Apple TV to come in 3 sizes

[Fred Moore]

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57337300-17/apple-tv-to-come-in-3-size
s-top-out-at-55-inches-report-says/>

[Patty Winter]

In article <fmoore-239ABD....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
><http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57337300-17/apple-tv-to-come-in-3-size
>s-top-out-at-55-inches-report-says/>

Oooh, I think I'm glad I've been holding off on buying a new TV. :-)


Patty

[Your Name]

In article <4ede68a0$0$1710$742e...@news.sonic.net>, Patty Winter

At the moment an Apple branded TV set is still just a rumour - many people
are still waiting for the iPhone Nano that was "due" about three years
ago.

Other rumours say the Apple branded TV will be twice the price of similar
sized TVs ... of course, that's probably from the same morons who think
all Apple's devices are more expensive than everyone else's.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <fmoore-239ABD....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:

> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57337300-17/apple-tv-to-come-in-3-size
> s-top-out-at-55-inches-report-says/>

Can't wait. : )

--
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.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<16868441.443.1323206649796.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,
Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What will I be able to do with an Apple branded HDTV that I can't already do
> with my second generation Apple TV?

Tell it to do things, and have it do them intelligently, no doubt.

> I'd rather have an external box.

Oh you mean like this?:

<http://www.apple.com/appletv/>

> A TV should last at least ten years. My
> Apple TV will likely be obsolete within two to three years. I can't afford to
> buy a new HDTV every three years.

That's a pure troll - and a boring one, at that.

Your statement is also pretty silly, considering Apple typically
delivers software updates that add more functionality more frequently
and for a longer time span than silly arcane firmware updates you have
to hunt down for most televisions.

Please put more effort into your silly trolls in the future.

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<30214407.355.1323237067224.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,
Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-A5767...@news.individual.net>,

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <16868441.443.1323206649796.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqf20>,
> > Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What will I be able to do with an Apple branded HDTV that I can't
> > > already do with my second generation Apple TV?
> >
> > Tell it to do things, and have it do them intelligently, no doubt.
> >
> > > I'd rather have an external box.
> >
> > Oh you mean like this?:
> >
> > <http://www.apple.com/appletv/>
> >
> > > A TV should last at least ten years. My Apple TV will likely be
> > > obsolete within two to three years. I can't afford to buy a new
> > > HDTV every three years.
> >
> > That's a pure troll - and a boring one, at that.
> >
> > Your statement is also pretty silly, considering Apple typically
> > delivers software updates that add more functionality more
> > frequently and for a longer time span than silly arcane firmware
> > updates you have to hunt down for most televisions.
> >
> > Please put more effort into your silly trolls in the future.
>

> So you think anyone who disagrees with your line of thinking is a troll? Why
> don't you go get a life.

You have no evidence to support your claim that an Apple television
would be obsolete in two to three years. In fact if you look at other
Apple products, the opposite is true. That makes you a troll.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-FDA67...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> So you think anyone who disagrees with your line of thinking is a troll? Why
>> don't you go get a life.

> You have no evidence to support your claim that an Apple television
> would be obsolete in two to three years. In fact if you look at other
> Apple products, the opposite is true. That makes you a troll.

It is quite obvious that 3 years is an exaggeration, taking that into
account, his concern is justified.

I know of several perfectly capable high end PowerPC based macs that
are obsolete from Apple's POV, at a far lower age than I would expect
from a TV.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <85c64a3...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Apple stopped making PowerPC-based Macs in 2006. It's almost 2012. For
those that can't count, that's 6 years - not three. PowerPC Macs
continue to work just fine for many, many Mac users today, so calling
them obsolete is a huge stretch. And you're apparently ignoring the
consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<24746788.309.1323274273643.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcc19>,
Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's an opinion. It differs from yours. That makes me a troll? Get a life.

You first.

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<9397334.445.1323274122090.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqko12>,
Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Why don't you just go to hell?

After you.

[Helpful Harry]

In article <85c64a3...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

Those computers may be "too old" from the point of view of running the
latest version of the Mac OS or other non-Apple software, but they're far
from being actually obsolete from doing what they were designed to do. I'm
still using a beige G3 PowerMac which is about 12 years old.

An Apple-branded TV might not be able to download the latest operating
software upgrade in six or whatever years' time, but it will still
function as a TV.

