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.
Based on what I saw in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
If I don't buy a palm-sized AppleTV, Steve Jobs may crush me with it. Seriously, billion-dollar company and that's the best picture they'd allow?
Although in all honesty, why are we talking AppleTV? Mac mini's are a little more expensive, but that (+boxee) has been my awesome set-top box for over a year now.
-Matt
Missing the point. (Score:4, Interesting)
Desktop: I run a formerly high-end 1600x1200 CRT that I could get for free at the curbside these days. The computer to which it's attached has been replaced (motherboard) at least three times during that CRT's life. We just had our discussion of "why can't I find LCDs at 1200 vertical pixels" a few days ago.
Connectivity: Dialup, DSL, cable, 4g wireless. Even these technologies have tended eclipse each other over periods of 3-5 years - still shorter than the time period you'd expect to get out of a $2000 TV.
Content Distribution: Ten years ago, you'd want Napster built into your stereo. Five years ago, you'd want a Gnutella client built into your TV. Three years ago, people who bought subscription music offerings got PlayedForSure.
Content Playback: Ten years ago, it was .MPGs and .AVIs. Five years ago, a DiVX at sufficiently high resolution could drag a single-core CPU to the ground. You really think that Google TV's gonna be able to render 3D-mega-HD-whatever in 2015-2020? :)
The things you use to get content have far shorter lifecycles than the products you use to view content. Embedding one within the other is a WOMBAT: Waste Of Money, Brains, And Time.
How easy are they? (Score:3, Interesting)
If I bought the GoogleTV or AppleTV for my nearly 80-year-old parents would it (1) be able to connect to their old composite-only set? What about S-video?
(2) How easy would it be for them to use? Right now they barely comprehend how to change channels on the Digital-to-analog Converter box ("How do I get this damn TV Guide off the screen???"), so I'm a bit skeptical they could operate either of the internet-based boxes.
(3) Does it work over a 1000 kbit/s line? Or would they need to download first and watch later?
Why not run Boxee on the old Apple TV? (Score:5, Interesting)
Or buy a device that actually fits your needs, right out of the box?
I just bought a second Apple TV (the old model, it's only $149 on clearance with a 160GB hard drive)*.
The first thing I did was patch it using the readily-available patchstick software and it now has Boxee and XBMC on it. I get way more usage out of XBMC than Boxee, but that's just me. Presumably the new Apple TV will have similar hacks available for it real soon now.
The thing is, our main use for the Apple TV boxes is to use them as designed - to play our iTunes library of music, and look at our pictures from iPhoto. Honestly I've never even tried to watch anything other than a music video via the Apple software on the box. We have a library of videos and movies on a 1TB WD MyBook World Edition on our network, and we use XBMC to watch those.
The Apple TV is a great product, if you want to use it for what it's designed for. If, on the other hand, you want an open, hackable device, look elsewhere.
I have never understood why people think it's worthwhile to complain that a product that is marketed as a closed box, is actually a closed box, especially when there are other alternatives out there. It's like if I went out and bought a really expensive electronic toothbrush and then complained to everyone that it can't be easily modified to wash my car or polish furniture.
* I wanted the older model of the Apple TV because it actually stores all of your iTunes/iPhoto content on its internal hard drive, so you don't need a computer to be on in order to watch that content.
Don't build fast changing tech into the TV (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of commentators say that this tech needs to be built into the TV, but I disagree. Chipsets, storage and networking hardware are less expensive than display tech, but they also change and improve much more rapidly. People don't want to have to replace their entire TV just because some new networking standard came on the market, or because a new app requires more storage or a more powerful chipset than the TV has built in. In fact, I think the even digital tuners built into most HDTVs are obsolete because they only decode MPEG2, not H.264. We'll never see higher picture quality in traditional broadcasts or cablecasts no matter how cheap H.264 decoding hardware gets because that part of the TV is set in stone. It's most economical and convenient for the customer to only replace their set top box.
So another reason why Apple's ahead of Google is that they're not bothering with TV integration for now. It's bad news for TV makers who had hoped to get customers to replace their entire TVs because one part had become obsolete, but that's such a bad value for customers that it wouldn't work even in a good economy.
Re:Based on what I saw in the article (Score:3, Interesting)
i'm curious what you're using for netflix on the device. i've tried understudy and boxee, and was sorely disappointed with the issues of both. i purchased the appletv solely for netflix support, but would still be happy to go back to just my mac mini (which is used for playing audio/video off the local network, hulu, boxee, sapphire, etc via front row).
Re:Why not run Boxee on the old Apple TV? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's as if you went out and bought a really expensive electric toothbrush and found out that half the cost was the extra gadgetry they've introduced to ensure that you can only use their brand replacement heads and toothpaste.
I don't mind closed boxes being closed. I mind extra effort being put into keeping the closed box closed, after I buy it, for no good reason and plenty of bad ones.
If I decide to turn my toothbrush into an electric buffer, I'll take the heat for the appropriateness of the task. If I can't decide to turn my toothbrush into an electric buffer, simply because the manufacturer has included a sensor that detects the surface being brushed and refuses to allow the motor to run if the composition is anything other than calcium, then that's not a problem with my expectations, that's a problem with the manufacturer.
