Slashdot Log In
Apple's Moment — Consumers Want To Download To TV
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Sep 21, 2006 09:26 AM
from the last-10-feet dept.
from the last-10-feet dept.
ack154 writes, "With so much recent news surrounding Apple's upcoming iTV system, their timing may be nearly perfect. Ars Technica gives the rundown on a recent report, released from Accenture, stating that about half of users surveyed across the globe are now looking to get downloadable videos, movies and other content onto their TV. Based on the article, if Apple can get the right combination in features, price, and usability, many consumers may be ready to eat it up. Macworld has more speculation on Apple's potential living room dominance."
Related Stories
[+]
Apple Announces iTunes 7, Movies, Set-Top Box 710 comments
necro81 writes, "As anticipated, Apple announced several additions and upgrades to its iPod and iTunes lineup. The iPod now comes in an 80 GB model, with a $50 price drop for the 30 GB model. The 2nd generation iPod Nano harkens back to the iPod Mini with metallic, multi-colored shells (though as diminutive as ever) and comes in an 8 GB model. The Shuffle has been completely redesigned and shrunk down to the size of a matchbook. All of this comes with the release of iTunes 7, which includes support for downloading full-length movies from iTMS." All 75 movies initially available are from Disney-related studios. The new iTunes will download cover art for all the songs in your library, no matter where you got them from, as long as you have an iTunes account. (A confirmation dialog says: "Information about songs with missing artwork will be sent to Apple. Apple does not keep any information related to the contents of your music library.") There's a new album-cover browsing view of your library. And Steve Jobs gave a sneak preview of a project code-named iTV: a Mac Mini-like wireless set-top box. Engadget has a blow-by-blow of Steve Jobs's presentation.
[+]
Google and Apple Finally Teaming Up? 126 comments
nieske writes "Rumors are spreading about Google and Apple teaming up to form a video alliance. Google might provide streaming video content for Apple's upcoming iTV, which was revealed in last week's Apple event. The only thing that seemed to be missing in the iTV preview was streaming video, and with Google's Eric Schmidt on the Apple board of directors, this alliance might actually not be so far-fetched."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Apple's Moment — Consumers Want To Download To TV
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 295 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It really does work. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
However, I have long considered that if iTunes was a bit faster at getting the content (or had exclusive content!) I'd hop on the bandwagon in an instant. To that end, I was one of the many who downloaded the Aquaman Pilot to check it out. For a pilot, it was quite good - though a bit too "hip and edgy" in Stargate 200 [youtube.com] kind of way. Still, if there were more episodes I would have seriously considered downloading them.
Then iTunes got Eureka.
For those of you who don't know what it is, Eureka is a SciFi Channel original TV Show that is on during weeknight timeslots. Exactly the type of timeslots I don't manage to catch very often. I've been curious about the show for a while now, but wasn't curious enough to pay a $1.99. But then iTunes had a special. The Pilot Episode could be downloaded for FREE, as in at no charge. (A promotion that I'm sad to say appears to be over.) So I downloaded it.
Suffice it to say, this show was GREAT! It was like Stargate hits Andy Griffith, if you can imagine that. All the humor and technobabble of a SciFi show, but combined with a traditionally rooted character who's trying to make the adjustment. As of yesterday, I have now purchased and watched every Eureka episode available. The quality is good, and the price is right. If iTunes would just carry Stargate and stop making us wait 2 weeks, I'd cancel my cable. Even at a $1.99 an episode, I would probably save money over what I pay Comcast today.
I don't know about anyone else, but I just don't watch the TV enough to make cable worth my while. Which means that I'm paying a premium to watch shows like Stargate, BSG, and Star Trek Enhanced.
If there's any complaint I have about iTunes its that its video player is still somewhat immature. I often like to watch shows in a small window while I work. (I have a TV card for a TV.) Unfortunately, iTunes still lacks an "Always on Top" feature to prevent the show from getting obscured by the corners of windows. Also, the size controls are a bit random If you undock the window from the postage stamp in the corner. For example, if I minimize the main iTunes window (what else am I going to do with it while I'm watching a show?) the "Fullscreen" control will redock the player rather than switching between full screen and windowed mode.