Of course, this is not an "Apple problem". The same problem will occur
with any of the new breed of "smart" TVs from any manufacturer.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<helpfulharry-0...@203-118-175-154.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

Likely to a much worse extent, too.

[D.F. Manno]

In article
<24746788.309.1323274273643.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqcc19>,

Bill C <mousep...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's an opinion. It differs from yours. That makes me a troll? Get a life.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make
me happy. (J.D. Salinger)

[Steve Fenwick]

In article
<helpfulharry-0...@203-118-175-154.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

"Function as a TV" will change in meaning as we move from a broadcast
environment to a streaming one. A TV that includes a streaming device is
not a self-contained unit, able to run all its old code and ignore the
outside world. It might be able to continue to stream content--as long
as the content owners don't change the CODECs used, change UI features
that are not supported by the older units, etc.

And the time scales you quote are too long. An iPhone 3G, introduced in
mid-2008, cannot run iOS 5, and iOS is the most likely option for the OS
for an Apple television, if such a device is released. I'd guess that
three years for abandonment for OS upgrades is about right. You might
get a year or two more for the client apps still being upgraded for the
final OS, but that's about all I would expect.

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Helpful Harry]

In article <nospam-9F86C6....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Yes, but just because the iPhone 3G can't run iOS5, that doesn't make it
useless or obsolete instantly. The iPhone 3G still functions perfectly
well as a mobile phone as it always has and will do for many more years.
Even if the mobile networks all turned off the 3G frequencies, the device
would still be useful for someone as well as a camera, mobile games
device, etc.

Plus Apple knows that many people change their mobile phone almost more
often than their underwear (as soon as they lose it, drop it or the plan
contract runs out). Apple also knows that computers TV sets are not
changed as quickly.

Even if you assume that Apple was silly enough to somehow make a three
year old TV set completely obsolete, then it will still have the same
connections (or can have adapters) as every other TV and so you will be
able to simply plug in a comparatively cheap external box to cope with any
new formats.

And again, this isn't an "Apple problem". You have the exact same issue
with every other "smart" TV set from any other manufacturer.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Steve Fenwick]

In article
<helpfulharry-0...@203-118-175-133.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

It functions as a phone. But without OS updates, it functions less
usefully as a smartphone. To the extent that its client apps are still
supported, it will be a smartphone, but that's not a given; most major
app writers have abandoned iOS generations prior to iOS 4.

> Plus Apple knows that many people change their mobile phone almost more
> often than their underwear (as soon as they lose it, drop it or the plan
> contract runs out). Apple also knows that computers TV sets are not
> changed as quickly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "computers TV sets", but computers are
replaced at three to five year intervals, and TV sets are approaching a
six year interval, although that may have been an artifact of widespread
HD adoption. See research by Forrester for more information.

> Even if you assume that Apple was silly enough to somehow make a three
> year old TV set completely obsolete, then it will still have the same
> connections (or can have adapters) as every other TV and so you will be
> able to simply plug in a comparatively cheap external box to cope with any
> new formats.

I actually gave you four to five years (three years for the OS, one to
two more for the client apps). Apple, for all of its (past) "computers
for the rest of us", remains a largely upscale brand. Replacing a TV
every three to five years would likely be not a problem for a lot of
Apple's customer base.

Why do you assume an Apple television would have a full set of
interfaces? Maybe an HDMI, for a cable box, but Apple's general plot
seems to be to eliminate wired interfaces. I'd expect an RJ45, WiFI, USB
micro for de-bricking (same as on AppleTV), and maybe an HDMI. But I
wouldn't be surprised--not my expectation, but not surprised--to see no
HDMI and a single cable connection, and an internal DVR function. Apple
is not about expandability and aftermarket options for its mainstream
products.

> And again, this isn't an "Apple problem". You have the exact same issue
> with every other "smart" TV set from any other manufacturer.

No disagreement. Personally, I am a separates buyer, so I prefer the
extra box as it's cheaper to upgrade it. But I am an outlier for Apple
Marketing. It will be interesting to see if AirPlay licensing, as
rumored earlier this year, really comes about, or if other vendors rely
on DLNA or some other protocols.

