Apple thinks that users can't use a remote with more than a few buttons.
"The iTV (!!) box is designed and marketed to be plugged in to a television and used with no skills."
Where did they say that? The media center extender is the same product.
"It is also sold specifically to be attached to a TV to watch movies, it is not bundled into a general purpose PC guerilla marketing style by PHBs that mistakenly believe that once the user realizes he has a media center on his desktop that he will move his PC to the living room and attach it to his television."
Yeah, well neither is media center extender. In fact, the two are identical products conceptually.
"In comparison, MCE is something that is really only owned accidentally by people who don't even know they have it (because it was bundled with their PC from Best Buy), it requires the PC to be near the TV rather than on a desk and requires the user to know how to configure it and operate it with some crazy 300 button remote control (exaggeration, but the point is clearly made)."
MCE does not require a TV to operate. It's remote is not unlike thousands of living room remotes that people have already.
"It would probably require a class to get a user comfortable with the relationship between and configurations of MCE and Microsoft Media Player (and the derivitaves such as Amazon Unbox)."
Umm no. When using MCE you don't use WMP. Apparently you know nothing about MCE.
"It really doesn't matter if MCE can do any of the things that Front-Row does (which it really doesn't because Microsoft doesn't use zero-conf [bonjour] and whatnot)."
We all know that bonjour is a knockout substitute for DVR and live TV functions that MCE provides. Get real.
"The simple fact is, it is not designed or marketed in a manner that will ever be used that way by the common man."
By common man I assume you mean the 5% mac user. Of that I am certain.
"To say that something *can* be done is not the same as saying that people *will* do it. You *can* write an assembly language CGI script library for publishing a Blog site. But I doubt you *will*..."
I have no idea what you're trying to say here, but I'd sure like to see you write a CGI script in assembly. I don't think you quite know what you're talking about there.
First off, I was not the one to confuse Frontrow with iTV nor was I the one to make the senseless comparison between iTV and MCE (you were). You may believe that attaching a PC to a television is worthless but there are very good reasons for doing it and many failed attempts in the past (because TVs had horrible resolution). Now with HDTV and a sufficiently large screen, PC usage on the TV is a very effective experience and my media center PC is the most used computer in the house. Once Apple invents the idea, I'm sure you'll understand.
Now, if you're the type that wants the PC in one room and the TV in another then the iTV may work well. Windows had that solution first, though, and you could buy that now if you liked. Apple has most definitely not come up with anything new in the iTV.
Perhaps, but you certainly made some absolute statements, some of which aren't supported by facts. For example:
...
"This system will certainly be easy easy."
"Not only is it simple, but it doesn't break the user's metaphor for how these things work.""
"Xbox 360 breaks the metaphor."
"then I go to the movie store on the xbox. I browse and press download."
"But the issue here is that the experience seems a little more confusing, just a little harder to deal with."
"Apple comes around with a thing that is like an ipod for your tv."
Yes, it's a fact that Apple has their ease-of-use schtick down to a fine art, and when you look at the solution they're putting together it looks suspiciously like what MS has been trying to do only longer. Apple will market their way into convincing buyers that they are somehow unique and innovative with iTV even though it's a clone of an MS product. There's plenty of evidence that many here have already been duped.
Ultimately, if Apple's iTV product and their iTunes/Frontrow software all work together well then they will lead in the market. MCE works horribly but MS has already had 3 versions of it and is about to release its fourth. Personally, I don't want an extender like iTV. I want to browse on the HD TV itself. I want a mac that can record or interface with the new TIVO, that looks like a stereo component, and has 2 3.5" hard drive bays.
"As someone who only lightly follows product releases, I look at both the media center ability of the 360, and the media center ability of the iTV. But it's only the iTV that's simple enough for me to understand how it works by just looking at a picture of the product."
t ender/owner/default.mspx
Really? You can tell to work it just by looking at a picture of the product?
Why don't you buy a dedicated media center extender then instead of an XBox? They're cheaper and perform the identical function that iTV does. In fact, one could say Apple copied the idea. Here's a picture so that you can know how to use it:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/mediacenter/ex
"However, I also agree with some of the posters that this is a temporary situation. We will see HD content as soon as Steve can deliver it."
