# WSJ Says Apples Trying to Kill the Cable Industry



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Now this is interesting...



> Imagine your Apple TV completely replacing your cable box-scroll through a list of networks, select the ones you want, and pay for them monthly. Their programming available on demand. Their live broadcasts, streamed. True internet TV. All the convenience of a DVR, all the vastness of a regular cable box, and all the sophisticated pleasure of an Apple TV.


http://gizmodo.com/5834698/wsj-says-apples-trying-to-kill-the-cable-industry


----------



## dkraft (Dec 20, 2004)

That is the way TV should be, buy the channels you want.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

A quote from the linked article:


> New ways to take video content and stick them where you wantcompletely bypassing your cable box (and company renting it to you).


The irony: In most cases NOT bypassing the company renting your cable box to you, since that company and the same cable and/or fiber are delivering your internet.

Still, TWC does a great job of delivering my internet while I agree with Jobs that cable TV is a PITA. But what happens when they see internet TV eating into their massive cable TV profits?


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Just like the music business - they need to transform with a new business model


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

The product in question already exists.


> Imagine your Apple TVGoogleTV completely replacing your cable box-scroll through a list of networks, select the ones you want, and pay for them monthly. Their programming available on demand. Their live broadcasts, streamed. True internet TV. All the convenience of a DVR, all the vastness of a regular cable box, and all the sophisticated pleasure of an Apple TVGoogle TV.


However, the content providers, networks, have blocked the product from streaming their shows. Why? because at the moment the content providers make a lot more money through channel packages. That's why you have a lot of channels you never watch.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

bradleys said:


> Now this is interesting...
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5834698/wsj-says-apples-trying-to-kill-the-cable-industry


Isn't the Apple TV limited to 720P? How could any 720P device replace my boxes capable of 1080i and 1080P24.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

robojerk said:


> The product in question already exists.
> However, the content providers, networks, have blocked the product from streaming their shows. Why? because at the moment the content providers make a lot more money through channel packages. That's why you have a lot of channels you never watch.


Google TV in it's current form is crap. I have no love for Apple products but I'll take an ATV over Google TV in it's current form. I used a Revue for a couple of weeks. Out of the dozen or so media players I've used over the last two years, it was easily the worst one.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

aaronwt said:


> Google TV in it's current form is crap. I have no love for Apple products but I'll take an ATV over Google TV in it's current form. I used a Revue for a couple of weeks. Out of the dozen or so media players I've used over the last two years, it was easily the worst one.


GTV offers a lot more options for content than ATV.


----------



## daveak (Mar 23, 2009)

Why couldn't TiVo have a network 'channel' ? After all, they essentially have one for NetFlix and the like. Though I can't imagine TiVo being so willing to bypass the cable cos.....


----------



## HeatherA (Jan 10, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Google TV in it's current form is crap. I have no love for Apple products but I'll take an ATV over Google TV in it's current form. I used a Revue for a couple of weeks. Out of the dozen or so media players I've used over the last two years, it was easily the worst one.


I disagree! In the last month I have acquired a Logitech Revue and two Sony Google TVs. With these and my TiVos I have nearly a perfect TV setup. I can watch almost anything I can dream of watching.

Recently, I was watching a series on Netflix. They had only the first season and 3rd season available. The 2nd season was NO WHERE to be found. Not on the network that made the show, not Hulu, not Netflix, not Playon... no where. So I go to chrome on my Google TV type in the show name, season #, ep # and voila! up comes a listing of sites that had the episode available for streaming. I'm now through half the 2nd season.

I did this all without changing an input to go to my PC to search, without switching remotes and without much fuss. When I was done, one button and I'm back on my TiVo's menu.

I love it... and when honeycomb hits... can't wait!


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

None of these companies are going to provide the holy grail of network content. The content providers and cable companies will just not allow it. It is a nice sensationalist article though.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

rainwater said:


> None of these companies are going to provide the holy grail of network content. The content providers and cable companies will just not allow it. It is a nice sensationalist article though.


The local network affiliates wouldn't much care for it either.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> Google TV in it's current form is crap. I have no love for Apple products but I'll take an ATV over Google TV in it's current form. I used a Revue for a couple of weeks. Out of the dozen or so media players I've used over the last two years, it was easily the worst one.


Your opinion. My opinion is that Google TV works great as is and I expect it to get much better. The blocked sites are my biggest complaint but I find enough sites aren't blocked that it is very useful for me in helping avoid the monthly cable bill. Your complaints when you get specific, at least that I have seen, have nothing to do with using Google TV for streaming video from the internet but problems with processiong stereo audio to surround audio over HDMI and inability to play your content stored on hard drives. I don't care to expand 2.0 to 5.1 or 7.1 and don't have any content on hard drives for the Logitech Revue to play. I do believe when Android 3.1 becomes available, some additional codecs for decoding local content will become available and perhaps the other issue you mention will be addressed as well.

For my intended use, web browsing and streaming from Amazon Prime Instant Video and other sites, the Logitech Google TV is a bullseye. Right now, I have about 100 programs saved to my queue, I can just select them and watch them at my convenience as I would the TiVo Now Playing List. The Logitech Revue is affordable, has a great wireless keyboard for searching the internet, and as a first generation product gets high marks from me. Rumors are that second generation products are coming and might be much better, I don't know, but I can make this work perfectly for its intended use.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> The local network affiliates wouldn't much care for it either.


I have to watch ads with Google TV when using advertised sponsored sites, I would say the networks and local affiliates need to allow the programs with ads and get ad revenue and make it work. Why would they want cable companies to make a profit on their product? I use OTA and Google TV in combination to avoid the monthly cable or satellite bill and I think the cable and satellite companies should be afraid of these products. Google TV works fine with cable and satellite STBs, in fact it is designed to be used in that manner so a case can be made that even cable and satellite can find a way to survive with the internet.


----------



## ZeoTiVo (Jan 2, 2004)

dkraft said:


> That is the way TV should be, buy the channels you want.


so I can pay Apple more money for less choice on things besides just PCs or iPods. umm, no thanks.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Your opinion. My opinion is that Google TV works great as is and I expect it to get much better. The blocked sites are my biggest complaint but I find enough sites aren't blocked that it is very useful for me in helping avoid the monthly cable bill. Your complaints when you get specific, at least that I have seen, have nothing to do with using Google TV for streaming video from the internet but problems with processiong stereo audio to surround audio over HDMI and inability to play your content stored on hard drives. I don't care to expand 2.0 to 5.1 or 7.1 and don't have any content on hard drives for the Logitech Revue to play. I do believe when Android 3.1 becomes available, some additional codecs for decoding local content will become available and perhaps the other issue you mention will be addressed as well.
> 
> For my intended use, web browsing and streaming from Amazon Prime Instant Video and other sites, the Logitech Google TV is a bullseye. Right now, I have about 100 programs saved to my queue, I can just select them and watch them at my convenience as I would the TiVo Now Playing List. The Logitech Revue is affordable, has a great wireless keyboard for searching the internet, and as a first generation product gets high marks from me. Rumors are that second generation products are coming and might be much better, I don't know, but I can make this work perfectly for its intended use.


It's more than just the audio. For instance, from Amazon it doesn't run an application like it should be, like the Roku 2 does. Of course no 1080P form Netflix or 5.1(but that is also true with the Boxee Box) Searching for content, sure it can find it, but my Boxee Box can do that too (and more) but many times it's only SD which is of no use to me. I don't need it for web surfing. I was doing that ten years ago on my HD set with a small wireless keyboard. I stopped that over five years ago.

It certainly has potential since I know the hardware is more than capable. I like the Android OS on other products and was going to wait for Honeycomb before returning it. But I wasn't using it for anything. Everything it does I can get the same and much more from other devices I have, so I decided to return it and get the wireless illuminated keyboard from Logitech which will give me a thousand times more use than the Revue gave me.

Six or seven years ago may have been a different story for me with GTV , but in it's current form I can get the same and more and better things from some of my other media players.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

HeatherA said:


> I disagree! In the last month I have acquired a Logitech Revue and two Sony Google TVs. With these and my TiVos I have nearly a perfect TV setup. I can watch almost anything I can dream of watching.
> 
> Recently, I was watching a series on Netflix. They had only the first season and 3rd season available. The 2nd season was NO WHERE to be found. Not on the network that made the show, not Hulu, not Netflix, not Playon... no where. So I go to chrome on my Google TV type in the show name, season #, ep # and voila! up comes a listing of sites that had the episode available for streaming. I'm now through half the 2nd season.
> 
> ...


What was the resolution of the programs you were able to stream? If they're anything less than either 720p or 1080i with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio it's not worth the convenience to me. The primary appeal of such devices is that you can find whatever you want to watch. The only downside is that most of it is crap compared to high quality video and audio. I can already find just about any shows I want using torrent sites, but the vast majority of the available programming is in low-res avi format that looks about as appealing as watching a VHS tape on a standard def projection TV.


----------



## HeatherA (Jan 10, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> What was the resolution of the programs you were able to stream? If they're anything less than either 720p or 1080i with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio it's not worth the convenience to me. The primary appeal of such devices is that you can find whatever you want to watch. The only downside is that most of it is crap compared to high quality video and audio. I can already find just about any shows I want using torrent sites, but the vast majority of the available programming is in low-res avi format that looks about as appealing as watching a VHS tape on a standard def projection TV.