BTW, I am not at all an Apple hater; quite the opposite. I'm typing this
on a 2008 MBP, and I hate to confess how many Apple products I have at
home. The earliest is an Apple ][ from 1981; the most recent is a 2010
MP. The only "PCs" are a Bootcamp partition (games) and Fusion running
XP for some apps that just aren't available in any form on Mac OS. But I
know that this MBP is becoming limited for some high-performance
operations, so I'll probably replace it in a year or two. I'm not yet
ready to go the desktop-and-iPad route, because the iPad looks the be
even more of a treadmill to stay up with the most recent options.

Here's a question for you: if you owned a good, big CRT in the last
several years that you expected to last another five, would you have
replaced it with an ATSC-native TV during the digital change, or would
you have kept it and gotten a set top converter? Neither answer is
incorrect, just curious.

[Helpful Harry]

In article <nospam-37C906....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Steve Fenwick <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> It functions as a phone. But without OS updates, it functions less
> usefully as a smartphone. To the extent that its client apps are still
> supported, it will be a smartphone, but that's not a given; most major
> app writers have abandoned iOS generations prior to iOS 4.
>

> I'm not sure what you mean by "computers TV sets", but computers are
> replaced at three to five year intervals, and TV sets are approaching a
> six year interval, although that may have been an artifact of widespread
> HD adoption. See research by Forrester for more information.
>

> I actually gave you four to five years (three years for the OS, one to
> two more for the client apps). Apple, for all of its (past) "computers
> for the rest of us", remains a largely upscale brand. Replacing a TV
> every three to five years would likely be not a problem for a lot of
> Apple's customer base.
>
> Why do you assume an Apple television would have a full set of
> interfaces? Maybe an HDMI, for a cable box, but Apple's general plot
> seems to be to eliminate wired interfaces. I'd expect an RJ45, WiFI, USB
> micro for de-bricking (same as on AppleTV), and maybe an HDMI. But I
> wouldn't be surprised--not my expectation, but not surprised--to see no
> HDMI and a single cable connection, and an internal DVR function. Apple
> is not about expandability and aftermarket options for its mainstream
> products.
>

> No disagreement. Personally, I am a separates buyer, so I prefer the
> extra box as it's cheaper to upgrade it. But I am an outlier for Apple
> Marketing. It will be interesting to see if AirPlay licensing, as
> rumored earlier this year, really comes about, or if other vendors rely
> on DLNA or some other protocols.
>
> BTW, I am not at all an Apple hater; quite the opposite. I'm typing this
> on a 2008 MBP, and I hate to confess how many Apple products I have at
> home. The earliest is an Apple ][ from 1981; the most recent is a 2010
> MP. The only "PCs" are a Bootcamp partition (games) and Fusion running
> XP for some apps that just aren't available in any form on Mac OS. But I
> know that this MBP is becoming limited for some high-performance
> operations, so I'll probably replace it in a year or two. I'm not yet
> ready to go the desktop-and-iPad route, because the iPad looks the be
> even more of a treadmill to stay up with the most recent options.
>
> Here's a question for you: if you owned a good, big CRT in the last
> several years that you expected to last another five, would you have
> replaced it with an ATSC-native TV during the digital change, or would
> you have kept it and gotten a set top converter? Neither answer is
> incorrect, just curious.

I really can't be bothered nor have the time to waste arguing with you. If
that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.


Helpful Harry :o)

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-F9FD7...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> It is quite obvious that 3 years is an exaggeration, taking that into
>> account, his concern is justified.
>>
>> I know of several perfectly capable high end PowerPC based macs that
>> are obsolete from Apple's POV, at a far lower age than I would expect
>> from a TV.

> Apple stopped making PowerPC-based Macs in 2006. It's almost 2012. For
> those that can't count, that's 6 years - not three. PowerPC Macs

That was /my/ example not his.

> continue to work just fine for many, many Mac users today, so calling
> them obsolete is a huge stretch. And you're apparently ignoring the

I said from Apple's POV, (and Adobe etc). If it weren't for the
excellent work of Cameron Kaiser producing ten four fox, they would be
pretty much obsolete from my POV too.

> consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
> don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.

I doubt that would be true of an Apple TV. (But as someone else
pointed out, this would apply for any Smart TV. I'll be sticking to a
dumb monitor and a box.)

