In message <helpfulharry-1212110903520...@203-118-175-150.nzwide.ihug. co.nz>
helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> The point was that I run a "tech" business and still use a supposedly
> "obsolete" PowerPC Mac daily ... I still use a dial-up Internet connection
> too. The only problem I have is when someone sends me a .docX format
> document, and even then it's simple to get it resent or convert it.
And the computer I'm using is probably equally limited (or even more) in respect of flash, javascript and docx support, and I use it to maintain several websites. (Not because it is obsolete, but because it is a minority platform.)
> Yes, there is an occasional over-engineered website that doesn't work
> properly (or at all), but nothing that is really worth visiting or is
> actually needed. Yes, the ink cartridges for my equally old printer is no
> longer "supported" by the local stores, but I simply web-order it with
> free delivery.
I personally agree that if a website doesn't degrade, my first choice is to try a different one, however others cannot do their work with such limitations
> Most people and businesses upgrade equipment because they WANT to, not
> because they actually NEED to. The device doesn't suddenly stop working
> just because the manufacturer decides to stop making updates.
> If people WANT to chase the silly latest toy on the block, then that's
> their problem. Blaming the manufacturer is quite simply nonsense ... and
> definitely not an "Apple problem".
Apple have dropped support for machines that certainly have enough power to do pretty much everything most users of current machines wish to do, if they had the software.
As I pointed out, without tenfourfox, my G5 would be pretty much pointless to me. It is only about 9 months older than my mum's macbook, which is of course fully up to date with software.
The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat > less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long > term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will do if they release a television set.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
In article <jollyroger-0A8186.19305811122...@news.individual.net>, Jolly
Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <663d2a4052.j...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat > > less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long > > term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
> You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it > doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will > do if they release a television set.
Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
support / updates for their smart TV, then it may be "obsolete" for
someone who insists on having the very, very newest "stuff", but it will
still perfectly useful for many others.
If you really wanted to go down that silly route, then ALL devices are
"obsolete" before they are even released for the public to buy since every
company is already working on the next model (if not the next two or three
following models).
> In article <jollyroger-0A8186.19305811122...@news.individual.net>, Jolly
> Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <663d2a4052.j...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> > jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat > > > less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long > > > term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
> > You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it > > doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will > > do if they release a television set.
> Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
> not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
> three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
> support / updates for their smart TV, then it may be "obsolete" for
> someone who insists on having the very, very newest "stuff", but it will
> still perfectly useful for many others.
> If you really wanted to go down that silly route, then ALL devices are
> "obsolete" before they are even released for the public to buy since every
> company is already working on the next model (if not the next two or three
> following models).
> Helpful Harry :o)
Well put.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
In message <helpfulharry-1212111616360...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug. co.nz>
helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
> not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
> three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
> support / updates for their smart TV, then it may be "obsolete" for
> someone who insists on having the very, very newest "stuff", but it will
> still perfectly useful for many others.
Worst case scenario is a standards changes (as is happening in the UK at the moment) and no update is provided. Then it /is/ obsolete.
Or more correctly its advantage over a Dumb TV is slashed.
Far better to have a simple Dumb TV and a box that does the fancy stuff.
In message <jollyroger-0A8186.19305811122...@news.individual.net>
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <663d2a4052.j...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat
>> less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long
>> term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
> You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it
> doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will
> do if they release a television set.
That is true, but it is also true that there is no guarantee that what is expected of a smart TV will be the same 8 - 10 years later.
> > Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
> > not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> > updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
> > three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
> Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a > last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
You're comparing a computer with a television set. Do you have any idea how silly that is?
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <jollyroger-0A8186.19305811122...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > In article <663d2a4052.j...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> > jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat
> >> less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long
> >> term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
> > You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it
> > doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will
> > do if they release a television set.
> That is true, but it is also true that there is no guarantee that what > is expected of a smart TV will be the same 8 - 10 years later.
> *That* is the point.
There's no guarantee of anything in this life.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
>> Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
>> not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a > last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
Last generation PPC machines still do today what they did when
they were purchased. They may not run Lion, but unless there
was a hardware failure of some sort, they still run.
There's a difference between "obsolete" and "useless".
>> support / updates for their smart TV, then it may be "obsolete" for
>> someone who insists on having the very, very newest "stuff", but it will
>> still perfectly useful for many others.
> Worst case scenario is a standards changes (as is happening in the UK > at the moment) and no update is provided. Then it /is/ obsolete.
The main danger is if the machine relies on an outside service
for content, say, and the format for the content feed changes.
But then, that danger just hit TVs recently, too, when all
cable signals switched to digital.
Nevertheless, the TVs didn't become useless. The analog
cable tuners became useless, but the machines still work
for other things.
We're all just playing speculation here. Nobody (who is
allowed to talk about it) really has any idea what Apple
is really going to do.
> Or more correctly its advantage over a Dumb TV is slashed.
> Far better to have a simple Dumb TV and a box that does the fancy > stuff.