These aren't MAJOR issues, but I do hope they get fixed in the near future.
Re:It really does work. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://conigs.com/)
Ah, the resolution conversation.
First of all, the actual resolution of a DVD image is 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL. The displayed resolution, however, can vary depending on how you want to interpolate pixels. The common 640x480 is used because it contains all the vertical resolution of an NTSC signal, and squishes the horizontal resolution to display properly in square pixels. This is the equivalent of display a PAL image at 720x540. Oddly enough, if you display an NTSC signal by stretching out the vertical resolution instead of squishing the horizontal resolution, you also get 720x540, but with interpolated pixels. PAL would be 768x576.
The 1024 res you mention is for 16:9 anamorphic image. Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576. The image needs to be stretched out to display properly. For NTSC this would be 853x480.
But I see after writing all this, that you did mention square pixel resolution. So I guess this post is rather useless. However, 640x480 isn't that low res if you have an NTSC DVD player, especially considering I'd have to either throw out or interpolate information to to display it properly on a square pixel display. But let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC flame-war. I personally hate them both for different reasons.
Re:It really does work. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://skippus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 19 2005, @07:25AM)
Hell, that would probably save me money. I'm one of those weird people who watch little enough television that if I could pay for the shows I watch by episode, it would be cheaper then paying a monthly cable/satellite bill.
I'd love to see some kind of tiered pay structure set up. For example:
I doubt the networks would go for it, because it would cut into DVD sales. (Never mind that it would increase overall sales and end up making them lots and lots more money in the end. Remember, they're stupid.)
But if Apple had enough boxes out there to start developing their own content (i.e. pay television and movie studios to develop good-quality content exclusively for them), not only would they revolutionize how we all watch television, they would revolutionize the entire entertainment distribution medium. There's no telling what kind of major impact it would have on television networks and cable/satellite companies.
Of course, you can probably shortly thereafter count on cable/satellite companies paying lots and lots of money to Congresscritters so that they'll legislate what can and can't be shown via iTV, lest they lose major marketshare. (A la the way cable companies legislated what television networks I can and can't watch via DirecTV here in Atlanta. "Sorry, if you want to watch the New York ABC station, you're SOL!") Hopefully by that time though, Apple will have made enough money to fight that kind of fire with bigger and hotter fire.
At any rate, this is definitely an idea that is right on—not ahead of its—time, and I'll be one of the first in line to get a new iTV. Really exciting stuff!
Re:It really does work. (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://skippus.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday June 19 2005, @07:25AM)
I do like the idea of extra content; it could really help the format take off. I seriously believe that unless Apple really screws this up (and I don't think they will), it could revolutionize the industry.
The example structure I gave was just that—an example. I'd leave it up to the marketing gurus to decide the exact final prices and structure, but the general concept was to charge a premium rate for one-off high-demand content, give a discount for buying an entire season, give a discount for people willing to wait for a show, and give a deep discount for stuff that's so old that people who normally wouldn't care to watch it might buy it just because it's so cheap.
At any rate, I think that the really interesting thing is that it could totally do away with two middlemen: the television networks and the cable/satellite companies. Studios could market and sell their stuff directly to us, the public. That would take the power to decide what we watch out of the hands of pinhead network executives and put it where it belongs: in our hands, the actual consumers.
If enough people buy a show like Firefly, for example, that they pay their costs and make a little bit of profit, there's a strong incentive to keep making it. There's no idiot in the middle with decision-making power like the guy at Fox who said, "Cancel it." There's no accountability to sponsors. There are no networks fighting for space among a limited cable or satellite bandwidth. There is no mentality that a show must be watched by millions and millions of people to be worth being made. Good stuff all around!
If everything works out, everything may work out (Score:5, Funny)
This is often true. If a product can be designed, priced, and produced so that it succeeds, then the product may be a success. Thanks Slashdot!
The moment they... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://beckerist.com/)
This is why Apple "Gets It' (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, we all want downloadable television/video content (as seen by YouTube, et al.) and iTV seems to be just that.
If the Form Factor is right, the price point is right, it should work.