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <cc68813...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-F9FD7...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> It is quite obvious that 3 years is an exaggeration, taking that into
> >> account, his concern is justified.
> >>
> >> I know of several perfectly capable high end PowerPC based macs that
> >> are obsolete from Apple's POV, at a far lower age than I would expect
> >> from a TV.
>
> > Apple stopped making PowerPC-based Macs in 2006. It's almost 2012. For
> > those that can't count, that's 6 years - not three. PowerPC Macs
>
> That was /my/ example not his.
>
> > continue to work just fine for many, many Mac users today, so calling
> > them obsolete is a huge stretch. And you're apparently ignoring the
>
> I said from Apple's POV, (and Adobe etc). If it weren't for the
> excellent work of Cameron Kaiser producing ten four fox, they would be
> pretty much obsolete from my POV too.

Well not from my point of view. Lots of people still use PowerPC-based
Macs eery day for real work.

> > consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
> > don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.
>
> I doubt that would be true of an Apple TV.

And that's my point.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-23B61...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> I said from Apple's POV, (and Adobe etc). If it weren't for the
>> excellent work of Cameron Kaiser producing ten four fox, they would be
>> pretty much obsolete from my POV too.

> Well not from my point of view. Lots of people still use PowerPC-based
> Macs eery day for real work.

Yes, but that would be despite Adobe and Apples position.

I see lots of Intel Macs in the places I work, but very few PPC macs.
(30:1 at a guess, and that is counting those from a couple of years
ago.) They can't do their work with a PPC mac (The lack of up to date
flash is a show stopper in many cases.)

>>> consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
>>> don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.
>>
>> I doubt that would be true of an Apple TV.

> And that's my point.

I wouldn't expect an Apple TV to have a different core to their other
systems, hence it would become unsupported and obsolete at a similar
time.

--
Jess

[Helpful Harry]

In article <64248b3...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-23B61...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> I said from Apple's POV, (and Adobe etc). If it weren't for the
> >> excellent work of Cameron Kaiser producing ten four fox, they would be
> >> pretty much obsolete from my POV too.
>
> > Well not from my point of view. Lots of people still use PowerPC-based
> > Macs eery day for real work.
>
> Yes, but that would be despite Adobe and Apples position.
>
> I see lots of Intel Macs in the places I work, but very few PPC macs.
> (30:1 at a guess, and that is counting those from a couple of years
> ago.) They can't do their work with a PPC mac (The lack of up to date
> flash is a show stopper in many cases.)

That's largely nonsense. Most businesses upgrade their computers purely on
a (rather stupid) financial basis rather than any actual need to do so.
Few home users upgrade their computers every three years or even five
(unless it breaks down), and again most of those who do upgrade do so
because they want to rather than any actual need to.

"Obsolete" is in the opinion of the user.

I run my own business doing desktop & pre-press publishing (using
InDesign, Illustrator, and a Photoshop-clone), PowerPoint presentations,
Word documents, FileMaker databases, etc., etc. using a beige PowerMac G3
running Mac OS X 10.1 ... and the only I'm not still using Mac OS 9.2 is
because my hopeless Internet provider refuses to fix a problem with their
servers that won't let "Classic" OS Mac users even log on.

Part of my business is also to help people with the Mac problems, both
home and small business users. I still have one home user happily running
Mac OS 8 on an original CRT iMac and some others running versions of Mac
OS X older than Leopard.

> >>> consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
> >>> don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.
> >>
> >> I doubt that would be true of an Apple TV.
>
> > And that's my point.
>
> I wouldn't expect an Apple TV to have a different core to their other
> systems, hence it would become unsupported and obsolete at a similar
> time.

Unsupported by Apple isn't three years, and even when Apple do stop
providing updates, the device is still perfectly usable for it intended
purpose ... as long as you're not one of those greedy and/or stupid people
who "must" have the latest toy on the block (and then usually complain
because the brand new product has bugs).

Plus if you are one of those people who "must" upgrade, then well looked
after Apple equipment tends to sell at a better price than other makers.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Jolly Roger]

In article <64248b3...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-23B61...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> I said from Apple's POV, (and Adobe etc). If it weren't for the
> >> excellent work of Cameron Kaiser producing ten four fox, they would be
> >> pretty much obsolete from my POV too.
>
> > Well not from my point of view. Lots of people still use PowerPC-based
> > Macs eery day for real work.
>
> Yes, but that would be despite Adobe and Apples position.

Apple isn't actively doing things to make older hardware stop working.
That's Apple's position.