That has been my take on iMacs vs separate boxes for monitors
and computers. But the fact is that you cannot come close to
the price/performance combination via separate pieces. Part
of that, of course, is that Apple isn't selling any external
box which uses desktop-sized components other than the very
high end MacPro.
I'm eager to see what comes but, like you, until I know a
lot more I suspect my inclination will be to keep using the
TV I have and add a next-generation AppleTV device rather
than replace an existing and perfectly functional display -
even though many of the other functions on that display are,
as you said, already obsolete.
-- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
> > Jess Hampshire wrote:
> >> The point still stands, the worst case of Apple support of somewhat
> >> less than the life I would expect from a TV. A smart TV will need long
> >> term support, otherwise there is no advantage over a dumb TV.
> > You can say stuff like this until you are blue in the face, but it
> > doesn't change the fact that you have absolutely no idea what Apple will
> > do if they release a television set.
> That is true, but it is also true that there is no guarantee that what > is expected of a smart TV will be the same 8 - 10 years later.
Allow me to use the above riff as a way to try to reunite the obsolescence vs. new functions sub-threads of this discussion:
Let's assume that the point of any configuration, either Apple 'Smart' TV or dumb 1080p TV as a monitor for a small computer, say a Mac Mini, is to function as a video viewing and A/V media center, with other functions such as email and web browsing easily available. Does that sound reasonable?
For oval longevity, I would think that the dumb TV + Mini would be the most upgradeable in the future, thus having the longest overall life. You could always replace the Mini, if necessary, but still use the monitor/TV.
If so, the salient question then is:
What extra refinements (I'd expect mostly in 'ease of use', though I'm not sure exactly what those are) must Apple put in an all-in-one Apple TV to make people want to buy it rather than a discrete component setup? You know, 'Future obsolescence be damned. I want a TV which will do THAT!'
In message <yobvcplycpc....@panix2.panix.com>
BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
> Last generation PPC machines still do today what they did when
> they were purchased. They may not run Lion, but unless there
> was a hardware failure of some sort, they still run.
That depends on whether you define "doing what they did" as a literal handling the same files and feeds as they were or as providing the same level of inter-operability with the rest of the world.
> There's a difference between "obsolete" and "useless".
Very true, but had I been the original purchaser of the PPCs I own, I would have very been disappointed at Apple for the period they lasted in their original roles.
In message <jollyroger-FA751F.09211112122...@news.individual.net>
Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a
>> last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
> You're comparing a computer with a television set. Do you have any idea
> how silly that is?
How is it silly? What else should we compare the likelyhood of extended support on?
It's not like any Apple TV is going to be much different from a giant iMac is it?
jesshampsh...@googlemail.com writes:
> In message <yobvcplycpc....@panix2.panix.com>
> BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
>> Last generation PPC machines still do today what they did when
>> they were purchased. They may not run Lion, but unless there
>> was a hardware failure of some sort, they still run.
> That depends on whether you define "doing what they did" as a literal > handling the same files and feeds as they were or as providing the > same level of inter-operability with the rest of the world.
So you're saying that the rest of the world should stop?
So much for any reasonable expectations.
-- Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.
jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <jollyroger-FA751F.09211112122...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >> Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a
> >> last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
> > You're comparing a computer with a television set. Do you have any idea
> > how silly that is?
> How is it silly? What else should we compare the likelyhood of > extended support on?
> It's not like any Apple TV is going to be much different from a giant > iMac is it?
Explain to me how you know what it will be, please.
-- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
> > Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
> > not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> > updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
> > three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
> Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a > last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
As I've said, I'm still using my 12+ year old beige G3 PowerMac to run a
tech busniess. I know people still using even older Macs.
The point stands - even though a company may no longer produce updates,
the device is not suddenly useless and "obsolete". It still does exactly
what it did the day before and will continue to do so for years longer.
> > support / updates for their smart TV, then it may be "obsolete" for
> > someone who insists on having the very, very newest "stuff", but it will
> > still perfectly useful for many others.
> Worst case scenario is a standards changes (as is happening in the UK > at the moment) and no update is provided. Then it /is/ obsolete.
> Or more correctly its advantage over a Dumb TV is slashed.
> Far better to have a simple Dumb TV and a box that does the fancy > stuff.
That "fancy box" is no different. It wil be just as "obsolete" (for those
who insist on having all the very latest toys) just as quickly.
> What extra refinements (I'd expect mostly in 'ease of use', though I'm > not sure exactly what those are) must Apple put in an all-in-one Apple > TV to make people want to buy it rather than a discrete component setup? > You know, 'Future obsolescence be damned. I want a TV which will do > THAT!'
The one single RUMOUR so far is that an Apple TV will allow you to do away
with the remote and use a smart Siri / Siri-based voice controlled
assistant ... whether that's really a useful feature or just a gimmick is
largely personal preference, but my guess is tht like on the iPhone it
will be just a gimick for most users.
Another rumour is that TV functions will be included in the next iMac
release as a test-bed before releasing standalone TVs.
In message <yob1us91yb6....@panix2.panix.com>
BreadWithS...@fractious.net wrote:
>> That depends on whether you define "doing what they did" as a literal
>> handling the same files and feeds as they were or as providing the
>> same level of inter-operability with the rest of the world.