Perhaps, but the same is true for "Steve"'s competitors.
"Steve is probably pulling his typical genius manuevers on them."
Haha
"With the new Front-Row box it becomes possible to sit on your couch and surf through your movie collection and (presumably) watch previews and order new films for your collection all with your remote.It is simply the most eloquent PPV system ever conceived and it turns your mac or PC into a media server on the sly."
Frontrow is Apple's weakminded copy of MCE that can't do recording. What you're referring to is iTV. iTV is far from "the most eloquent PPV system ever conceived", it's in fact a direct copy of Microsoft Media Center extender.
"Amazon Unbox really is (unbox - no box, no Front-Row). All the disadvantages with none of the advantages. Sad, really."
Amazon may well be sad, but it's conceivable that it can use existing media center extenders and it could use them before Apple even gets iTV to market.
I suppose 5% is less than 12%.
2 3
http://macslash.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/21/13172
"Why is it that 100% (or less) marketshare for Apple computers..." is equally correct.
Really? That sounds embarassing to me. I'd love to see Steve Jobs demo that process. :-)
so you're suggesting that they add a hard drive through USB, then add tuners through USB, then add software to the menus to enable recording? I think not.
The iTV is a dumb head that receives content from an iTunes server. The PC is what would be used for recording (except Apple doesn't do that itself). Get video into iTunes and the iTV can play it.
"Xbox 360 breaks the metaphor. Ok, so I want to buy a movie. I plug in my xbox 360 (wait...isn't that for games?) then I go to the movie store on the xbox. I browse and press download. Ok...where are my movies living now? On the xbox? Uhhh..ok...but what if I turn off the xbox?"
Don't know why you assume this. The XBox360 is a multifunction device so you'll need to set it into media extender mode (or buy a fixed function extender just like the iTV). After that, there's no reason the experience will be any different than Apple's. You assume that the mac user buys his movie through iTunes and then assume that the XBox owner does not. Why? The Xbox owner can buy his movie on the PC just as well. Even the interface shown in the iTV looks suspeciously like Media Center.
"But the issue here is that the experience seems a little more confusing..."
How can you possibly know that? The iTV isn't even shipping and MS isn't selling movies yet (unless you count Amazon). You're just making this crap up.
"The previous barrier to mp3 player adoption was the complexity in sorting music and getting it on the device."
There you go making stuff up again. mp3 players were in their early adoption phase when Apple entered the market. Apple didn't do anything differently, they just made players that were prettier. Agreed that MusicMatch was a POS but iTunes was not "easier to use" than other jukeboxes fundamentally. The barrier at that time was simply unfamiliarity and lack of quality products in the market.
"Apple comes around with a thing that is like an ipod for your tv. Easy. The consumer will not be afraid of this because they already have an idea of how this works..."
More crap you're just imagining and stating as though it were fact. The iTV hasn't shipped and hasn't proven itself to anyone. The fact is that it's simply Apple's me-too version of the media extender which MS has already do and brought to market. Nothing we have seen so far demonstrates that it's better than the Windows equivalent. It may be but we have to wait and see.
"The objection to the xBox 360 is that people think of it as a game console and using it to download movies is going to sound complex, even if it isn't."
That's because you've assumed how it works even thought it doesn't.
"So like a sibling poster said, the major innovation here is marketing..."
Except he was being sarcastic.
"Let's be serious...microsoft does not have a reputation for ease of use."
Yes, more clever marketing from Apple.
I have used Media Center and I have an XBox 360. Frankly, Media Center sucks but it's miles ahead of Apple's equivalent right now. iTV changes nothing. I would prefer a mac that's suited to connect to the living room TV via 1080i or 1080p and offer better storage options than the mini. If they offered that they'd stand a chance of actually being better than MCE.
No need to attach her gender to the issue. Criminal is enough.
;-) For the most part, board member seats are used to gain inside access to politics and favor within other large corporations. It's scary to see just how interconnected boards really are.
Curiously, I've always felt that board members were inherently criminal
Michael Dell as well. No one was complaining about Dell's stock performance.
The CEO reports to the board of directors, of which the chairman is lead member. Disturbing, eh?