> I see lots of Intel Macs in the places I work, but very few PPC macs.
> (30:1 at a guess, and that is counting those from a couple of years
> ago.) They can't do their work with a PPC mac (The lack of up to date
> flash is a show stopper in many cases.)
>
> >>> consideration of how that relates to television sets, which typically
> >>> don't change nearly as fast as computers anyway.
> >>
> >> I doubt that would be true of an Apple TV.
>
> > And that's my point.
>
> I wouldn't expect an Apple TV to have a different core to their other
> systems, hence it would become unsupported and obsolete at a similar
> time.

People still use and enjoy PowerPC Macs today - just like people still
use and enjoy the iPhone 3G today, just like people will use and enjoy
old televisions for years and years.

Clearly, your definition of obsolete differs from the rest of the world.
Obsolete means no longer produced OR IN USE. Look it up some time.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-9F512...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> Apple isn't actively doing things to make older hardware stop working.
> That's Apple's position.

Just producing things that don't work with it, and not providing
updates.

> People still use and enjoy PowerPC Macs today - just like people still
> use and enjoy the iPhone 3G today, just like people will use and enjoy
> old televisions for years and years.

I only have PPC Macs, but I have no illusions about them being
current.

> Clearly, your definition of obsolete differs from the rest of the world.
> Obsolete means no longer produced OR IN USE. Look it up some time.

No longer in *general* use. Otherwise I could claim my 1999 panasonic
toughbook isn't obsolete.
--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-64.nzwide.ihug.c
o.nz>

helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> That's largely nonsense. Most businesses upgrade their computers purely on
> a (rather stupid) financial basis rather than any actual need to do so.
> Few home users upgrade their computers every three years or even five
> (unless it breaks down), and again most of those who do upgrade do so
> because they want to rather than any actual need to.

Not so much now. They get upgraded when they are no longer capable of
performing the functions they were bought for.

> "Obsolete" is in the opinion of the user.

With evolving standards, any machine that doesn't keep up with the
standards is obsolete.

A PowerPC Mac would be no good where I usually work. Out of date
flash, out of date browsers, even Skype is quite a way behind.

> I run my own business doing desktop & pre-press publishing (using
> InDesign, Illustrator, and a Photoshop-clone), PowerPoint presentations,
> Word documents, FileMaker databases, etc., etc. using a beige PowerMac G3
> running Mac OS X 10.1 ... and the only I'm not still using Mac OS 9.2 is
> because my hopeless Internet provider refuses to fix a problem with their
> servers that won't let "Classic" OS Mac users even log on.

And I have friends who run their business using word 5 for DOS and
Windows 95, all it means is that they are not chasing a moving target.

> Part of my business is also to help people with the Mac problems, both
> home and small business users. I still have one home user happily running
> Mac OS 8 on an original CRT iMac and some others running versions of Mac
> OS X older than Leopard.

My mum only replaced her 68k system 7 Mac recently (with an Intel
Macbook), until you start chasing the standards needed to open content
on the internet old machines are fine.

> Unsupported by Apple isn't three years, and even when Apple do stop

As I pointed out, it was obvious the OP wasn't talking literally.

> providing updates, the device is still perfectly usable for it intended
> purpose ... as long as you're not one of those greedy and/or stupid people
> who "must" have the latest toy on the block (and then usually complain
> because the brand new product has bugs).

The problem is that things evolve, and the software required to do the
same task changes. Once updates stop, then a system is on borrowed
time.

> Plus if you are one of those people who "must" upgrade, then well looked
> after Apple equipment tends to sell at a better price than other makers.

Hence why I have yet to get an x86 mac. :)


--
Jess

[Helpful Harry]

In article <7fbe024...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-64.nzwide.ihug.c
> o.nz> helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> >
> > I run my own business doing desktop & pre-press publishing (using
> > InDesign, Illustrator, and a Photoshop-clone), PowerPoint presentations,
> > Word documents, FileMaker databases, etc., etc. using a beige PowerMac G3
> > running Mac OS X 10.1 ... and the only I'm not still using Mac OS 9.2 is
> > because my hopeless Internet provider refuses to fix a problem with their
> > servers that won't let "Classic" OS Mac users even log on.
>
> And I have friends who run their business using word 5 for DOS and
> Windows 95, all it means is that they are not chasing a moving target.

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.

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.

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".

Helpful Harry :o)

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-150.nzwide.ihug.
co.nz>

helpfu...@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.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <663d2a4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@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.