> So you're saying that the rest of the world should stop?
Roger <jollyro...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <5d48674052.j...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > In message <helpfulharry-1212111616360...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug. > > co.nz>, helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> > > Despite what the original person was trying to claim, devices are simply
> > > not suddenly "obsolete" / useless the instant the manufacturer stops the
> > > updates for them and the rumoured Apple TV would not be "obsolete" in ony
> > > three or five years. Yes, when Apple (or Sony or Panasonic) discontinues
> > Most people I know expect a decade plus from a TV. The example of a > > last generation PPC doesn't encourage this expectation.
> You're comparing a computer with a television set. Do you have any idea > how silly that is?
Semi-true. The source of this problem some people have is that the new
"smart TVs" are in fact TVs with in-built computers, and those computer
parts will need updates. They are scared that when YouTube5.0 is released
they won't be able to watch video clips of cute cats playing the piano on
their older non-updated TV.
Some people are trying to make it look like an "Apple problem", when in
reality every "smart" TV will have the same issue and in fact it's no
different to every other device these days, including mobile phones,
fridges, cars, etc., etc.
The truth is that almost the entire business world heavily relies on those
people who insist on buying the latest toys - throwing away a perfectly
usable device and spending more money in order to get the latest and
greatest version for little to no real benefit.
jesshampsh...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <yobvcplycpc....@panix2.panix.com>, BreadWithS...@fractious.net
> wrote:
> > Last generation PPC machines still do today what they did when
> > they were purchased. They may not run Lion, but unless there
> > was a hardware failure of some sort, they still run.
> That depends on whether you define "doing what they did" as a literal > handling the same files and feeds as they were or as providing the > same level of inter-operability with the rest of the world.
> > There's a difference between "obsolete" and "useless".
> Very true, but had I been the original purchaser of the PPCs I own, I > would have very been disappointed at Apple for the period they lasted > in their original roles.
I bought almost the very last of the pre-USB generation of Macs, so it was
"obsolete" as soon as the iMac was released and Apple moved away from ADB
and Apple Serial ... and yet I'm still using that computer 12+years later
to run a tech business with almost no problems at all for
"inter-operability with the rest of the world".
You're making mountains out of molehills, based on no facts for a rumoured
device. That's plain silly.
> >> Last generation PPC machines still do today what they did when
> >> they were purchased. They may not run Lion, but unless there
> >> was a hardware failure of some sort, they still run.
> > That depends on whether you define "doing what they did" as a literal > > handling the same files and feeds as they were or as providing the > > same level of inter-operability with the rest of the world.
> So you're saying that the rest of the world should stop?
> So much for any reasonable expectations.
Stop, no, but it should at least get some intelligence. Do you really NEED
an iPhone that has Siri ... of course not, so the fact that your iPhone
3GS can't run Siri doesn't actually mean anything.
As I said, most upgrades are purely for WANT rather than actual NEED.
In message <helpfulharry-1312110857090...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug. co.nz>
helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> As I've said, I'm still using my 12+ year old beige G3 PowerMac to run a
> tech busniess. I know people still using even older Macs.
And I still heat my house with a wood stove. As I pointed out, I know people using PCs with win 95 and word for DOS.
They still don't get the current standards, which with a TV is what you need. Otherwise it is just a monitor.
> The point stands - even though a company may no longer produce updates,
> the device is not suddenly useless and "obsolete". It still does exactly
> what it did the day before and will continue to do so for years longer.
useless and obsolete are not totally synonymous. An item can be useful *and* obsolete.
And a TV won't continue to do it, if there are no broadcasts that support its standards.
A major part of the use of a TV is watching *new* content.
It would be a bit of a stretch to say that an old combi VHS/analogue TV will continue to do the same job it has always done.
It would be able to receive PAL TV, if anyone broadcast it. But they soon won't, in some areas they already don't.
>> Far better to have a simple Dumb TV and a box that does the fancy
>> stuff.
> That "fancy box" is no different. It wil be just as "obsolete" (for those
> who insist on having all the very latest toys) just as quickly.
Of course, but the cost of replacing it is *far* less.
In message <helpfulharry-1312110914400...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug. co.nz>
helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> Some people are trying to make it look like an "Apple problem", when in
> reality every "smart" TV will have the same issue and in fact it's no
> different to every other device these days, including mobile phones,
> fridges, cars, etc., etc.
Obviously other brands will have the same issues, however Apple is a premium brand. (As made obvious by all the table and ultra book manufacturers failing to sell their products because they cost the same as an Apple.) You pay more, but for better quality kit, that physically lasts longer.
No good if you can't get the latest broadcasts though.
In message <helpfulharry-1312110921490...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug. co.nz>
helpfulha...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
>> It's not like any Apple TV is going to be much different from a giant
>> iMac is it?
> Well, more likely a giant iPad without the touch screen (at least for
> quite a few years).
Which also isn't much different from what I suggested.