Hahaha, I have no idea. The quality was fantastic. I'm not a huge audiophile so that really doesn't matter to me. The picture looked as good as any of my HD recordings... never went further to see what resolution I was watching at. I'm more about enjoying and accessing the things I want to watch than I am about such things as always watching in highest quality formats and listening in 5.1.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

dkraft said:


> That is the way TV should be, buy the channels you want.


Nonsense, I shouldn't buy whole channels, I should buy individual programs! Forget channels, they are an idiotic concept. If everything were VOD, networks and the morons who run them would not be necessary, and shows that had a big enough following to stay in production would be able to stay on the air with no networks to say it isn't doing well enough.

Advertisers could sponsor viewers instead of shows, so no advertiser could ever be offended by a show's content, and if I want to pay full price for the show, I could skip the ads.

This is the sane picture of TV's future .


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

How do pilots work then? Who is going to put up the money when they can't leverage losses against successes. Especially the new guy. I do agree it would be nice to get some of these middle men out of the picture. However the middle men are responsible for the marketing and new shows on their own may not be able to tell you they exist.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

HeatherA said:


> I disagree! In the last month I have acquired a Logitech Revue and two Sony Google TVs. With these and my TiVos I have nearly a perfect TV setup. I can watch almost anything I can dream of watching.


Try the following (which I would love to be able to watch), all HD only, please:

Arabesque
Scavenger Hunt
Hot Stuff
Mistress Pamela
American Dreamer
California Dreamin'
Romeo and Juliet (Franco Zefferelli)
Billy Jack
The Elephant Man
Wizards
The War Wagon

That's just off the top of my head. Good luck.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

daveak said:


> Why couldn't TiVo have a network 'channel' ? After all, they essentially have one for NetFlix and the like. Though I can't imagine TiVo being so willing to bypass the cable cos.....


Yeah, I don't think implementation would be a problem. I'd love to be able to subscribe to HBO (for example) through the Tivo and have access to any shows or movies that are currently airing on the broadcasted channel.
The problem would be could TiVo negotiate such a deal? Also, I think the subscription price would be higher than if you just got HBO through cable.



tomhorsley said:


> Nonsense, I shouldn't buy whole channels, I should buy individual programs!


There should be an option for both! 
Ideally, you could just subscribe an individual show, or for a higher fee you subscribe the whole channel.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> What was the resolution of the programs you were able to stream? If they're anything less than either 720p or 1080i with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio it's not worth the convenience to me. The primary appeal of such devices is that you can find whatever you want to watch. The only downside is that most of it is crap compared to high quality video and audio. I can already find just about any shows I want using torrent sites, but the vast majority of the available programming is in low-res avi format that looks about as appealing as watching a VHS tape on a standard def projection TV.


A lot of the streaming I have seen isn't really very good video quality but that has nothing to do with the Logitech Revue and the Intel Atom CE4100 processor used. Streaming now is a convenience, not the quality option. It is a lot like MP3 compared to CD. The first thing I wanted to do when I hooked up my Google TV is watch "Matango" an old Japanese horror movie I had never seen but read about. I found it immediately at the proper aspect ratio and very acceptable video quality.

Now I am watching a couple of UK TV shows I had never seen, "Torchwood" and "Primeval", both from Amazon Prime Instant Video and the quality is good enough but certainly not up to good OTA HD or good DVD but for the price and convenience and the fact the shows aren't great to begin with, I am happy to see them this way. Doubling the bitrates and better encodes would certainly offer a big improvement in video quality but I don't think that is feasible. A number of the Amazon Prime shows that I can't find in HD do indicate an HD version is coming for my Google TV. I don't know when but I decided to watch the programs I want at 480p from the site anyway.

I don't know how well Apple TV works but I would think well enough that it would suit my needs as far as the video streaming is concerned. I am committed to Google TV, I am already familiar with how to get it to do what I want so I will keep this little box for the public domain movies and the convenience factor and use TiVo for network shows and use Blu-ray and DVD for most movies. My girlfriend found about a half dozen movies on Amazon Prime Video that she wanted to see, added them to the queue on her own, she picked it up quickly, and we have watched a couple already and she was happy with the video quality.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

dkraft said:


> That is the way TV should be, buy the channels you want.


The problem will be it will cost you more than cable unless you only watch 2 or 3 shows.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Now I am watching a couple of UK TV shows I had never seen, "Torchwood" and "Primeval", both from Amazon Prime Instant Video and the quality is good enough but certainly not up to good OTA HD or good DVD but for the price and convenience and the fact the shows aren't great to begin with, I am happy to see them this way.


You can probably get both of them on Blu-Ray from NetFlix if you want the best quality. Primeval has got some really good CGI that begs to be viewed in Hi-Def. Check that. Torchwood is available on Blu-Ray but NetFlix only has Primeval on DVD.

FYI - Torchwood is currently airing on Starz for its 4th season. They picked up the series and "Americanized" it with some actors you're probably more familiar with. In fact, it airs on Friday nights and I should be able to download the latest HD torrent 1st thing in the morning. I believe older episodes of both shows may still air on BBC America.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

HeatherA said:


> I disagree! In the last month I have acquired a Logitech Revue and two Sony Google TVs. With these and my TiVos I have nearly a perfect TV setup. I can watch almost anything I can dream of watching.
> 
> Recently, I was watching a series on Netflix. They had only the first season and 3rd season available. The 2nd season was NO WHERE to be found. Not on the network that made the show, not Hulu, not Netflix, not Playon... no where. So I go to chrome on my Google TV type in the show name, season #, ep # and voila! up comes a listing of sites that had the episode available for streaming. I'm now through half the 2nd season.


So then where were you streaming it from? Was it legal?


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Try the following (which I would love to be able to watch), all HD only, please:
> 
> Arabesque
> Scavenger Hunt
> ...


I checked NetFlix and the only title they currently have in HD on Blu-Ray was Billy Jack. I believe The Elephant Man is scheduled for future release, but a date wasn't listed for availability. Some titles apparently haven't been released yet in any format or NetFlix simply doesn't have them. The rest are only available on DVD. Your best bet to get them in HD would be to put together a wish list and hope that they show up on one of the classic movie channels. I actually saw most of these when they were first released in the theaters years ago, with but a few exceptions.


----------



## HeatherA (Jan 10, 2002)

mattack said:


> So then where were you streaming it from? Was it legal?


I'm not sure what sites they were. I literally would search as I stated and go to the page which had the streaming video on it and start watching. None of the sites were mainstream sites I'd ever been to before. I would assume they were legit because... I didn't ask ;-)


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Getting rid of cable is going to be difficult, because the content providers like the current bundling model where multiple channels have to be taken by the MVPDs - they don't want you to subscribe a la carte even if you want to stream. Or they'll charge you way more per channel for the privilege. Also, the same cableCos and telcos control your HSI, so it's inevitable that they'll just cap your service and/or switch to usage-based billing and charge you by the GBs - they're going to get their money no matter which way you go.

Our toothless, bought off, revolving door gov't regulators will most likely look the other way and let these HSI duopolies (or monopolies) do it, and we'll all suffer for it.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Wouldn't many channels cease to exist if they were purchased a la carte? Some of the channels I have (and block) are very strange to me.

That being said, for the most part people like Apple and hate their cable companies. I'd be much more willing to fork over money to Apple then a provider like Comcast or TWC.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

aadam101 said:


> That being said, for the most part people like Apple and hate their cable companies. I'd be much more willing to fork over money to Apple then a provider like Comcast or TWC.


It's not about what people want though. If Hulu couldn't even manage to license all of the major networks (when it was funded by several of them), I don't see how Apple can do it.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> That being said, for the most part people like Apple and hate their cable companies. I'd be much more willing to fork over money to Apple then a provider like Comcast or TWC.


Oh yeah, I'd just be thrilled to deal with a company that tightly controls what applications will run on even their general purpose devices. I hate having to make my own decisions. I don't know why I haven't converted to u-verse - after all, if I did I wouldn't have to choose between their DVR and TiVo.</sarcasm>

In all seriousness, I wouldn't be so sure that "for the most part people like Apple". It's more like "for the most part, people don't hate Apple" simply because, unlike their cable company, they don't use an Apple product every day, if at all.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

My only big complaint with Comcast digital cable here is price. The service and quality was fine but the price was too high. I had the same complaint about DirecTV but I liked that service also. TiVoHD, OTA with Google TV isn't as good as either cable or satellite with a DVR for my needs but I like the price and after many decades of paying for cable or satellite TV, I have said goodbye to both. I sure hope OTA can continue, it doesn't appear to be profitable, ad revenues aren't enough and I am afraid some changes are coming soon. I think the networks and Hulu are making a mistake by blocking Google TV, don't advertisers want more viewers, not less? I get the networks using OTA so I don't really care about ABC, NBC, etc. blocking my Google TV but anything I can't get using an antenna, I sure want to be able to access with Google TV.

I don't know if Apple TV and/or Google TV will succeed and have a serious impact on cable and satellite companies, maybe everybody can find a way to survive but things are sure changing. I only just recently started using the internet for streaming video programs, it is much better than I had thought before getting this simple little box.


----------



## uw69 (Jan 25, 2001)

rainwater said:


> None of these companies are going to provide the holy grail of network content. The content providers and cable companies will just not allow it. It is a nice sensationalist article though.