[Helpful Harry]

In article <jollyroger-0A818...@news.individual.net>, Jolly

Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <663d2a4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@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)

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

Well put.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@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.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-0A818...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <663d2a4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@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.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <5d48674...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.
> co.nz>
> helpfu...@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?

[Jolly Roger]

In article <9658664...@itworkshop.invalid>,

There's no guarantee of anything in this life.

[BreadW...@fractious.net]

jessha...@googlemail.com writes:

> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.
> co.nz>
> helpfu...@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

> 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.

[Fred Moore]

Jess Hampshire wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:

>
> > 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!'

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <yobvcpl...@panix2.panix.com>

BreadW...@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.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-FA751...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@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?

--
Jess

[BreadW...@fractious.net]

jessha...@googlemail.com writes:

> In message <yobvcpl...@panix2.panix.com>
> BreadW...@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.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <a4c0854...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Explain to me how you know what it will be, please.

[Helpful Harry]

In article <5d48674...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.

> co.nz>, helpfu...@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.

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.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <fmoore-0CB33C....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred

Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
>
> 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!'

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.

Helpful Harry :o)

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-E251C...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> 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.

Well I can't think of anything else it could be, given that an iPad
isn't much different from a tiny iMac. (Different processor, less
interfaces.)

Are they going to come up with a completely different OS? I doubt it.

Please enlighten me with alternatives.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <yob1us9...@panix2.panix.com>

BreadW...@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?

Er, no. Not quite sure how that follows on.

> So much for any reasonable expectations.


--

Jess

[Helpful Harry]

In article <jollyroger-FA751...@news.individual.net>, Jolly

Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> In article <5d48674...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-114.nzwide.ihug.

> > co.nz>, helpfu...@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.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <6090854...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <yobvcpl...@panix2.panix.com>, BreadW...@fractious.net

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.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <a4c0854...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

Well, more likely a giant iPad without the touch screen (at least for
quite a few years).

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <yob1us9...@panix2.panix.com>, BreadW...@fractious.net
wrote:

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.

Helpful Harry

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@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.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@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.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@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.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> 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".

Not really - you could plug in a PCI usb card.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <f640994...@itworkshop.invalid>,

You're now suggesting that something Apple does will prevent you from
getting the latest broadcasts? Please do explain. This should be good.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <83da964...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Not my job. Enlighten yourself.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-8CE0D...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> No good if you can't get the latest broadcasts though.

> You're now suggesting that something Apple does will prevent you from
> getting the latest broadcasts? Please do explain. This should be good.

How did you work that one out?

It's something that Apple might *not* do. I.E. they might not provide
updates to meet changing standards.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-525B0...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> Please enlighten me with alternatives.

> Not my job. Enlighten yourself.

You are the one who doubted the obvious.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <d22aac4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

I haven't doubted anything. I only stated that you don't know what Apple
will do. Are you claiming you DO know what Apple will do?

[Helpful Harry]

In article <7f40984...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.

> co.nz>, helpfu...@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.

A "smart" TV will have the usual TV standards and connections, and will
still work as a TV for as long as the LCD screen lasts.

What a "smart" TV won't get after a good few years is updates to allow it
to play the very latest Flash or whatever movies via its Internet
connection, but then a computer doesn'ty last forever in that respect
either, and often costs the same or more.

People are making ridiculous mountains out of molehills.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <c471994...@itworkshop.invalid>,

You can still plug in a "fancy" external box to gain newer equipment to
get the very latest Flash or whatever videos that no longer play via the
"smart" TV's own Internet connection.

[Jolly Roger]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-201.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

Indeed.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-201.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

>> Not really - you could plug in a PCI usb card.

> You can still plug in a "fancy" external box to gain newer equipment to
> get the very latest Flash or whatever videos that no longer play via the
> "smart" TV's own Internet connection.

Yes, but you would be better off buying a dumb TV for less money and a
box and simply replacing the box.

> People are making ridiculous mountains out of molehills.

Not really, it is a value for money thing.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-7F90D...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>> You are the one who doubted the obvious.

> I haven't doubted anything. I only stated that you don't know what Apple
> will do. Are you claiming you DO know what Apple will do?

I know what Apple have done.

Their recent products have all been based on OS X/iOS.

What other alternatives are there than a Giant iPad / Large iMac
approach?

A separate box? no that wouldn't be a new product.