(UI Omitted, as being Apple the UI *will* be right...)
Full disclosure: I am not an Apple fanboy. And the names give me an iHeadache.
A la carte (Score:5, Insightful)
Supply following demand. (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://robvincent.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 09, @01:55PM)
Personally, I only follow a couple of shows, and all my TV content for the past several years has been either DVDs (watched on a computer,) downloads (P2P-style,) or authorized streams (bless you, Adult Swim!) I haven't owned an actual television for years.
Oblig (Score:1, Redundant)
-Parallax
Free TV Online (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://inglorion.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday October 06 2005, @07:17AM)
This sort of thing exists (at least it does in the Netherlands), but it doesn't seem to be taking off. For me, the reason is that I haven't yet found a service that I can use. Most of them are all MSIE & WMP and ActiveX required - and we refuse to even try to give you service if your system fails the test. There's no way I'm going to install all that crap on my system, but I can't imagine it would be too hard for content providers to use more interoperable technologies.
I would love to be able to watch a movie whenever I feel like it, without having to depend on one I like being broadcast in the few hours a day when a few TV channels broadcast them. I'm sure this goes for plenty of othe people, too. Right now, many people are getting their DivX movies from the shady corners of the net, but who wants to wait for hundreds of megabytes to finish downloading, hoping that the quality will be ok, subtitles will be in sync, etc. etc. if they can get free movies off reputable sites, and start watching right away?
Re:Free TV Online (Score:4, Funny)
Now if only someone invented a box that would let you watch shows whenever you want to without depending on TV schedule.... Maybe digitaly record tv content and let you watch it whenever... that would be cool....kind of a "Tv In-Video Out" device, something that could Replay TV content any time you want to... you know, this T.I.V.O thing could be very cool if someone just would invent it.... too bad its just a Myth, and there is nothing like that..
-Em
Kinda exists already (Score:1)
(http://dr-tools.sourceforge.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday January 23 2007, @10:27AM)
Plays on your TV set contents lying on your computer. Both are using a modified / encapsulated VLC. You still need to download onto your PC first (at the time the functionnality was developped, TVoDSL decoders didn't integrate an hard-disk).
And doesn't a MS Windows Media Center already provide this functionnality ?
Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem of syncing-up the audio and video latency alone is tough to conquer (and is most likely the reason you can't stream iTMS TV show audio over AirTunes now). On top of that is the much bigger problem of making sure the packets arrive on time, in a home environment that is increasingly bathed in interfering radio signals. Both of these problems can be addressed by caching at the TV end, which is undoubtedly the reason for the large form factor of the iTV (compare to the size of the AirPort Express).
Finally there is the user experience to consider--right now for example, when I change the volume or equalizer settings on my iBook, it takes about 1.5-2 seconds to be manifested in my stereo speakers over AirTunes. How will this be solved on the iTV? I'm used to pausing my movies the instant my finger hits the remote. I guess the remote could command the iTV, and the iTV could communicate the command to the Mac (thus keeping the latency hidden from the viewer). But this would mean that you could not control your movies or TV shows from the Mac itself, which sort of breaks the paradigm of the Mac as the center of your digital life.
Re:Apple's biggest challenge: wireless LAN (Score:5, Informative)
Tivo or iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
Say there are 4 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $160. That is $13.33/mo
Say there are 8 shows I really like @ $2 a show for 20 episodes = $320. That is $26.66/mo
Yes, ease of use and the cool factor will be a draw; however, economics will be the driving force.
Which model is kicking ass in the legal music word: buy your digital music or subcribe to a service and "rent" the music?
Re:Tivo or iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
If those are cable shows, that's a bargain. Nobody gets cable TV for $26/month. If you only like a handful of shows, disconnect the cable service and download them.
If those are not cable shows, then there's no need for TiVo service either. An EyeTV box will let you tune them in over the air for free and record them to your Mac in glorious HDTV.
Mind you, I would not have reccommended using iTMS for any TV shows a month ago. The crap resolution was a deal-killer unless you planned on only watching them on your iPod screen. The new 640x480 progressive-scan resolution ain't bad though. Apart from a few wide-screen shows, it's not a bad way to go. In many cases, the iTMS season packages are cheaper than the DVD box sets of the same show.
