Comments on: Apple Television talk reignites with Sharp patent overlap

By: kennyrosenyc

kennyrosenyc — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 16:46:00 +0000

OK that’s silly especially considering both iOS and Android are Linux with fancy shells – literally. Also, Windows predated Linux by quite a bit if I’m not mistaken. As far as who developed OpenGL it really doesn’t matter it’s still crap and losing supporters by the day as Direct X allows you to use tessellation in order to display insanely complex graphics in realtime as well as a host of other features. Direct X also gets updated on a regular, whereas Open GL grows in fits and spurts. I’ve heard that both Sony and Nintendo are dropping Open GL in favor of Direct X which would leave Apple and Android as the only platforms for this outdated API. None of this changes the fact that Apple users are still installing Windows for gaming purposes and so long as Apple keeps talking games more Apple users will eventually find their way to this solution.

By: MacsAreBest

MacsAreBest — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 04:45:00 +0000

Minor Correction: Open GL was not developed by M$ for DOS.
Suggestion: think about all the money that has been invested (wasted) in Windoze. And then think about that fact that it is just a very, very expensive version of that which it is mimicing, namely, linux.

By: kennyrosenyc

kennyrosenyc — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:08:00 +0000

I actually worked on the first iTunes ad campaign, and it was not revolutionary at all. There were several media players available prior to that with the same features. As far as comparing the new TV to the old I was merely pointing out that Apple has a serious history of failing half the time especially without Jobs, plain and simple. The Newton is another example as was the G4 cube. I remember that the iMac, a computer the company I worked for invested in heavily, was horrendous. The optical drives never lasted more than 6 months under heavy use. And they tended to overheat on a regular. If you go to Grainger, a company that actually sells Apple components you will find that Apple desktops all have the same power supply, no matter what’s inside. Unless you’re very careful your desktop will either be vastly overpowered or severely underpowered. The former is a waste of money, the latter murders computers as it makes them run hot. But that’s what Apple does, they make these machines that have some good features but fall short on others (I guess everybody does that). They also have created an operating system that requires little or no actual knowledge of how things work in order to use it. As a consequence Apple user take whatever they say as law without ever realizing that the playing feild is far more level than Apple would ever admit to. As we speak many Apple users are forced to install Windows just to play AAA games because Microsoft is still holding out on Direct X. So Windows is migrating to Apple’s hardware and yet Apple’s OS is not doing the same. But Apple users ‘think’ that Apple computers are ‘state of the art’ and that they actually have this awesome library of games. They do not. They’re using a graphics API that Microsoft developed for DOS (Open GL) which isn’t bad, it’s just not the best and has more in common with an Atari 2600 than ‘state of the art’ games. As far as the puzzle goes there isn’t one, not for a TV anyway. It’s just like the iPhone. People buy it but the real issue I have is ‘Does it make a better phone call? That’s what I buy a phone for. The answer is no. The Apple TV will sell. But can Apple maintain it over years. Samsung has already gone well into Ultra-HD territory with sets that are 16 times the resolution of HD having been showcased as much as 2 years ago. There is no ceiling to resolution. HD is somewhere around what the film industry calls 2K. Actual film ranes from 5K – 8K. Red video cameras shoot at 4K. And TV manufacturers have stated that they intend to double TV resolution every few years. I can go into my editing suite and create a project that is 1 million X 1 million if I so choose (there is no video card that will render it but that’s not the point). I honestly think all of this is Apple returning to the old format. Apple gear only works with Apple gear – all of which is very expensive. Think about the $50 thunderbolt cable and expect to need several to fully accessorize the iPad and you’ve already spent more than enough to buy a mid-range desktop that will do 10 times more. The truth is ‘state of the art’ hardware is never – ever small. A ‘state of the art’ graphics card was bigger than an iPad a year ago. The new generation is still bigger. The goal is to create something that will give you the same quality graphics as a movie in real time. Not only are those graphics constantly evolving, we’re nowhere near that goal so don’t expect to get the same quality graphics from a tablet that you can get on a desktop ever. At least not until you can control a desktop remotely with a tablet. But then again you can do that with Windows 8 right?

By: RealGuy

RealGuy — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:19:00 +0000

I, too, ask many of the same questions as to the point of a desktop TV – and it’s obvious that the mixture of the app store, the music and video store are what are going to be major drivers of continued profits once a device has been bought.

Beyond that – I agree there is something we haven’t put together for the grand piece that completes the puzzle, and I don’t believe that there isn’t such a piece. We just don’t see it yet.

As for comparing a 1994 Performa class 68040 or low end 603 based PowerPC Mac/TV combo as a basis for comparing whatever they have in mind – that’s as short sighted as comparing any of those all-in-one devices to the first iteration of the iMac.

The iMac wasn’t that different, but then again… it was. Enough so, that it made all the difference in the world – and had EVERYONE imitating it and the colors it came in for three to four YEARS. Consider all the things that emerged in Bondi Blue and Tangerine — all because of a simple desktop computer that finally combined the right amount of power (the G3/300 downclocked to 233MHz) with USB, a sleek design and despite so many power supply problems plaguing those early models, it still continued up to 700MHz with a DVD burner before moving to the iLamp, IT being a truly revolutionary design, with the first flat screen mounted on a hinge and the computer itself inside the contents of half of a basketball as its base.

Indeed, it remains to be seen what the attraction will be. But what does NOT remain to be seen is… whose inspiration it was. I think that list will go onward for a few years. One need only watch the keynote from 1996, when Steve was not even in charge, and Amelio was, to listen to him speak of iTunes, iPhoto, the iPhone, the iPad, and OS X – and it’s all there. But it was meaningless to everyone on the outside of his HEAD — because only he could see it at that time.

We’ll soon learn. I just hope I don’t want one. I’ve been bitten 3x, in 23 years, with buying the object instead of the stock – and have lost $2,000,000 as a result of investing in the “wrong thing.”

By: kennyrosenyc

kennyrosenyc — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 16:29:00 +0000

I’m still confused about what this is supposed to be. Aside from being an Apple product what is the selling point of an Apple TV? Will it be voice controlled and if so how will it know which voice to obey? Will it switch channels accidentally when viewers get excited and call out? After all Siri isn’t exactly all as advertised. Will it be gesture controlled? Again, how will it know the difference between an intentional gesture and somebody just moving? Maybe Apple’s whole iCloud ecosystem will be a selling point but I can’t see how. It’s just not an actual requiremed element for viewing TV, cable or otherwise. I guess you could feel some form of joy/superiority by controlling an Apple TV with an iPad but that just means you’ve got a glorified remote. What I really think is that this is just the beginning of Apple working their way back into a ‘desktop’ environment. That I can see, it doesn’t make sense but it does if you know Apple. They’ll sell you a TV, then a render appliance (basically an outboard graphics card – been in use in film for over a decade), a keyboard, an optical drive etc, etc. Then one day you’ll look up and realize you’re back whare you were a few years ago. Sitting pretty with what is essentially a desktop – but this time it will cost way more than a G5 and you won’t realize it until after you’ve spent the money. I remember when companies tried to sell the visual effects industry on gesture controlled interfaces (a la Minority Report). They actually worked, mind you this was almost 10 years ago so it’s not like any of this is new, but they had a serious problem. The only way they actually worked was if you learned a very complex sign language to go along with it. Hence they flopped. I also remember Apple trying to sell a computer/TV hybrid back in the day – it also flopped.