Along with the rest of the world, I successfully guessed that an iPad
would be a supersized iPod touch.

There is a fair chance the same will happen again.

--
Jess

[Tom Stiller]

In article <78b7e14...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-7F90D...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> >> You are the one who doubted the obvious.
>
> > I haven't doubted anything. I only stated that you don't know what Apple
> > will do. Are you claiming you DO know what Apple will do?
>
> I know what Apple have done.
>
> Their recent products have all been based on OS X/iOS.
>
> What other alternatives are there than a Giant iPad / Large iMac
> approach?

With imagination like that I guess we can be glad you don't work for
Apple.

>
> A separate box? no that wouldn't be a new product.
>
> Along with the rest of the world, I successfully guessed that an iPad
> would be a supersized iPod touch.

And they talk about Jobs' reality distortion field!

>
> There is a fair chance the same will happen again.

If you mean another record breaking success, I certainly hope you're
right [this time].

--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <tom_stiller-EC5C...@news.individual.net>

Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> What other alternatives are there than a Giant iPad / Large iMac
>> approach?

> With imagination like that I guess we can be glad you don't work for
> Apple.

I'm still curious as to what alternative form factor a modern TV could
take. Perhaps an innovative stand with a centre loudspeaker in it? But
it would still be a giant iMac/iPad type device.

>> Along with the rest of the world, I successfully guessed that an iPad
>> would be a supersized iPod touch.

> And they talk about Jobs' reality distortion field!

So who in the world didn't expect the iPad to be a larger form factor
iTouch?

>> There is a fair chance the same will happen again.

> If you mean another record breaking success, I certainly hope you're
> right [this time].

I doubt it will be a flop, but they will need to have some pretty
competitive pricing to be a monster, otherwise the fears we are
discussing come into play.

--
Jess

[TaliesinSoft]

On 2011-12-06 18:47:34 +0000, Fred Moore said:

To me the biggest problem today with television sets is the almost
always use of several remotes each equipped with a plethora of buttons.
Years ago, in the early 1970s, I saw what seemed to me then and still
seems to me a most sensible approach, and that was a remote that was
the size of an egg and which had a flata bottom so it could sit upright
on a table and which had a single button on top. When you picked up the
remote a gyroscopic sensor followed your movements. The movements
produced an on-screen menu and one could theln move the remote to the
item in that menu you wanted and then you would press the button to
perform your selection. I would hope that the Apple TV would have
something as easy and as intuitive for controlling the set.

--
James Leo Ryan - Austin, Texas

[Tom Stiller]

In article <fd75fa4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <tom_stiller-EC5C...@news.individual.net>
> Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> What other alternatives are there than a Giant iPad / Large iMac
> >> approach?
>
> > With imagination like that I guess we can be glad you don't work
> > for Apple.
>
> I'm still curious as to what alternative form factor a modern TV
> could take. Perhaps an innovative stand with a centre loudspeaker in
> it? But it would still be a giant iMac/iPad type device.

You forget that Apple produces both hardware and software. Form factor
is an important aspect of any Apple product but it's what the product
actually does that makes it a success.

> >> Along with the rest of the world, I successfully guessed that an
> >> iPad would be a supersized iPod touch.
>
> > And they talk about Jobs' reality distortion field!
>
> So who in the world didn't expect the iPad to be a larger form factor
> iTouch?

Probably everyone who doesn't make their living prediction the downfall
of Apple and those who read and _believe_ every word they say.

If you've used both an iPod Touch and an iPad, you know that one is not
a scaled up/down version of the other. If you haven't, you're just
blowing smoke.

>
> >> There is a fair chance the same will happen again.
>
> > If you mean another record breaking success, I certainly hope
> > you're right [this time].
>
> I doubt it will be a flop, but they will need to have some pretty
> competitive pricing to be a monster, otherwise the fears we are
> discussing come into play.