2 weeks? (Score:3, Interesting)
2 weeks for BSG ep's? If i remember corectly last seasion they were available the next day (BSG is the only reasion i started using itunes since i gave up my dvr i had to watch ep's somehow and firday night isn't allways the best time for me to watch tv)
Double standards? (Score:2)
XBMC had made a believer out of me (Score:3, Informative)
I don't see much of a market (Score:1, Interesting)
And Apple's going to do it for us? (Score:3, Funny)
Aesthetic problem with iTV (Score:4, Interesting)
You'll be disappointed: no bandwidth (Score:2, Troll)
This isn't video on demand, it's video-after-drumming-your-fingers. I wish it weren't true, but even with faster DOCSIS 3.0 modems, you'll wait for a long time for teeny little rasters that hardly suit a cell phone.
I truly wish we had distributed networking/cached infrastructure that could do this. But to everyone's surprise, we don't.
Steam like content (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not the same with TV shows? Get a Season Pass to Lost, it preloads the morning of and knows that at 7pm in your time zone (or whatever time it's on) that you are now allowed to watch that content from your iTV.
I know a lot of people here want to pick what cable channels they have and pay a smaller price... it'd be almost nicer to just pick the shows.
Undercutting networks, retailers, etc. (Score:1)
(http://www.goerwitz.com/)
Might work - except for the paying part (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday December 08 2005, @04:33PM)
I can't see wanting to pay for each episode of some show! - yuck.
Also it needs that automatic aspect so you can just tell it want you want generally and it will
download it for you at night.
Correct prices (Score:2)
Entertainment budget: about $120 a month.
Television hours: About 112 a month.
Correct price is about $1 per *HOUR*.
Price TV Series people want... $1 to $2 per hour ($3 for foreign made series often).
Price Movie people want... $2.50 to $5 per hour.
Price "cable" people want... $60 per month of all you can eat with one set of premium channels.
Price music video people want... $1 per 3 minutes.
Price music people want... $1 per 3 minutes.
Can we see why there is so much piracy pressure on music products?
Portability? (Score:2)
(http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~pluther)
What I want is to be able to download a show and watch it on whatever device I want to watch it on. I want to be able to watch it on my PDA while during the train trip to work, or on my TV in my living room, or on my desktop computer in the den, or on a laptop.
I want to be able to back it up, or burn it to DVD to watch at a friend's house or later at any time without losing my entire collection if my hard drive crashes.
I want to download it on my Windows machine and watch it on my Linux laptop. Or vice-versa. I want to be able to download it over a wireless connection if I'm stuck in the airport for several hours longer than I expected and watch it on my laptop, then later transfer it to my TV and watch it again weeks or months later.
Can their service do all that? Because if not, it still lags behind pirate networks. I'm perfectly happy to pay $1.99 per episode, or maybe even more. But not if it locks me into a single vendor's viewer software, even if it's free, and definitely not if I can't make backups of any of content.
$2 a show sucks. (Score:1)
(http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 09 2006, @07:45PM)
Yes, I realize that I don't watch every show that is on, but here's my point:
I watch 1-3 shows a day. Let's call it 2. 30 days times 2 shows = 60 shows, times $2 = $120.
How is paying $120/month helping me? If it's more expensive than my cable (which I've downgraded to $20/month), why would I not just download it via bittorrent?
This is pure greed. This is not as cool as everyone thinks it is.
No one WANTS to download tv. They have to. (Score:4, Interesting)
So let's say you're driving home at 6:51 and you're car breaks down, you're show is on at 7:00, you've missed it, so either you have two options, download the episode (legally/illegally) or skip the rest of the season because you don't want to spoil yourself.
But wait what if we have DVR? Ok that works.
Come home at 8:00 all mad at the mechanic for overcharging you and find that there was a cable outage and your DVR didn't record the program, you're still in the same place.