With an $80 Billion cash war chest, Apple could buy content providers if it came down to that.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

uw69 said:


> With an $80 Billion cash war chest, Apple could buy content providers if it came down to that.


Sorry, but 80b wouldn't be enough. And I don't think Apple would gamble away it's future for media who's future is questionable.


----------



## pierpont (Jul 9, 2006)

Good. I hate those vicious sons of bastards. Saint Steven, deliver us from evil. :up:


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

aadam101 said:


> That being said, for the most part people like Apple and hate their cable companies. I'd be much more willing to fork over money to Apple then a provider like Comcast or TWC.


Considering that Apple has less than a 10% market share on personal computers and I'd estimate well over half the country has some sort of cable or fiber optic service, I'd say your rationale may be a bit skewed. With computers, most people have a choice. With TV service providers you don't always get to choose and are stuck with whatever is available. Those with free will tend to choose PCs over MACs. That doesn't mean that MACs are bad. It's just that most of us like more choices and the ability to upgrade our computers as we see fit rather than have a fixed configuration dictated to us.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> I checked NetFlix and the only title they currently have in HD on Blu-Ray was Billy Jack.


I'm modestly surprised even one in the list garnered a hit. I'm not really interested in Blu-Ray, either. I dont have a Blu-Ray player attached to my video system, and I don't want to have to wait several days before playing what I (or my guests this evening) want. If it isn't a permanent part of my library, it's not very useful.



mr.unnatural said:


> I believe The Elephant Man is scheduled for future release, but a date wasn't listed for availability.


Until it's available, it's vapor.



mr.unnatural said:


> Some titles apparently haven't been released yet in any format or NetFlix simply doesn't have them.


Bingo. That's a long, long way from "almost anything I can dreeam of watching." It's much, much closer to "nothing I care to watch". My point is, people get so excited they half-way pee in their pants over a pile of garbage.



mr.unnatural said:


> The rest are only available on DVD.


Not that I have been able to find, especially not Scavenger Hunt and Hot Stuff.



mr.unnatural said:


> Your best bet to get them in HD would be to put together a wish list and hope that they show up on one of the classic movie channels.


I have wishlists of all of them, of course, and dozens more.



mr.unnatural said:


> I actually saw most of these when they were first released in the theaters years ago, with but a few exceptions.


In the theater or on Cable? I've seen them all in the theater, of course, and some I have seen on Cable at one point or another. None in HD, though, since they all aired before HD was available. The point is, far from being a repository of things I want, NetFlix, Amazon VOD, etc. are little more than lists of 10s of thousands of shows that I either already have or don't want in the least. How is that a recommendation?


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

uw69 said:


> With an $80 Billion cash war chest, Apple could buy content providers if it came down to that.


Yeah, Billy Joe's Bait Shop and Low Power UHF TV Channel, maybe. $80B a month is a tiny drop in a very large bucket compared to what the content providers are raking in. It's not enough to buy out any large MSO, either. When you get into those realms, you have to start thinking $trillions, not $billions.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> Wouldn't many channels cease to exist if they were purchased a la carte?


Shouldn't every channel no one wants to buy cease to exist?

Bingo.



aadam101 said:


> Some of the channels I have (and block) are very strange to me.


All of the channels I block, starting with CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox are strange to me. Oh, would that I could pay up front for them, in which case I would drop my subscription in a nanosecond.



aadam101 said:


> That being said, for the most part people like Apple and hate their cable companies. I'd be much more willing to fork over money to Apple then a provider like Comcast or TWC.


I hate both, but the one good thing about both is I don't have to fork over money to either when I don't want their goods. Consequently, I have never paid Apple a single cent.

I certainly would be happier paying TW Cable if I could eliminate the cost of the locals, ESPN, TNT, etc., but unfortunately those are all included in tier subscription charges. If I could, I would most certainly shut off everything but HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Encore, and TMC, plus a handful of channels like TCMHD, MGMHD, and Discover. I wish HDNET and HDNETMV were still available, too. For those I would be happy to pay.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Oh yeah, I'd just be thrilled to deal with a company that tightly controls what applications will run on even their general purpose devices. I hate having to make my own decisions. I don't know why I haven't converted to u-verse - after all, if I did I wouldn't have to choose between their DVR and TiVo.</sarcasm>


Exactly. What is it with people? The more they get bent over the kitchen table, the more they sqeal with glee.



lpwcomp said:


> In all seriousness, I wouldn't be so sure that "for the most part people like Apple". It's more like "for the most part, people don't hate Apple" simply because, unlike their cable company, they don't use an Apple product every day, if at all.


That's part of it, but it's more about people being impressed with "pretty". I am utterly unimpressed by "pretty". There's also a much more relevant element having to do with stability. OS X has it all over Windows when it comes to stability. OTOH, Linux - some distros anyway - has it over the Mac when it comes to stability, not to mention the user does not have to pay a giant premium to line the pockets of the fat cats at Apple ( or Microsoft ), and the number of applications for Linux (especially useful ones) makes Apple look sad.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> Considering that Apple has less than a 10% market share on personal computers and I'd estimate well over half the country has some sort of cable or fiber optic service, I'd say your rationale may be a bit skewed. With computers, most people have a choice. With TV service providers you don't always get to choose and are stuck with whatever is available. Those with free will tend to choose PCs over MACs. That doesn't mean that MACs are bad. It's just that most of us like more choices and the ability to upgrade our computers as we see fit rather than have a fixed configuration dictated to us.


We are not talking about PC's. Apple has a much bigger market share of the smart phone market. They also have a considerable market share in the set top box market.

I honestly don't know a lot of young people who are signing up for cable these days. They get internet service and watch all of the TV/Movies via a laptop or other device. Cable is simply too expensive and the majority of people don't need so many channels. I think 10-30 is more than enough for most people.

The future of TV is changing. Netflix is having a huge impact and I hope that Apple will too.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> With computers, most people have a choice. With TV service providers you don't always get to choose and are stuck with whatever is available.


Hmm. Somewhat. Certainly I would not run Windows on any machine if I had any choice. I wouldn't run Mac OS X, either.



mr.unnatural said:


> Those with free will tend to choose PCs over MACs.


Those with free? Huh?



mr.unnatural said:


> That doesn't mean that MACs are bad. It's just that most of us like more choices and the ability to upgrade our computers as we see fit rather than have a fixed configuration dictated to us.


Which means neither Mac nor Windows is acceptable. Agreed.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> We are not talking about PC's. Apple has a much bigger market share of the smart phone market.


Perhaps not surprising when Smart Phone = Dumb User.

Wake me up when we're talking about something useful, will you?



aadam101 said:


> I honestly don't know a lot of young people who are signing up for cable these days.


Oh, well there's a shock. What percentage of young people are homeowners? Just what are you calling, "Young"? The group of people without mortages is not the demographic for cash outlay in the TV service market. It never was and never will be.



aadam101 said:


> They get internet service and watch all of the TV/Movies via a laptop or other device.


Is that supposed to impress? No one whose TV tastes can be satisfied with a laptop is going to spend anything worth mentioning directly on TV programming.



aadam101 said:


> Cable is simply too expensive and the majority of people don't need so many channels. I think 10-30 is more than enough for most people.


Thirty would be plenty for me, I think (if you count all the HBO channels as one "service", all the Showtime channels as one "service", etc), but I cannot obtain even one of those thirty without paying for the others. I would be thrilled to pay only for those I want.

More importantly, however, the thirty or so I want is very likely not the thirty you want, and a third individual will no doubt select thirty others. It's not aboout delivering channels to the average subscriber, but rather a mix of channels that appeal, one way or another, to nearly all subscribers, given the cost per subscriber of delivering all the channels.



aadam101 said:


> The future of TV is changing. Netflix is having a huge impact and I hope that Apple will too.


Yes, I hope they both leave huge impact craters. (Actually, I have nothing against the NetFlix business model, just their lack of interesting content.)

If Apple goes open source and cuts their margins to something reasonable, then I will support them. If NetFlix gets some interesting content, then I will support them, too. Until then, neither one is getting a penny from me.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Those with free? Huh?


I believe it's supposed to be read "Those with free will" i.e., "Those who can decide on their own".


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> In the theater or on Cable?


In the theater, decades before cable was even in existence. I used to go to the theater every chance I got when I was a kid so I saw most of them when they were first run.



lrhorer said:


> Until it's available, it's vapor.


True, but at least they're thinking about releasing it on disc at some point. The rest of the titles simply weren't available.



lrhorer said:


> I'm modestly surprised even one in the list garnered a hit. I'm not really interested in Blu-Ray, either. I dont have a Blu-Ray player attached to my video system, and I don't want to have to wait several days before playing what I (or my guests this evening) want. If it isn't a permanent part of my library, it's not very useful.


I don't understand how you can insist on HD and then say you don't want Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray is the most HD you can currently get so saying you don't want Blu-Ray is like saying you don't really want HD.



aadam101 said:


> I honestly don't know a lot of young people who are signing up for cable these days. They get internet service and watch all of the TV/Movies via a laptop or other device. Cable is simply too expensive and the majority of people don't need so many channels. I think 10-30 is more than enough for most people..


My monthly cable bill is only about $40 plus whatever bogus surcharges they pile on plus a few cablecard rentals. I can get any other programs I want in HD via torrent sites.

