Third-Generation Apple TV Lands With a Thud 222
DeviceGuru writes "Although generally overshadowed by the iPad 3 debut, Apple also introduced the third incarnation of its Apple TV streaming media players this week. Sporting a revamped icon-based UI, the third-generation Apple TV doesn't add much to its predecessor beyond a truly-HD 1080p video output mode. Although Apple TV is still not supported by an Apple Apps Store plug-in apps ecosystem, its new UI (available as a free update for 2nd-generation Apple TVs) does seem to imply that this capability is coming soon. Meanwhile, Roku is gearing up for a $50M IPO, so this cord-cutting story is far from over."
Why the negative headlines? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like all the headlines since CmdrTaco left have been really negative, misleading headlines. Do negative headlines really bring in that much more traffic? I stopped reading boing boing because of their terrible headlines, and it looks like Slashdot is headed down that route too.
I used to come here for my daily dose of news and interesting topics, now all the headlines are used to cast doubt on company's futures, failed products and missed deadlines.
I don't mind hearing about "Your Rights Online" and the negative aspects of SOPA, etc, but it's gotten to the point where slashdot is no longer that shining beacon of interesting, exciting NEWs. Why would you spin a minor product improvement (720p->1080p) as a negative headline? What do your readers get out of it? Does it really improve traffic that much? Slashdot goes from being interesting and standing out as a good source of news, to just another "me too" BoingBoing style blog. Please don't do that.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the negative headlines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why the negative headlines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple TV is an iPad accessory (Score:5, Insightful)
The iPad now has all the technical bits in place to become the household computing center for most people. It has built in e-mail, web, video consumption, photo and video management, music, basic document creation and, critically, built in always available cheap broadband internet connectivity (via LTE).
The final nail for the iPad is to get decent dependable TV and movie programming. Once that is in place, iPad covers most people's media needs and the Apple TV is an accessory for the iPad like the Camera Connection Kit but for displaying content on a traditional TV.
Assuming Apple gets its programming, the cable (and DSL) companies are going to get wiped out without ever realizing what hit them.
Re:Why the negative headlines? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an attempt at appealing to the smug, baseless superiority that everyone seems to want to get in on these days. And it's not all negative - stories about things that are "in" with the crowd but that others don't understand/get, like the Raspberry Pi, are being fawned over.
This attitude, then, leads to 2 basic themes that I've noticed: "We're better than everyone else because what they like we hate for various esoteric reasons, and we are always right", and "We're better than everyone else because we know about stuff that they don't, even though our own estimation of our knowledge is blown up out of proportion". Neither of these viewpoints tends to be based on logic.
And this isn't new. Slashdot's been going this way for years, well before Rob left. It's just more blatant now. Personally, I think it coincides with the rise of social media, with everyone thinking the world must hear and respect their opinions about even the most mundane things. But I have only anecdotal evidence to support that theory...
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, Apple doesn't need the Apple TV to be revolutionary. What they need is a way to get their content onto your TV. They're selling these iPads and iPhones with all this ability to play media, and they're also selling the media to play on them. If there were no easy way to get that media onto your TV, that would be a gaping hole in their product lineup.
Besides, if there's an upcoming revolutionary change in TV, I don't tank it'll be a new technology or device, but instead a service. If someone can get a new distribution method in place which effectively replaces cable TV providers with an Internet service, providing access to first-run TV shows and sporting events, it has the potential to change the entire industry.
So that's why they sold out in under 8 hours? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pre orders sold out less than 8 hours after its announcement. Just because a few tech geeks can't twist the hardware to perform all their desires doesn't mean it still isn't a popular consumer good with a much larger buying public. You can't please everyone, and Apple runs a business so they please the largest buying group first.
Re:Apple TV is an iPad accessory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why the negative headlines? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ya I certianly have nothing that uses USB (Score:5, Insightful)
Except my smartphone. And my calculator. And my keyboard, mouse, controller, blood pressure meter, AHCHD camera, calibrator, flash drive, remote, headphone amp, and so on. No nothing at all.
These by the way are just devices laying around my house I can think of. There's more, and more at work as well. USB is kinda of used by, well, damn near everything that likes to plug in to a computer which is damn near everything. As I said, even my blood pressure monitor has USB (so you can download the history of your BP).
But hey if you want to add to the cost and complexity of every device, and reduce the battery life, as well as require an AP for them to work, sure let's go all 802.11.
Re:Revolutionary ? (Score:5, Insightful)
or more simply put:
Asking if Apple is responsible for the "revolutionary" devices like the iPad, iPod, iPhone vs the first devices in the class is like suggesting George Washington wasn't responsible for a good portion of the American revolution but instead it was all some guy in a bar who was bitching about the British before everyone else was.
The iPad is an evolution of the iPhone (Score:3, Insightful)
The iPad wasn't a revolution, it was an evolution of the iPhone. Without the iPhone and its apps the iPad wouldn't have been the success it has been. Apple's genius was recognizing that they could extend the striving ecosphere of the iPhone to another device, and thereby kickstart its adoption. That's the major advantage they've had over other people trying to launch tablets, and it's an advantage that they created, so I'm not belittling it. The device in itself wasn't revolutionary.
From the well-thats-not-very-exciting dept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The iPad is an evolution of the iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
but there is an interview with Steve Jobs from the early 90s in which he says (paraphrased): "I can save Apple. I know what to do. I wouldn't mind helping them, but they're not interested in what I have to say." and then when asked what he would do hey says: "Milk the Macintosh for all its worth to keep going while you're working on the products of the future."
And then consider the statement Jobs made when the announcement of Microsoft's investment in Apple was made: "We have to get past the idea that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose."
I think it's pretty clear from interviews and statements by Jobs both before he returned to Apple and immediately after he returned, that he was focused on the post-PC world right from the start. He recognized that he could never break the market power of the Windows PC, but he saw that improvements in technology would ultimately obsolete the PC as a central, all-encompassing computing platform for most people, and so when he returned, he spent a few years getting the Mac in shape so the company didn't die, and then moved on to the post-PC strategy.
Re:The iPad is an evolution of the iPhone (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's pretty clear from interviews and statements by Jobs both before he returned to Apple and immediately after he returned, that he was focused on the post-PC world right from the start. He recognized that he could never break the market power of the Windows PC, but he saw that improvements in technology would ultimately obsolete the PC as a central, all-encompassing computing platform for most people, and so when he returned, he spent a few years getting the Mac in shape so the company didn't die, and then moved on to the post-PC strategy.
Jobs never saw Apple as a computer company, but as an experience company. This means that the computer is only the means to an end, which is getting specific things done. So it's only natural that when there's another way to get the stuff done people want to do (like surfing the web, checking emails, listening to music, writing, composing, painting, etc), he'd be the first to jump ship. Many other technology companies (like Microsoft) ask themselves "how can this issue be solved on a computer?", when the real question should only be "how can this issue be solved?".