The way TV shows works now the only option is to have something where you can see the episode so you can keep watching the show so the advertisers will keep paying for advertising. The part I disprove of is the fact that they charge you for the right to watch the show again, and will scream bloody murder if they find out you downloaded the episode for free, personally I find the system to be broken and Apple is only a stopgap.
No, I want HD and I don't want to download it (Score:1)
(http://www.product4me.com/)
No, I don't want to watch SD TV on a tiny screen on my iPod or on my PC screen. I have a 50" HDTV for TV viewing.
Am I the only one waiting for more shows (such as Amazing Race) to go HD, rendering them practically undownloadable by modern methods?
Last ten feet could be PodNet (Score:2)
Apple could be very successful at solving this problem because they have people using a network today that can bridge that gap - the iPod. A sort of next generation sneaker-net, it would be very easy for most people to download video to an iPod and then hook that into an iTV device to play. Then they wouldn't even need a good coonection at home, they could use one at work...
Of course the iTV will probably also have more advanced connections that power users would want, but the key is going to be making the iTV work for people that cannot and will not set up a computer network at home.
Viiv (Score:2)
(http://www.andrewrondeau.com/)
Viiv is supposed to do what the Ars Technical article describes. Specifically:
Hopefully, it all works... I just think it's going to take a few years before the system is ready for the early adopter market.
Personal Show Archiving (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case, the bulk of my collected content has been animated shows that are currently very difficult to obtain, such as "Rocko's Modern Life", which have yet to be released on DVD.
However, being an animator myself, having the ability to archive and organize large amounts of animated content serves a purpose beyond simple entertainment. It allows me to access any scene, in any episode, of any show on demand, and then lets me examine the scene in question for ideas that I can use within my own work. This is extremely useful, since I no longer have to interrupt my workflow to locate examples of various techniques used in the industry. As long as I know what episode and approximately where in the episode the scene I need occurs, I can bring it up in a matter of seconds.
I could see this having applications in other fields as well. For example, auto manufacturers could create a video-database of how to repair/replace certain parts of a vehicle, and then allow auto mechanics to store this database locally onto an iPod style device. Then, as the mechanic is working on a vehicle, if something comes up he can't quite figure out, he can simply pull out the device in question, go to vehicle's manufacturer/make/model in the database and bring up video relevant to the problem he's trying to fix. It's definitely not something cool like "augmented reality goggles", but it's certainly a step up from having to climb up out of the pit, and then flip through a 1,000+ page book to locate the needed info.
iTV Community Already Started... (Score:1)
What iTunes Lacks right now: Captions (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday January 04 2002, @11:23AM)
Loud environments, quiet dialog, nonnative-english-speaking-viewers (or whatever the language of the video is), all are strong reasons for making captions easier to find and use, not harder. Please listen, Apple!
I have been surprised by how hard it is to view captions in the Quicktime format using the Quicktime player. The format seems to have all the necessary pieces ( I think ), but the player makes no provision for doing the right thing, in particular, the way DVD players and TVs composite the text with the video.
Instead the only option seems to be black bands with text on top of them, either via bolt-on SMIL, or via embedded data in the
http://newmedia.scetv.org/webaccesstc/html/capvid
http://www.webaim.org/techniques/captions/quickti
So it's do-able, but so ugly and unintegrated that nobody does it. (e.g. where is the captions on/off button on the QT player?)
Re:bah (Score:2, Funny)
(http://libtom.org/)
And yes, I hate Apple and MSFT. Big whoop, wanna fight about it?
Tom
Re:bah (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
Damn straight! Who needs syndicated television, anyway? As long as you have an ounce of AV skill, you can make your own multimillion dollar television content for your own personal enjoyment. No need for all those fancy-schmansy shows like Stargate and Battlestar Galactica! If we want to see Stargate, we can make our own Stargate show! Do I hear an 'Amen'?
I can't hear you! DO I HEAR AN 'AMEN'?!?
*ponder*
Wait. What was the subject again?
Re:bah (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday October 24 2003, @12:44PM)
Right there you eliminated about 98% of the population, including people who swear they are AV geniuses, which is EXACTLY what Apples product is targeting, the huge portion of the population who think Tivo is a difficult thing to set up and who still 30+ years later can't program the timer on their damn VCRs.