The extra channels you get as part of your package actually help keep costs down. If you don't like them, don't watch them. Channels like the shopping networks and religious channels actually pay the providers to have their shows aired. Other channels require a licensing fee to be paid by the provider so they can carry them. The fees paid by the crap channels help to offset the costs of the channels people actually want. If you were able to buy your channels or individual shows a la carte your monthly bill would probably be higher than it is now.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> In the theater, decades before cable was even in existence. I used to go to the theater every chance I got when I was a kid so I saw most of them when they were first run.


Use hyperbole much? Not one of those movies was released "decades before cable was even in existence". In fact, only a few of them were released at all before _*HBO*_ was in existence.


----------



## tootal2 (Oct 14, 2005)

I only get 150 gigs of internet a month so there is no way this can replace cable



bradleys said:


> Now this is interesting...
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5834698/wsj-says-apples-trying-to-kill-the-cable-industry


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

tootal2 said:


> I only get 150 gigs of internet a month so there is no way this can replace cable


If you get a good OTA signal, still watch DVD or Blu-ray, that should be more than enough capacity to fill in the gap and replace cable. I am surprised how well that combination is working for me, I don't know what our capacity is but I won't get anywhere near 150GB a month streaming. I don't download music or movies either so streaming will be a big percentage of my monthly usage.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Use hyperbole much? Not one of those movies was released "decades before cable was even in existence". In fact, only a few of them were released at all before _*HBO*_ was in existence.


OK, maybe not decades before, but definitely before cable was available to me. Some of the listed titles date back to the early 60's and 70's and possibly even earlier. I didn't see my first cable TV setup until the late 70's so there are probably a couple of movies I saw that predated cable by more than a few years.

Arabesque - 1966
Hot Stuff - 1979
Romeo and Juliet - 1968
Billy Jack - 1971
The Elephant Man - 1980
Wizards - 1977
The War Wagon - 1967
HBO - Nov. 8, 1972


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Perhaps not surprising when Smart Phone = Dumb User.
> 
> Wake me up when we're talking about something useful, will you?


Call them dumb users all you want. The iPhone is still one of the most successful electronic devices of all time. It's a HUGE money maker.....even if their users are not as smart as you.



lrhorer said:


> Oh, well there's a shock. What percentage of young people are homeowners? Just what are you calling, "Young"? The group of people without mortages is not the demographic for cash outlay in the TV service market. It never was and never will be.


I don't understand what cable TV subscriptions have to do with home ownership. Are you saying that people that don't have mortgages don't watch TV?

These young people who are moving into apartments for the first time are skipping the cable service. They will get used to not having cable and when and if they do buy a home cable TV simply won't be a part of their lives.



lrhorer said:


> Is that supposed to impress? No one whose TV tastes can be satisfied with a laptop is going to spend anything worth mentioning directly on TV programming.


I think you underestimate the amount of content available via a laptop. Between Netflix, Amazon and BT, I have everything I need. I have no reason to have cable in my house. I only have it because other people in my house insist on it. When I lived alone I didn't pay for cable. I was still able to (mostly) watch everything in HD on my 56" TV.

The only thing I missed was local news.



lrhorer said:


> More importantly, however, the thirty or so I want is very likely not the thirty you want, and a third individual will no doubt select thirty others. It's not aboout delivering channels to the average subscriber, but rather a mix of channels that appeal, one way or another, to nearly all subscribers, given the cost per subscriber of delivering all the channels.


And that's the problem with the current pay TV model. We are forced to buy things we don't want. Consumers have more choices than ever and additional choices continue to be created. Cable service is going the way of the land line.



lrhorer said:


> Yes, I hope they both leave huge impact craters. (Actually, I have nothing against the NetFlix business model, just their lack of interesting content.)


The content is getting better. Netflix is even creating their own original content. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.



lrhorer said:


> If Apple goes open source and cuts their margins to something reasonable, then I will support them. If NetFlix gets some interesting content, then I will support them, too. Until then, neither one is getting a penny from me.


That's fine for you. If you like spending money on channels you don't want and a bloated service that you only utilize a small fraction of. Either way, both Apple and Netflix have hugely popular services that are generating tons of cash. Netflix is the number one reason Blockbuster is no longer around. They toppled a massive corporation. It's a big deal.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> A lot of the streaming I have seen isn't really very good video quality but that has nothing to do with the Logitech Revue and the Intel Atom CE4100 processor used. Streaming now is a convenience, not the quality option. It is a lot like MP3 compared to CD. The first thing I wanted to do when I hooked up my Google TV is watch "Matango" an old Japanese horror movie I had never seen but read about. I found it immediately at the proper aspect ratio and very acceptable video quality.
> 
> Now I am watching a couple of UK TV shows I had never seen, "Torchwood" and "Primeval", both from Amazon Prime Instant Video and the quality is good enough but certainly not up to good OTA HD or good DVD but for the price and convenience and the fact the shows aren't great to begin with, I am happy to see them this way. ..
> .


If it wasn't up to good OTA quality then the Revue was giving you lousy quality. Since Primeval and Torchwood are both available in HD from Amazon VOD in as good or better video quality than broadcast. I've watched some of them from Amazon VOD on my TiVos. Although they are only available in stereo audio and with Revue you will only get audio out of two channels(With another six active channels with no sound) with HDMI instead being able to use DPLIIx and create a 7.1 soundfield form the 2.0 pcm audio.

I know when I had the Revue the video quality from Amazon wasn't up to par as what I've seen from my other Amazon sources. And the audio from the Revue is worse than what I used twenty years ago. At least twenty years ago I could apply processing to my stereo content to create a surround sound field.

When I used the Revue it brought me back to the 80's Back when I listened to TV content with only two speakers. In 1991 I got my first surround system and then in 2001 I went to a 7.1 system up from the old 5.1. But in 2011, the Revue expects me to listen to my content like I did in the 80's. I couldn't believe they had not corrected the issue since it has been out for a while now.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> OK, maybe not decades before, but definitely before cable was available to me. Some of the listed titles date back to the early 60's and 70's and possibly even earlier. I didn't see my first cable TV setup until the late 70's so there are probably a couple of movies I saw that predated cable by more than a few years.
> 
> Arabesque - 1966
> Hot Stuff - 1979
> ...


Cable TV (in the US) - 1948

Unless you're a solipsist, cable TV available to you != cable TV existence.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> If you get a good OTA signal, still watch DVD or Blu-ray, that should be more than enough capacity to fill in the gap and replace cable. I am surprised how well that combination is working for me, I don't know what our capacity is but I won't get anywhere near 150GB a month streaming. I don't download music or movies either so streaming will be a big percentage of my monthly usage.


150GB a month is < 1hr of decent quality video a day.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> 150GB a month is < 1hr of decent quality video a day.


What streaming source uses 5GB data for an hour? I have only been streaming a couple of weeks but I watched South Park HD and that would have covered about 4 hours based on the bitrates I received. Standard definition obviously will result in several hours a day. I am not seeing anyway to find an average of 5GB a day with the streaming I use, unless I watch a lot more.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Just look at a 1 hour HD recording on your TiVo. Streaming doesn't reduce the number of bytes required except by also reducing the quality. Or do you have knowledge of some magic, loss-less super compression algorithm?


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> If it wasn't up to good OTA quality then the Revue was giving you lousy quality. Since Primeval and Torchwood are both available in HD from Amazon VOD in as good or better video quality than broadcast. I've watched some of them from Amazon VOD on my TiVos. Although they are only available in stereo audio and with Revue you will only get audio out of two channels(With another six active channels with no sound) with HDMI instead being able to use DPLIIx and create a 7.1 soundfield form the 2.0 pcm audio.
> 
> I know when I had the Revue the video quality from Amazon wasn't up to par as what I've seen from my other Amazon sources. And the audio from the Revue is worse than what I used twenty years ago. At least twenty years ago I could apply processing to my stereo content to create a surround sound field.
> 
> When I used the Revue it brought me back to the 80's Back when I listened to TV content with only two speakers. In 1991 I got my first surround system and then in 2001 I went to a 7.1 system up from the old 5.1. But in 2011, the Revue expects me to listen to my content like I did in the 80's. I couldn't believe they had not corrected the issue since it has been out for a while now.


Show me where to find Primeval Season 1 in HD on Amazon Prime. I watched the entire first season in SD, HD wasn't there. Season 2, same way, I am 2 episodes in. It may be available in HD soon, I don't know. There is nothing wrong with the video quality from the Revue, it can only process what it receives. If you can access Torchwood in on HD Amazon Prime, check it and tell the me the bitrates you get. I have seen your complaints about the Revue, I disagree, but so what, not every product is for everybody. This one suits my needs, doesn't suit your needs, not worth any further discussion.

I don't why Logitech or Google haven't addressed the audio issue, it may be the upcoming Honeycomb 3.1 is all they can handle for now, maybe it will fixed with that release. I hope it isn't a hardware issue but it has no impact on the way I use the Revue in any event. Boxee uses the same processor, does that box have the audio issue? I can't imagine the Intel Atom CE4100 precludes that simple setup.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> Cable TV (in the US) - 1948
> 
> Unless you're a solipsist, cable TV available to you != cable TV existence.