Oh I see, then PowerPC really IS dead.
Note that the post I commented on referred to PowerPC in the server room. It has never had presence there with the minor exception of the recent IBM G5 blades.
"Note this is distinct from POWER, which was IBM's branding of their architecture for their microprocessors."
IBM makes lots of processors including PowerPC embedded processors and POWER processors for their server line. POWER was the name of ONE of their architectures. POWER and PowerPC are not the same. Apparently the will be in the future. Goodbye PowerPC. We won't miss you.
It is Tom's Hardware after all. The experts he's referring to are Mom, Dad, and his 14 year old brother.
Didn't know the victim had to be underage for someone to be a "sexual predator".
"Ah, ok. right. what was it then? he could have just said "I'm not going to answer that question. I don't care" - his answer stated that he sees no future in apple."
He did not say that. First off, it was an interview of MD and had nothing to do with Apple, yet the journalist decided to ask MD what he'd do if he was taking over Apple as Jobs was. His initial reaction was that he wouldn't take that job. When pressed for an answer, he said he'd liquidate the company.
That should surprise no one who understands MD's business viewpoint. MD did not desire to comment on Apple as he no interest in a capital-intensive, high margin business. I've tried to explain that to you, but I don't think you are interested in understanding. His response was "my opinion doesn't matter because i'm not suited to be CEO of Apple".
"sales of desktops (which are what I meant) are stagnating...i'd say wait five years."
businesses need desktops yet people have been predicting notebooks to replace desktops for over 10 years. it won't happen, but if it does Dell sells those notebooks. Apple does not sell into business; they've tried, failed, and given up. Closed systems, like you mentioned, don't play in business either.
"the fact is that it didn't...(this is just brain dead, I don't believe I'm actualy continuing this silly argument)"
I can't help that you aren't able to think objectively. It's your problem, not mine.
"Oh sure! that strategy worked great for them with thier mp3 initiative."
Look who's complaining about silly arguments! Apple badge-engineers just as Dell does and it's not hard to find successful Dell badge-engineered products. Their monitors are very successful.
"Anyway, it was FUD, and has been proven to be wrong."
It wasn't FUD nor proven to be wrong. FUD is a technique of misinformation meant to harm a competitor. MD was pressed by a journalist to comment on another business that he didn't consider a competitor and he never predicted Apple's demise. He himself said that he would not be a good candidate for the job.
"Fighting over the comodity PC sales in this day and age is like fighting over Minicomputer sales in the begining of the 80s."
Only if you believe that PCs are destined to disappear from the market (which I'm thinking you do). PCs aren't disappearing. On the contrary, PCs are not being phased out of business and that's where Dell and its large competitors do their volume.
"Dell knows this (hence Mp3 players, alienware, XPS, etc) - but they don't have the R&D knowhow and the right brand recognition to make a viable play in this field."
Dell, by virtue of its immense size, recognizes that it must diversify its markets and it has done so. Dell doesn't have to have R&D to slap its name on consumer electronics products. The world is littered with successful companies that do just that, some (like Sharper Image for example) even do it with premium products. Your examples aren't even that relevant. One has failed and the other two have not.
"I don't know the extent of involvment and testing dell does with Intel, but this argument sounds like bullshit to me (and it's totaly irrelevent to this disscussion)."
Dell was Intel's largest partner and biggest contributor to Intel's development of their own OEM motherboard business; a business Apple now uses for its motherboard designs. Dell contributes heavily to Intel's development of future MB's and chipsets. Yes, the point is irrelevant but all of yours is as well. No, it's not bullshit, though your likening of Dell to SGI is.
The fact was that Apple was staring at a future much like SGI did. It's stock was in the tank, it's computer hardware uncompetitive, it's OS antiquated and its developer base disappearing. Apple reinvented itself and is successful today but that doesn't make it's history any different nor make Michael Dell's comments at the time any less correct. I seriously doubt MD cares whether Apple succeeds or fails. If Apple succeeds, all MD cares about is if he can profit from it. MD sold iPods while he could, he sold HP Laserjets while he could, he expressed interest in sell OS X for PCs. Michael doesn't care what the customer wants to buy, he only wants to sell it to him.