Holy shit... I just said 30 years ago about VCRs.... Im getting too old.
Re:Apples coming lawsuit (Score:2)
(http://iroll.port5.com/)
You can't sue somebody for their product's internal code name; Apple isn't marketting it as "ITV."
Re:bah (Score:2)
I've tried walking around with my PC strapped to my back but I can't find an extension cord long enough for road trips.
Re:Is platform independence so hard? (Score:2)
(http://www.sohomedic.com/)
Re:bah (Score:1)
Re:bah (Score:2)
What something like iTV allows someone like me to do is dump the satellite package that they're paying for in order to watch one or two otherwise unavailable shows, and instead pay less to be able to buy them elsewhere.
The only thing they need is an option to subscribe to a season of the show, where the price includes the DVD package of that season's shows at a discount from the retail price that it will be released at, then they'd really be golden.
Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360. (Score:2)
Re:Is platform independence so hard? (Score:2)
Apple's scheme will support and PC that runs iTunes, any video iPod, and a TV with a computer/iPod/iTV hookup. Amazon's is similar with the exception of iTV (though Apple doesn't have iTV yet either). MS has iTV-like devices that Amazon may be able to use.
These services don't really exist in any mature form yet. Expect them to evolve significantly.
Of course, if you have a Tivo and a PC, you can use the bridge software to provide identical features but through different mechanisms. This combination provides all the capability of Apple's service but without DRM and support for all devices (but not OS X). The question is would you rather pay a flat monthly fee for Tivo (plus cable/sat) and get unlimited programming, high bandwidth, broad device support, but variable quality, or would you rather pay ala carte pricing (plus broadband fees) and get slow downloads, DRM and vendor lockin but with consistent quality. Frankly, I see uses for both but I'm not giving up broadcast TV just yet.
Re:bah (Score:1)
(http://www.thinktower.net/)
yup. the ipod didn't do anything that you couldn't do yourself with a USB cable, some crappy jukebox software and an MP3 player. It was just packaged so all you needed to do was plug it in.
noticing a pattern?
Re:Apples coming lawsuit (Score:1)
Re:bah (Score:2)
You watch TV shows and movies on your monitor? Nasty.
I have a 24" flat panel screen on the games system in the study, and it has 5.1 surround, but as a nice a gaming system as it is [for FPS games/MMO's], it's hardly the best way to enjoy good video content, which - like console gaming - lends itself to a totally different environment.
If I'm going to watch a movie or show at home then I want to watch it on a decent sized display (in my case, a 50" Plasma), with the best sound system in the house, and on comfy seating in the lounge (where I can watch it with friends too, rather than say have them huddle round a monitor).
I think most people with a computer are going to have a TV with a screen that's about twice as large as their monitor (from Joe User with a 15-17" monitor who has a 28-32" TV - to those who spend a bit more on their hardware - who might have a 19" TFT on their computer, but a 40-42" Plasma in the living room).
It's got nothing to do with having 'A/V skills', large displays (even 1080p) in the lounge make for lousy monitors (it's really uncomfortable using one like a monitor, even with a wireless keyboard and mouse) and computer monitors don't make for very good TV's. Different things, different purposes.
Re:Apples coming lawsuit (Score:1)
An iPod advert.
Which means Apple is already giving them money.
Re:Microsoft should adopt this for the 360. (Score:1)
I'm no Mac fanboy by any means. I've always loathed any Mac pre OSX--but have found OSX a nice envirnoment with all the convenient UNIXy tools I frequently use. We'll see what MS does with Vista and it's new mp3 player, but really Apple has pulled ahead in innovation. MS went after gaming, Apple went after multimedia entertainment. I think Apple chose wisely--sorry you gamers out there.
About time Apple came back anyway. I really think Windows 95 was the huge improvement over 3.1 simply because Apple had a nicer GUI. MS may finally do something to recover--Intel's another tech company that has so far effectively hit back with a good product after being challenged by AMD. I'm so glad MS wasn't first with a TV product--it would have sucked and then killed the idea. Maybe now MS will feel it has something it has to beat and will be compelled to either do or die.