Not just me but the vast majority of the country. You could use the same argument about FIOS. It exists in some areas, but only in specific locations and is not available to the masses. I never heard of cable TV until it was offered in my area. I'd be surprised if most other people in my area had either. Just because it may have existed has no bearing on whether or not anyone had access to it.


aadam101 said:


> The content is getting better. Netflix is even creating their own original content. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.


Don't bother trying to convince lrhorer that there's any content worth viewing anywhere other than what he deems is worthy, which apparently is very little in the grand scheme of things. The fact that he blocks all of the major networks should have been a huge clue.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

No, what you're saying is that if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> (Actually, I have nothing against the NetFlix business model, just their lack of interesting content.)
> 
> If Apple goes open source and cuts their margins to something reasonable, then I will support them. If NetFlix gets some interesting content, then I will support them, too. Until then, neither one is getting a penny from me.


What the heck do you like and watch anyway. You have pretty much dissed everything except maybe Youtube.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

A quote from "Casablanca" came to mind regarding whether or not most people love or hate Apple:

Ugarte(Peter Lorre): You despise me, don't you Rick?
Rick(Humphrey Bogart): If I gave you any thought I probably would.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

This thread is going in a lot for different directions.

I doubt Apple or Google has the pull to change the cable industry. We could only hope TV viewership keeps dropping in the next few years so they start playing ball the internet. Fighting it, keeping prices high, only encourages piracy, or not watching it.

In my Utopian dream world, all the networks would stream their own content themselves. Anyone with a ATV, GTV, Roku, Tivo, or whatever can pull from them. Cable companies are just the on ramp to the internet, and provide local channels. I know this dream will never come true, but I think it's a world we consumers would prefer to live in.

I like some Apple products, some of Apple's business policies I despise.
Their handling of these patent lawsuits is despicable. Software patents are ridiculously too broad in scope and I believe they shouldn't exist. Their deathgrip on what is and is not allowed on the iPhone also drives me nuts. Smart phones are now little computers, and if I want use a different browser besides Safari, or any other app who the hell is Apple to tell me my I'm forbidden.
Besides that the iPhone is an awesome piece of technology, however I like freedom to use my devices the way I want to use them and not the way Steve Jobs thinks it's best.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

robojerk said:


> Their deathgrip on what is and is not allowed on the iPhone also drives me nuts. Smart phones are now little computers, and if I want use a different browser besides Safari, or any other app who the hell is Apple to tell me my I'm forbidden.
> Besides that the iPhone is an awesome piece of technology, however I like freedom to use my devices the way I want to use them and not the way Steve Jobs thinks it's best.


I don't have so much of a problem with having control over what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They are looking to create a quality environment.

My problem is that websites are allowed to discriminate against browsers. They shouldn't be able to block the browser on the Google TV or a smartphone just because they feel like it. I truly believe government intervention is needed in this area to stop this unfair practice.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> No, what you're saying is that if you don't know about it, it doesn't exist.


Knowlege is one thing. Availability is another. Knowing about it is irrelevent if it's unavailable. Cable TV was used primarily in rural areas where it was difficult to receive OTA broadcasts. A large community antenna was used to receive OTA signals and relay them to residents via a Community Antenna TV (CATV) system. Cable TV as we know it today really didn't begin until the early 70's. Unless one of the networks was broadcasting one of the aforementioned movies, your chance of seeing any of them on TV prior to 1972 was slim to none.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Show me where to find Primeval Season 1 in HD on Amazon Prime. I watched the entire first season in SD, HD wasn't there. Season 2, same way, I am 2 episodes in. It may be available in HD soon, I don't know. There is nothing wrong with the video quality from the Revue, it can only process what it receives. If you can access Torchwood in on HD Amazon Prime, check it and tell the me the bitrates you get. I have seen your complaints about the Revue, I disagree, but so what, not every product is for everybody. This one suits my needs, doesn't suit your needs, not worth any further discussion.
> 
> I don't why Logitech or Google haven't addressed the audio issue, it may be the upcoming Honeycomb 3.1 is all they can handle for now, maybe it will fixed with that release. I hope it isn't a hardware issue but it has no impact on the way I use the Revue in any event. Boxee uses the same processor, does that box have the audio issue? I can't imagine the Intel Atom CE4100 precludes that simple setup.


All seasons of Torchwood are in HD and Season 4 of Primeval is in HD.

As far as bitrates, these shows are MPEG4. Even if you look at VUDU HDX, their bitrates for 3 bar HDX is 9Mbps MPEG4 and it blows away broadcast quality. The only recent AMAZOn VOD I have is Doctor Who. 48 minutes uses 1.88GB so that would roughly be equivalent to 3.76GB with MPEG2 but it also has no commercials and is not a full hour. Plus bitrate doesn't say it all. After watching and recording HD for ten years now, bitrate isn't the whole picture.

And no, Boxee does not have an audio issue. The only audio issue it has is because Dlink did not pay a licensing fee to Dolby so it will only Decode Dolby TrueHD 5.1/7.1 to stereo. Prior to the licensing issue they did not do this and it decoded to 5.1 or 7.1 pcm. It can still bitstream the Dolby True HD 7.1.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

aaronwt said:


> All seasons of Torchwood are in HD and Season 4 of Primeval is in HD.
> 
> As far as bitrates, these shows are MPEG4. Even if you look at VUDU HDX, their bitrates for 3 bar HDX is 9Mbps MPEG4 and it blows away broadcast quality. The only recent AMAZOn VOD I have is Doctor Who. 48 minutes uses 1.88GB so that would roughly be equivalent to 3.76GB with MPEG2 but it also has no commercials and is not a full hour. Plus bitrate doesn't say it all. After watching and recording HD for ten years now, bitrate isn't the whole picture.
> 
> And no, Boxee does not have an audio issue. The only audio issue it has is because Dlink did not pay a licensing fee to Dolby so it will only Decode Dolby TrueHD 5.1/7.1 to stereo. Prior to the licensing issue they did not do this and it decoded to 5.1 or 7.1 pcm. It can still bitstream the Dolby True HD 7.1.


I don't think I will ever make it to season 4 of Primeval. I hope that Logitech or Google will fix the issue with the audio over HDMI but I have not even seen that it has been acknowledged, must less seen an announced upcoming fix. For now, I just use optical and won't worry about it. I have it set up in my analog audio and legacy digital system anyway, no HDMI audio processing and won't move it the only system in house with HDMI audio processing so until that AVR breaks and is replaced by a new one, it is as far as I know a non-issue for me.

I am not saying the video quality is unwatchable for me but that DVD easily beats what I have seen so far.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

Has anybody compared Apple TV to Google TV and have a preference? I didn't look closely at Apple and decide on Google, I purchased based on price and a hope it would work like I wanted it to work.


----------



## DocNo (Oct 10, 2001)

robojerk said:


> The product in question already exists.
> However, the content providers, networks, have blocked the product from streaming their shows. Why? because at the moment the content providers make a lot more money through channel packages. That's why you have a lot of channels you never watch.


They have blocked Google because Google replaces their ads with Google ads. Ironic that you struck out Apple and replaced it with Google 

If anyone is going to do anything to disrupt the current cable hierarchy, it will be Apple and not Google - at least Apple has a proven track record of making others money - along with themselves. Google, on the other hand, seems to only be interested in what's good for Google's advertising at the expense of everyone else.

Don't hold your breath waiting fro Google TV to be more than a low volume geek loved pipe dream.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

DocNo said:


> Don't hold your breath waiting fro Google TV to be more than a low volume geek loved pipe dream.


I am certainly no geek, never even had a computer connected to an HDTV, haven't ever owned a smart phone and until the HP firesale, didn't own a tablet. Still don't own a tablet but HP claims they will fulfill my order when I called last Friday. I love Google TV, I think it will account for about 10% of our TV viewing, it is easy to find and save shows I want to watch. I have enough to last us several months after spending about 4 hours searching and queuing what I wanted to see. My girlfriend spent at least 2 hours doing the same thing. To show how ungeeky I am, I still listen to CDs and watch DVDs and Blu-ray discs a lot. No PC as a media server for music or video in the house.

I last watched "I Bury the Living" a 1958 horror movie, not exactly high tech either. One of my main uses will be watching old public domain movies, not likely to be blocked by anybody.


----------



## trip1eX (Apr 2, 2005)

Chris Gerhard said:


> Has anybody compared Apple TV to Google TV and have a preference? I didn't look closely at Apple and decide on Google, I purchased based on price and a hope it would work like I wanted it to work.


Different products. GTV is dead in the water right now too, waiting for a reboot.

ATVis great at streaming media from iTunes on your computer to your tv.

It's other two big features are Internet streaming services of which the list has slowly grown.

And iTunes movie rentals and tv show purchases.

GTV was more about Internet on your tv. Wth some hopes to make search universal across web, cable or satellite provider and Internet streaming services like Netflix.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

DocNo said:


> They have blocked Google because Google replaces their ads with Google ads. Ironic that you struck out Apple and replaced it with Google


WTF? I'd love for you to cite a source to prove what you're claiming. Please don't spread misinformation.



DocNo said:


> If anyone is going to do anything to disrupt the current cable hierarchy, it will be Apple and not Google - at least Apple has a proven track record of making others money - along with themselves. Google, on the other hand, seems to only be interested in what's good for Google's advertising at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> Don't hold your breath waiting fro Google TV to be more than a low volume geek loved pipe dream.