Popcornhour Networked Media Players are the Best (Score:3, Interesting)
GoogleTV and AppleTV are low end devices that do not play back all file formats.
Popcornhour http://www.popcornhour.com/onlinestore/index.php?pluginoption=catalog [popcornhour.com] is was ahead of the game. The model C200 networked media player will play back any file format and has provision for a local hard drive or blue ray drive.
The C-200 supports NFS, SMB, FTP, and multiple streaming protocols. It also has a built in bit torrent client for media downloads.
I've had mine for a year and am very satisfied. It probably won't work with iTunes, but then, I'm not in to proprietary formats that cost money and are infected with DRM.
Re:Missing the point. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds like you are describing DLNA.
I guess so, except well supported by everyone and without problems. I want to be able to watch whatever TV shows and movies I want on any hardware device I want. I want multiple choices in "video service providers", being able to make decisions based on the price and the quality of service they provide rather than the hardware support they have available.
I want to be able to use my XBox to buy a movie from iTunes or use a AppleTV to buy a movie from Amazon without needing Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon to have made prior deals (other than agreeing to use the same formats/protocols). I want to be able to watch Hulu shows on a iPad or a Zune or a set-top box without needing special permission and special software via Hulu Plus.
All of these companies keep crippling their own services, introducing artificial restrictions, and then asking for additional money to let you do the things you should have been able to do from the start. They need to get their shit together, or else we should find a way to bypass them.
Re:Based on what we've seen so far (Score:1, Interesting)
The issue Google is going to have in getting this into every TV/Blu-Ray/cookie jar built is the hardware manufacturers will not have an incentive to include it if consumers aren't willing to pay the $150-300 Google TV tax. In order to get the consumer buy-in needed, this thing needs to be cheaper at the start so it can get into more people's hands who can then show it off the to their friends and neighbors.
The other issue Google will have is simplicity. "Non-Tech" People who watch TV don't want a remote with 86 buttons. They want to be able to push channel up or down to do their channel surfing. This is still available with Google TV, but if people don't actively use the new features, why buy it? This is going to start off in the high-end tech toy niche and I'm sure there will be many users that love it. But I'm not sure it has what it takes to become mainstream.
That said, the Apple TV isn't there yet either. You're limited to content from the Apple ecosystem. And unlike music, video content in their ecosystem is a lot less diverse and a lot more expensive than alternatives. If Apple opens up their TV to outside content via apps and it remains a simple to use service, then it will be accepted by John Q. Public who live at 123 Main St.
Re:3 Menu Clicks (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a Mac Mini with 1.5 TB drive hanging off of it as my home media server. It also has a EyeTV adapter for DVR duties. I used to have it hooked directly to the tv but that would slow it down when trying to stream files from it to other iTunes computers in the house. Ended up moving server to different location (next to router on shelf) and then putting in a couple ATV1's. Now that the server's not actually playing movie files but just streaming them, it works pretty well. Have had 3 different movies running and the same time and no hiccoughs. It also streams live tv from the EyeTV tuner to our iPhones and iPod touches. Since I'm not really storing any real amount of data on the AppleTV's, a version 2 with no hard drive would would out great for us.
Oh yeah, do my ripping on an iMac and it writes the output directly to a folder with folder actions set to add to iTunes on server.
Re:Based on what I saw in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:tivo premier blows them both away (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow, I remember my dad buying a Tivo in the mid 90's, back when external hard drive enclosures were either SCSI or Parallel.
Which of those has an SATA adapter available and which of those adapters works with Tivo?
Re:Roku is actually in the lead (Score:1, Interesting)
You don't need to be an Apple fanboy to see it's merits. The Roku does NOT have all the features you listed for the $60 model. Everything you mentioned, including local media streaming (no network streaming is coming to any Roku) is for the $99 model.
I'd rather have the AppleTV due to a few easy reasons. It has network streaming of mp3/mp4, the iTunes store which has the most content, and it has Youtube. Roku has none of these things. You can add a private channel for Youtube but with a terrible interface compared to Apple's, it does not work as well. Also, my experience with Roku is that outside of the Netflix channel they are very amateurish in design/feel. I haven't played with the new AppleTV but from what I've seen it's very polished in comparison in every way, and I believe Jobs was onto something when he said they created the best interface for Netflix yet. Biggest pitfall to the AppleTV is 720P only, but I prefer high bitrate 720P to 1080i/p at low bitrates. The 1080P on the $100 Roku XDS is good for local media, but I'm not sure I care when I can get network streaming for $99 on the Apple. I really don't have many 1080P files to stream personally but if I did at that price I'm not sure I'd care (or want to have an external USB hdd to play them on the Roku).
If Apple unleashes the fury of iOS and the A4 inside the AppleTV (not to mention the 8GB of NAND/SSD and 2GB RAM).. they are going to destroy anything else near the $100 mark hands down. It's a monster in disguise. Instead of typical nerd rage against anything Apple, take a look at what it is. I'd suggest buying it instead and joining the fanboy army this time.