Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Media Television Apple Entertainment Hardware Technology

Apple vs. Google TVs 403

This SFGate article begins, "Apple and Google just kicked off the first round of their battle for the living room. Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead. It's still early, and this could change, but it looks like Apple is making an all-around smarter bet than Google." I haven't tried out the Google device yet. The Apple unit is decent, but it's so focused on TV rental that it makes it difficult to work with an existing library of media; between the transcoding, and tedious menu navigation... well, it's a good thing it's only $99. It's a dang cheap way to get your stuff on your bigger screens, provided you're willing to jump through the necessary hoops.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple vs. Google TVs

Comments Filter:
  • by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @12:53PM (#33826358)
    "Based on what we've seen so far, Apple is in the lead"

    Really? Based on what I've seen so far, regular television manufacturers are in the lead.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:05PM (#33826502)

    XBMC all the way ;)

  • TV? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by frank_adrian314159 ( 469671 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:10PM (#33826564) Homepage

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

  • by Darkness404 ( 1287218 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:11PM (#33826584)

    Content Playback: Ten years ago, it was .MPGs and .AVIs. Five years ago, a DiVX at sufficiently high resolution could drag a single-core CPU to the ground. You really think that Google TV's gonna be able to render 3D-mega-HD-whatever in 2015-2020? :)

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

  • Prey.. meet bait. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EasyTarget ( 43516 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:20PM (#33826686) Journal

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

    Oh no it isn't....

    That's merely the entrance fee.. Admission to individual attractions, food, beverage and use of toilets is all extra.

  • the transcoding... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:23PM (#33826760)
    The Apple unit is decent, but it's so focused on TV rental that it makes it difficult to work with an existing library of media; between the transcoding,

    .
    Apple needs to support more of the non-Apple open codecs, e.g. FLAC for audio. There are too many websites offer high-quality audio (96/24 resolution) in FLAC. Apple is trying to get the web to conform to Apple's desires, instead of Apple supporting what is already out there on the web.

  • by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:32PM (#33826890) Journal

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

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

  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:32PM (#33826892) Homepage

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

  • Re:Wait for it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Myopic ( 18616 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:32PM (#33826900)

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

  • Re:3 Menu Clicks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by h4rr4r ( 612664 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:33PM (#33826918)

    Plugging in one HDMI cable.

  • A little more? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:35PM (#33826948) Journal

    About 7 times the cost.

  • Re:slanted author (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:47PM (#33827118) Homepage

    There is some rambling about input 1 and 2 and I'm not quite sure what he is getting at with that but the conclusion was Apple uses input 2 and that made it easier and therefore better.

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

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

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

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

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

  • by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday October 07, 2010 @01:49PM (#33827142) Homepage
    No, it's a little more like saying "An iPod nano costs $150". Sure, you have to buy albums from somewhere if you want to play music on it, but the device is $150, and you have no obligation to pay anything on top of that if you don't want to.
  • by dzfoo ( 772245 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:47PM (#33827906)

    Not true. From the AppleTV web page:

    Audio formats supported:

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

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

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

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

            -dZ.

  • by bhcompy ( 1877290 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @02:48PM (#33827914)
    Really? You have the 360 over the PS3 in this regard? PS3 works with standard media servers, has a great freeware media server that transcodes on the fly, doesn't double dip your wallet for netflix like the 360 does, and has a much smoother multimedia interface
  • Re:What hoops? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oh_my_080980980 ( 773867 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @03:34PM (#33828486)
    "I'm not seeing the point of an Apple TV for most people, it doesn't solve any problems. If they really want to stream content the easiest way would be to just buy a cheap HTPC and set up their favorite media center on it, and then they could play DVDs/Blu-Rays/Netflix/YouTube/etc all from one device."

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

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

    And seriously, you don't need a separate computer to be your media server unless you are a retard that doesn't have a networked TV!
  • by BronsCon ( 927697 ) <social@bronstrup.com> on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:23PM (#33829114) Journal

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

    [Citation Needed]

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

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

  • Re:3 Menu Clicks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @04:30PM (#33829188) Homepage

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

    No it isn't.

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

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

  • by loufoque ( 1400831 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @05:19PM (#33829850)

    is all you should ever need
    I personally use one of those devices from Western Digital which are $50.

    Why would you want to purchase crappy VoD services full of DRM and only providing a handful of stuff when you can get whatever you want and more in true high quality and without restrictions?

  • Re:3 Menu Clicks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jedidiah ( 1196 ) on Thursday October 07, 2010 @10:35PM (#33832544) Homepage

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

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

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

    That's probably why Apple does it.

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

  • by Nyder ( 754090 ) on Friday October 08, 2010 @01:44AM (#33833344) Journal

    Not everyone wants to break the law.

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

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

  • by loufoque ( 1400831 ) on Friday October 08, 2010 @08:11AM (#33834606)

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

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

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds. Biochemistry is the study of carbon compounds that crawl. -- Mike Adams

Working...