Google isn't allowing Samsung, Motorola, HTC, Sony (there's a lot more) to make money? They're not allowing App developers to make money? Apple doesn't do business in the best interest of what's best for Apple?
Stop reading Apple fanboy websites, you're just making yourself look ridiculous.


----------



## Chris Gerhard (Apr 27, 2002)

trip1eX said:


> Different products. GTV is dead in the water right now too, waiting for a reboot.
> 
> ATVis great at streaming media from iTunes on your computer to your tv.
> 
> ...


I haven't seen anything that makes me believe either product has done well yet. With Intel, Sony, Google and Logitech supporting Google TV along with a few other companies, I consider the upside potential greater with that service.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I think when Google releases the proprietary source code for GTV there will be a lot more development in the product. Partnering with Intel, Sony, and Logitech may have been a strategic move to allow the product to mature before mass release, but severely limited vendor availability and kept prices high. I can imagine an army of GTV devices in the near future running on ARM processors from all sorts of vendors, all competing for my money which will lower prices. It may also force Apple to add more features and push prices down as well, so even if you hate Google and love Apple you'll benefit as well.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

trip1eX said:


> And iTunes movie rentals and tv show purchases.


TV rentals have been disabled on the ATV as of this past week. Clearly the ATV is struggling with network content and as of now, it isn't a good device to get content unless you are streaming it from iTunes.


----------



## tenthplanet (Mar 5, 2004)

bradleys said:


> Now this is interesting...
> 
> http://gizmodo.com/5834698/wsj-says-apples-trying-to-kill-the-cable-industry


 Slow news day. Over at Apple they are thinking "Are they kidding writing this c___."


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

mr.unnatural said:


> Knowlege is one thing. Availability is another. Knowing about it is irrelevent if it's unavailable. Cable TV was used primarily in rural areas where it was difficult to receive OTA broadcasts.


Untrue. Rural areas never have been a good target for CATV, and probably never will be. CATV started not in rural areas, but in moderately wealthy, moderately well populated mountainous areas where reception in the valleys was problematical or nil. The first CATV systems were developed to bring signals from the mountain-tops where OTA signals could be received to the valley below where they could not. The very first CATV systems did not even rely on coax. They merely strung a passive radiator - a simple steel wire rope cable - between two mountain-tops over the valley.

Both then and now, CATV systems are far too expensive to build to make it profitable for rural areas. Reception in rural areas is dominated by satellite feeds, and in moderately flat regions by high gain pole-mounted VHF / UHF antennas. With construction and equipment costs staring at $40,000 per linear mile in the least expensive areas, a typical rural population of fewer than 200 homes per square mile simply presents too high a cost for anyone to bear.



mr.unnatural said:


> A large community antenna was used to receive OTA signals and relay them to residents via a Community Antenna TV (CATV) system. Cable TV as we know it today really didn't begin until the early 70's.


Well, really the late 70s. HBO began broadcasting over satellite in late 1975. WTCG (later renamed to WTBS) began satellite broadcasts in mid-December 1976. Neither were broadcast 24 / 7 until some years later. Certainly coaxial based CATV systems existed long before that. Fairly large systems were built in the mountainous areas of California, Washington State, Kentucky, New York, Virginia, Hawaii, and several other states in the 1960s. In the early 1970s, CATV systems began springing up in many medium sized towns because of the relatively low cost of construction in those areas.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

aadam101 said:


> I don't have so much of a problem with having control over what apps are allowed on the iPhone. They are looking to create a quality environment.


Bullcrap. At the very best, it is a small silver lining in a very black cloud, even if most of the apps were not crap, which they are. It's also an argument that falls completely flat when one takes stock of the application mix available in general. Open source apps take the cake in almost every case. I can't think of a single commercial app with an open source counterpart where the open source app is not vastly superior. All that aside, however, Apple is looking to do one thing and only one thing: maximize their profit for minimal effort and expenditure of resources.



aadam101 said:


> My problem is that websites are allowed to discriminate against browsers. They shouldn't be able to block the browser on the Google TV or a smartphone just because they feel like it. I truly believe government intervention is needed in this area to stop this unfair practice.


I am not aware of any aspect of this, so I really can't comment one way or the other.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Bullcrap. At the very best, it is a small silver lining in a very black cloud, even if most of the apps were not crap, which they are. It's also an argument that falls completely flat when one takes stock of the application mix available in general. Open source apps take the cake in almost every case. I can't think of a single commercial app with an open source counterpart where the open source app is not vastly superior. All that aside, however, Apple is looking to do one thing and only one thing: maximize their profit for minimal effort and expenditure of resources.


I think the number of "open source counterparts" is pretty small. You are living in a fantasy world.



lrhorer said:


> I am not aware of any aspect of this, so I really can't comment one way or the other.


Sites like Hulu.com have been doing it for years. They block mobile browsers from accessing their sites even though there was no technological reason for it. They just didn't want to allow people to watch on cell phones.


----------



## Sapphire (Sep 10, 2002)

lrhorer said:


> Untrue. Rural areas never have been a good target for CATV, and probably never will be. CATV started not in rural areas, but in moderately wealthy, moderately well populated mountainous areas where reception in the valleys was problematical or nil. The first CATV systems were developed to bring signals from the mountain-tops where OTA signals could be received to the valley below where they could not. The very first CATV systems did not even rely on coax. They merely strung a passive radiator - a simple steel wire rope cable - between two mountain-tops over the valley.


I don't think the steel wire rope cable would qualify as cable TV, but merely as a passive repeater.

I always thought the real birth of Cable TV was John Walson's Service Electric in Mahanoy City in 1948. Its purpose was for his appliance store to sell TV sets. He put an antenna up on the mountain and connected people on the way down. They first used twin lead but later used coax cable.

The company does still exist today (I'm on one of their systems) but run by his children. They always make it a point to proclaim that they were the first in the nation. Congress and the NCTA also recognize Walson as the first Cable TV operator.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Apple policy prohibits open source (GPL) programs. That's why there are none in the App store.

There a numerous apps in the Google Market that are open source, and the quality of some I would say are better than most proprietary apps.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

robojerk said:


> Apple policy prohibits open source (GPL) programs. That's why there are none in the App store.
> 
> There a numerous apps in the Google Market that are open source, and the quality of some I would say are better than most proprietary apps.


Examples?

I'm not calling you a liar. I just don't know much about this.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

Apple's policy of no GPL apps

Open Source apps on Android Market
Here's a big list of apps
Google Code query of Android Apps
Firefox
ROM Manager
VLC Coming Soon
Wifi Tether
K9 Mail
etc
etc
etc

I don't feel like making a big list. There's more, a lot more.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

lrhorer said:


> Bullcrap. At the very best, it is a small silver lining in a very black cloud, even if most of the apps were not crap, which they are. It's also an argument that falls completely flat when one takes stock of the application mix available in general. Open source apps take the cake in almost every case. *I can't think of a single commercial app with an open source counterpart where the open source app is not vastly superior.* All that aside, however, Apple is looking to do one thing and only one thing: maximize their profit for minimal effort and expenditure of resources.


You seriously believe this?

Developers make more money in Apple's app store and consumers have an easier time. It's a win/win. If you don't like the control, go with an alternative. People who use Apple products are not the ones complaining. They are perfectly happy. It's people who don't use Apple products who seem to be the most impacted by what Apple is doing. How this is possible I have no idea.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

IOW, Apple has adopted the VMS philosophy.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

ort said:


> You seriously believe this?
> 
> It's people who don't use Apple products who seem to be the most impacted by what Apple is doing.


this


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

ort said:


> It's people who don't use Apple products who seem to be the most impacted by what Apple is doing. How this is possible I have no idea.





aadam101 said:


> this


Well to be honest, it stuff like this that piss me off so much about Apple
Banning GPL apps
Banning apps that duplicate core iPhone features
Suing to block the sale of Samsung products in the EU
Trying to block the import of HTC, Samsung in the US, Aus, and EU

If Apple were to win the lawsuits, they would essentially own the handset market, competing against them would be illegal. I believe there is nothing special about their design, as one judge puts it "by having such a minimalist design, the iPad basically makes itself less viable for design protection."

I think a lot of iProducts are great. The iPhone/iPad/ATV are excellent products that deserve all the fanfare they get from their costumers.

Apple's stance on choice on the other hand completely pisses me off though. If I had an iPhone they would prohibit what apps I could have and use. Since I choose not to own an iPhone they try to remove that choice from me.

My point being by not having an iProduct (well, I do own 2 iPods) Apple's policies, lawsuits might affect me in the future. There is already limited choice in the smart phone arena (iOS, Android, WP7, RIM's QNX, Meego, WebOS) and their numbers are dwindling.


----------



## GreenMonkey (May 28, 2008)

The problem with the downloadable TV market, is they think their shows are worth like 4x the cost of a cable/satellite subscription. Pricing is ridiculous.

For kicks I checked Fringe on Amazon. Watching a season in HD will cost you $30. For video with DRM that plays only on certain devices provided you stream it over the internet. 

For a show that is broadcast over the air for free (or on basic cable for $20ish a month). For that same price as 22 episodes of a show you can get TV for a month (and that price is only if you wait for months for the pricing or availability to change). Sure, if you only watch one or two shows, it makes sense. But to pay that for a whole family's worth of stuff is ridiculous.

I'd love to pull the plug entirely, but it doesn't make any fiscal sense. They're all screwed up on their pricing.

The Netflix model is fine. The "buy the privilege to watch this show on some devices via iTunes or Amazon" or whatever is craziness.

In my mind, only a Netflix sort of solution makes sense. But the media companies are raising prices on Netflix so much that it seems like that will eventually fail, too.


----------



## belunos (Sep 19, 2002)

robojerk said:


> Well to be honest, it stuff like this that piss me off so much about Apple
> Banning GPL apps
> Banning apps that duplicate core iPhone features
> Suing to block the sale of Samsung products in the EU
> ...


I'm not going to argue the patent side, at this point it's almost more philosophical than anything else. I will argue for Apple's 'walled garden' approach though. The reason for that is.. well, it just works. The biggest complaint I hear lobbied at Android right now is fragmentation. It's a real complaint.. depending on the device, there could be a fair number of apps that don't work. Number two is buggy and lousy software. Sure, there were 47 fart apps on the App Store 2 days after it launched.. but by god they were polished and worked


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

belunos said:


> I'm not going to argue the patent side, at this point it's almost more philosophical than anything else. I will argue for Apple's 'walled garden' approach though. The reason for that is.. well, it just works. The biggest complaint I hear lobbied at Android right now is fragmentation. It's a real complaint.. depending on the device, there could be a fair number of apps that don't work. Number two is buggy and lousy software. Sure, there were 47 fart apps on the App Store 2 days after it launched.. but by god they were polished and worked


How do you justify a "walled garden" policy by pointing out fragmentation? Apple could easily dismantle a lot their restrictive policies and still keep their compatibility. They could still have an approval process to make sure apps are not of crap quality before adding them to the App Store.


----------



## pierpont (Jul 9, 2006)

lpwcomp said:


> IOW, Apple has adopted the VMS philosophy.


LOL! "See Figure 1."


----------



## jtreid (Jan 12, 2006)

lrhorer said:


> Try the following (which I would love to be able to watch), all HD only, please:
> 
> Arabesque
> Scavenger Hunt
> ...


Billy Jack???? Are you serious? What a horrifically dated and obsolete film. I saw it when I was about 8 y.o. and again about 10 years ago at 36 y.o. and it DID NOT age well.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

robojerk said:


> How do you justify a "walled garden" policy by pointing out fragmentation? Apple could easily dismantle a lot their restrictive policies and still keep their compatibility. They could still have an approval process to make sure apps are not of crap quality before adding them to the App Store.


There is no reason to justify a walled garden. It is what it is. Apple uses a walled garden approach with their iOS devices. Just like Microsoft uses one for their Xbox and Sony uses one for their PS3. These are closed devices.

I agree that some of their restrictions are annoying and it would be nice if they loosened up. But the overall experience provided makes the small sacrifices worthwhile. There is nothing you or anyone can do to mess up their phone. You can't install a bad widget, or a battery hogging app, or mess up your phone in any way. Nothing you download will screw up your phone.

It's a trade-off.

What's funny is that people act like there is this massive difference in device capabilities. Most of my friends are android users. They are constantly talking up how great it is to be able to install widgets and things like Swype, etc and how much time these things save them.

One day, I put it to the test. I said fine, let's see. Tell me what the weather will be tonight. It took the Android user 3 seconds and it took me 5 seconds. Okay, lets test Swype. We both typed a sentence and I did it several seconds faster with a traditional keyboard. We did several more tests and each time the difference in speed was negligible.

I'm not an Android hater. I don't have any strong negative feelings toward the platform. I can understand why someone would pick it. Makes perfect sense.

I just wish that for once someone would realize why someone would pick iOS over android. Maybe I don't want to spend time tinkering with my phone. Maybe I just want something that works smoothly and is impossible to screw up.

There is this annoying idea amongst android fans that an iPhone is like some sort of kiddie device for idiot hipsters and that it can't do anything. But the truth is that 95% of the functionality between an Android phone and an iPhone is IDENTICAL. They do the exact same things.

And the walled garden approach of the app store has almost no negative effect on real people. People who get upset about it are typically people who put ideology before reality. The reality is that there is almost no real world drawbacks. I never say to myself, "damn, I really wish XXXXX app was available on my phone.... CURSE THIS WALLED GARDEN! CURSE IT!"

And at any rate, whatever Apple is doing wit their app store can't be that bad, because like I said earlier, there are more apps on iOS, WAY WAY more games on iOS, developers make WAY more money on iOS, and the general consensus opinion is that apps in general are better on iOS.

So who is the walled garden hurting?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

ort said:


> I just wish that for once someone would realize why someone would pick iOS over android.


There's millions of people that have chosen iOS over Android just like you. I'm sure if you walked your cities streets and swung a stick, there's a 40% chance you'll hit someone who would give you that realization.


ort said:


> And at any rate, whatever Apple is doing wit their app store can't be that bad, because like I said earlier, there are more apps on iOS, WAY WAY more games on iOS, developers make WAY more money on iOS, and the general consensus opinion is that apps in general are better on iOS.


All of that is conjecture. Some apps have mad a ton of money, some apps like VLC are superior media players, that play well, any fil you can throw at it, and is free! As a consumer, not a developer, why should I care that some other devs are making an inferior media player app, and making money off of it?


ort said:


> So who is the walled garden hurting?


It hurts developers by blocking all open source code, it hurts user choice, and annoys me.

How about we stop trying to convince each other the grass is greener on the other side? You like apple's cohesive, tightly integrated eco system, I like not being bound limitations.
The two OS's do almost all of the same things. It's just Apple and Oranges at this point 

My main argument in this thread was GoogleTV already tried to bring us streaming TV. The networks blocked it, the cable companies will also try to stop anyone from taking away their cash cow.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

100% agree with you there.

If all of the studios and cable companies were open to licensing their programs and bandwidth, TV as we know it would already be 100% different.

The trouble is that they are a collection of old fashioned slow dinosaurs who are terrified of change and will resist and fight any attempt to disrupt their current business models.


What I don't understand is this. If TV shows and networks can make money by selling ads for their broadcast shows... then why can't they make the same amount of money by selling ads for the shows they stream?

We should all have set-top boxes that stream every show, from every channel at any time. Right now. We should have this. The technology is in place. The business model is in place. (sell ads). The only hold up is the networks and studios (who won't license the shows) and the cable companies (who won't give up the bandwidth for a competitor).

Neither Apple nor Google (nor Microsoft) have the clout to fix it. It's just going to take time.

And the current state of affairs for streaming won't cut it in the long run. Different content spread across different sites, some you need a membership for, some you don't, terrible movie selections, etc... it's the wild west out there right now and it's not very consumer friendly.

It's just going to keep getting worse and worse. We'll be seeing dozens of also-rans and half-assed solutions to this problem before we finally get to the real future of TV, probably a decade from now. It's going to be an ugly decade.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

GPL says no app store, Apple doesn't say no GPL. You have it backwards.

Apple let VLC onto the App store, but it was pointed out (to Apple) by a developer of VLC that it couldn't be on the App store because being on the App store violated the GNU Public License and Apple pulled it due to licensing issues. Apple pulled it because it was asked. Not because it was banned.

http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/09/the-gpl-the-app-store-and-you/


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

ort said:


> What I don't understand is this. If TV shows and networks can make money by selling ads for their broadcast shows... then why can't they make the same amount of money by selling ads for the shows they stream?


I agree. This doesn't make any sense. I am more likely to watch an ad on Hulu since I can't skip it. At the very least, I switch to a web page and listen to the ad. These ads should cost MORE than a TV ad. Plus the web ads can be targeted.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> I agree. This doesn't make any sense. I am more likely to watch an ad on Hulu since I can't skip it. At the very least, I switch to a web page and listen to the ad. These ads should cost MORE than a TV ad. Plus the web ads can be targeted.


Ad rates are based on how many people are reached. The number of people who sit through ads on live TV is still several orders of magnitude greater than those who watch shows on the web.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> Ad rates are based on how many people are reached. The number of people who sit through ads on live TV is still several orders of magnitude greater than those who watch shows on the web.


If this model is true for online ads, then it needs to be overhauled.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

ort said:


> GPL says no app store, Apple doesn't say no GPL. You have it backwards.
> 
> Apple let VLC onto the App store, but it was pointed out (to Apple) by a developer of VLC that it couldn't be on the App store because being on the App store violated the GNU Public License and Apple pulled it due to licensing issues. Apple pulled it because it was asked. Not because it was banned.
> 
> http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/09/the-gpl-the-app-store-and-you/


VLC, and the GPL license existed LOoooooooooooNG before the app store.
The two being incompatible is Apple's fault for putting further restrictions (which GPL license forbids). Yes Remi (a VLC dev) asked for VLC to be pulled, but then Apple went ahead and pulled *all* the GPL apps.

All of this could be avoided if Apple allowed users to "side load" apps instead of forcing users to go to the App Store exclusively.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> If this model is true for online ads, then it needs to be overhauled.


Based on?


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

You guys are missing part of the equation why networks don't like streaming.
There is an excellent example somewhere on these forums. I cant find it 

Example:
NBC sells their NBC network package to TimeWarner, they do not sell channels a la cart!
Nobody may watch a channel like Trio, but Timewarner is forced to pay for the right to broadcast that channel.


----------



## ort (Jan 5, 2004)

robojerk said:


> VLC, and the GPL license existed LOoooooooooooNG before the app store.
> The two being incompatible is Apple's fault for putting further restrictions (which GPL license forbids). Yes Remi (a VLC dev) asked for VLC to be pulled, but then Apple went ahead and pulled *all* the GPL apps.
> 
> All of this could be avoided if Apple allowed users to "side load" apps instead of forcing users to go to the App Store exclusively.


What other open source apps has apple pulled??

I think you're thinking backwards on this. There is nothing in the app store rules that says open source apps are not allowed. There are rules in the open source licenses that say you can't use DRM, or charge to be distributed, etc... and other thing that are incompatible with the apple app store. Apple has done nothing. They aren't going to alter their entire business model to comply with open source licenses, but they certainly have not banned anything.


----------



## saferguard (Sep 10, 2011)

In my mind, only a Netflix sort of solution makes sense. But the media companies are raising prices on Netflix so much that it seems like that will eventually fail, if you only watch one or two shows, it makes sense. But to pay that for a whole family's worth of stuff is ridiculous.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

robojerk said:


> You guys are missing part of the equation why networks don't like streaming.
> There is an excellent example somewhere on these forums. I cant find it
> 
> Example:
> ...


How does this relate to the price of ad sales, either online or on TV?


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> Based on?


Watching commercials online is a completely different experience than watching a commercial on TV. People have changed the channel during commercials since before they invented remote controls. Now they FF through commercials. The number of people being "reached" is actually much smaller than what is sold to the advertisers.

Like it or not, with online viewing the content provider can pretty much guarantee that the viewer is going to see (or at least hear) the commercial. That type of guarantee should warrant a higher price.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

jtreid said:


> Billy Jack???? Are you serious? What a horrifically dated and obsolete film. I saw it when I was about 8 y.o. and again about 10 years ago at 36 y.o. and it DID NOT age well.


The first one, "Born Losers", is a much better film in my opinion.


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

ort said:


> What I don't understand is this. If TV shows and networks can make money by selling ads for their broadcast shows... then why can't they make the same amount of money by selling ads for the shows they stream?


I think there are many factors. One being total viewership. Online doesn't have the structure or audience in place to obtain anywhere close to the number of viewers cable/satellite reaches. Also, there isn't the analysis abilities to know what demographics are watching which one needs to assign a value. Another is attention span. I know whenever I view something online (via my Mini) the moment a commercial begins I hit ESC (exit full screen) and completely bypass the ad by doing other tasks.

Until Nielsen (or similar company) offers the same tracking services companies have no way of judging the value of viewership and as such has little or no interest in paying for the unknown. TV is known... both the good and bad.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

I have always felt the industry was missing a big opportunity with Tivo where they could target ads based upon what you watch, where you pause. In other-wards suggested ads.

Rather than the traditional linear ad spam model we have today. It would be a great experiment but NOPE.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Watching commercials online is a completely different experience than watching a commercial on TV. People have changed the channel during commercials since before they invented remote controls. Now they FF through commercials. The number of people being "reached" is actually much smaller than what is sold to the advertisers.
> 
> Like it or not, with online viewing the content provider can pretty much guarantee that the viewer is going to see (or at least hear) the commercial. That type of guarantee should warrant a higher price.


Very few people changed the channel during commercials before there were remote controls. The TV was generally across the room and there weren't that many choices anyway. And when it was an actual step dial, it was detrimental to its longevity. The contact points could get worn out. Yes, nowadays some people FF through commercials or channel surf. Most don't.

Advertisers aren't stupid. They know what the ratings numbers really mean and what people's viewing habits are. Have you any actual data that would support the idea that that advertising on say, Hulu, is more effective than that on OTA/Cable/Satellite? And that its increased effectiveness (if any) makes up for the vastly fewer viewers?

You seem to think that your experiences and personal preferences apply to the general population. Guess what? They don't.

I actually occasionally backup and watch a commercial if one catches my eye, which is easier on the Premiere than it is on prior models now that the never officially supported 30-sec skip has been turned into a 30-sec scan, which *is* officially supported. But even with the skip, the brief flashes sometimes get me.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

zalusky said:


> I have always felt the industry was missing a big opportunity with Tivo where they could target ads based upon what you watch, where you pause. In other-wards suggested ads.
> 
> Rather than the traditional linear ad spam model we have today. It would be a great experiment but NOPE.


I'm pretty sure that giving that data to advertisers would violate TiVo's privacy policy. I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

robojerk said:


> es Remi (a VLC dev) asked for VLC to be pulled, but then Apple went ahead and pulled *all* the GPL apps.


It should also be noted that Romi works for Nokia, who at the time was suing Apple to get licensing fees paid for their (valid) patents. However, Nokia at the same time wanted access to Apple's patents as part of the deal. That case has since been settled with Apple simply paying the license fees for Nokia's patents, and Nokia not getting Apple's patents in return. Since then, Nokia has decided to go Windows Phone 7.

As for GPL apps, the assertion is incorrect. Apple has not removed all GPL apps - VLC was perhaps the second one they removed (the first was a port of GNUChess). In both cases, Apple removed them because of a copyright infringement claim, much like other non-GPL apps in the App Store. I can find Battle for Wesnoth, XPilot, and many other GPL ports. There also exists many apps written for iOS and released under GPL.

Finally, it should be noted that GPLv3 is inherently incompatible with app stores, but the GPLv2 isn't (in fact, GPLv3 fixes the "TiVoization" bug in GPLv2, and yes, TiVo as in this forum's namesake DVR). Microsoft explicitly calls out the GPLv3 (and not the GPL in general) as being incompatible.

Me personally, I don't care. I have both devices, find the iOS ones more polished (when will Android fix the damn stuttering? The hardware outclasses the iPhone and iPad by miles and it still stutters like it's underpowered), and have jailbroken and rooted both because yes, half the fun stuff in Android is only available via rooting (it's also the only way to get a sane backup of your phone).


----------



## MeStinkBAD (Jul 16, 2003)

robojerk said:


> VLC, and the GPL license existed LOoooooooooooNG before the app store.
> The two being incompatible is Apple's fault for putting further restrictions (which GPL license forbids). Yes Remi (a VLC dev) asked for VLC to be pulled, but then Apple went ahead and pulled *all* the GPL apps.
> 
> All of this could be avoided if Apple allowed users to "side load" apps instead of forcing users to go to the App Store exclusively.


What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of apps for iOS that are part of the GPL. Like Colloquy. You can grab the source @ http://colloquy.info/project/wiki/Source Code.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> I'm pretty sure that giving that data to advertisers would violate TiVo's privacy policy. I certainly wouldn't be happy about it.


I don't think they have to. Rather it would be some sort of logic like suggestions where it would pick an ad to show based upon the viewing habits. The logic and the data would stay within the set top.

Advertisers would only get rolled up data.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

zalusky said:


> I don't think they have to. Rather it would be some sort of logic like suggestions where it would pick an ad to show based upon the viewing habits. The logic and the data would stay within the set top.
> 
> Advertisers would only get rolled up data.


So you are suggesting that the TiVo d/l or record *all* of the targeted ads but only show _*you*_ the ones it selects based on your viewing habits? Ignoring for the moment the probability that viewing habits are nowhere near sufficient information for effective targeted advertising, in what manner do you propose this material be presented?


----------



## Charles R (Nov 9, 2000)

lpwcomp said:


> I actually occasionally backup and watch a commercial if one catches my eye, which is easier on the Premiere than it is on prior models now that the never officially supported 30-sec skip has been turned into a 30-sec scan, which *is* officially supported.


You can still use the 30-second skip (in lieu of the 30-second scan).


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Charles R said:


> You can still use the 30-second skip (in lieu of the 30-second scan).


Thanks! I hadn't even tried to turn it on, assuming that it wasn't available on the Premiere. Silly me.

Rather surprising that they left it in.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

lpwcomp said:


> Yes, nowadays some people FF through commercials or channel surf. Most don't.
> 
> I know the TV industry has done studies on this. It's all a big lie to say that most people who use DVR's still watch all the commercials. C'mon, you seriously believe that??? They are protecting their revenue stream. They HAVE TO LIE.
> 
> ...


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Most people don't have DVRs. While DVR installation has grown, it still represents < 50% of households. Of that number, what percentage have one simply because it was part of their satellite or cable package? How many actually use it in the same manner as a typical TiVo user? I would guess that the number is a lot lower than you seem to think. While there is probably more skipping commercials than the TV industry would have us believe, most people still watch live TV, probably even most of those with DVRs.

When I said effective, I didn't mean on an individual basis, I meant overall. IN order for net delivered advertising to be a better buy than TV, it has to be more effective. There are a number of factors that go into that, and yes, one of them is "how likely is it that my ad will be seen by my targeted consumer?".

OK, we'll take that one factor in isolation. How about we perform a little gedanken experiment? Let's say that 20% of viewers get their content via the internet. I think that is high, but I'm willing to use it for this purpose. Let's also say that 50% of the rest are skipping commercials via FF. The commercial is still seen by twice as many people who view content by traditional means.

Right now, I'm gonna watch last night's "Haven" and yes, skip the freakin' commercials.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

If a viewer can watch the shows for free on-line instead of paying $50+ per month for cable TV, then the viewer would have more disposable income to purchase the items being advertised in the commercials. I would think the on-line provider could provide much more detailed viewer statistics than Nielson.


----------