I call bullshit. If Apple does develop a TV, it will because they
believe they and be the best in the marketplace and will price it
accordingly.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <tom_stiller-EC5C...@news.individual.net>,

Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <78b7e14...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > In message <jollyroger-7F90D...@news.individual.net>
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> You are the one who doubted the obvious.
> >
> > > I haven't doubted anything. I only stated that you don't know what Apple
> > > will do. Are you claiming you DO know what Apple will do?
> >
> > I know what Apple have done.
> >
> > Their recent products have all been based on OS X/iOS.
> >
> > What other alternatives are there than a Giant iPad / Large iMac
> > approach?
>
> With imagination like that I guess we can be glad you don't work for
> Apple.
> >
> > A separate box? no that wouldn't be a new product.
> >
> > Along with the rest of the world, I successfully guessed that an iPad
> > would be a supersized iPod touch.
>
> And they talk about Jobs' reality distortion field!
> >
> > There is a fair chance the same will happen again.
>
> If you mean another record breaking success, I certainly hope you're
> right [this time].

jesshampshire blows a lot of hot air.

[Fred Moore]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> In article <fmoore-0CB33C....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred
> Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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!'
>
> 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.

Hmm... I can imagine a crowded room, with various clowns calling out
tidbits like 'Siri, kiss my ass' or 'Siri, change from this championship
sporting event to the easy-listening music channel'. :\

> Another rumour is that TV functions will be included in the next iMac
> release as a test-bed before releasing standalone TVs.

Now _that_ is interesting. What's the speculation on when that iMac will
be released?

[Jolly Roger]

In article <fmoore-1B4144....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Fred Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:

> In article
> <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
>
> > In article <fmoore-0CB33C....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred
> > Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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!'
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hmm... I can imagine a crowded room, with various clowns calling out
> tidbits like 'Siri, kiss my ass' or 'Siri, change from this championship
> sporting event to the easy-listening music channel'. :\

Can you imagine Apple anticipating that?

[Helpful Harry]

In article <78b7e14...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

In reality an Apple TV set is more likely to be a TV set made by Sony (or
whoever) with an future version of the current Apple TV external box
built-in.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <f35ce04...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-201.nzwide.ihug.

> co.nz>, helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> >>
> >> Not really - you could plug in a PCI usb card.
> >
> > You can still plug in a "fancy" external box to gain newer equipment to
> > get the very latest Flash or whatever videos that no longer play via the
> > "smart" TV's own Internet connection.
>
> Yes, but you would be better off buying a dumb TV for less money and a
> box and simply replacing the box.
>
> > People are making ridiculous mountains out of molehills.
>
> Not really, it is a value for money thing.

Not really. It's whining for the sake of whining, and in some people's
cases to blame Apple for something that isn't remotely their fault.

This so-called "problem" is nothing new and happens with pretty much
everything else you buy ... it's how the business world works.

I'm not wasting any more of my time arguing with you about it. Simple
answer: If you don't want it, then don't buy it.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <9kp71l...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft

<talies...@me.com> wrote:
> On 2011-12-06 18:47:34 +0000, Fred Moore said:
>
> To me the biggest problem today with television sets is the almost
> always use of several remotes each equipped with a plethora of buttons.

That's not really a TV set problem. It's caused by the TV "entertainment
centre" having multiple devices (TV set, recording device, Sky TV / cable
box, etc.). An Apple TV set by itself can't be expected to solve this
problem.

To be fair, some manufacturers have tried to get around this problem. For
example, the remote for our TV set does have a switch on it to swap
between TV and DVD devices ... as long as you buy the two devices from the
same manufacturer.

Of course, there are also "learning" remotes that you can use to
amalgamate all the separate remotes into one remote. I vaguely recall
reading about an iPhone add-on that does the same thing.

> Years ago, in the early 1970s, I saw what seemed to me then and still
> seems to me a most sensible approach, and that was a remote that was
> the size of an egg and which had a flata bottom so it could sit upright
> on a table and which had a single button on top. When you picked up the
> remote a gyroscopic sensor followed your movements. The movements
> produced an on-screen menu and one could theln move the remote to the
> item in that menu you wanted and then you would press the button to
> perform your selection.

Often called an "Air Mouse", you can buy them and they can be useful in
presentations (stand at the back of the room and still control the
computer). Of course these days they have more than one button.

> I would hope that the Apple TV would have something as easy and as
> intuitive for controlling the set.

The RUMOUR is that the Apple TV set will be using some form of Siri for
voice control ... let's hope not. :o(

Steve Jobs said he had "cracked it", and he managed to do so with
all-in-one computers, music players, mobile phones and tablets (not to
mention Apple management), so it's likely he did with TV sets as well.
It's a matter of wait and see. Apple's new management or practical /
manufacturing decisions may decide that the device never gets released at
all.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <fmoore-1B4144....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred

Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> In article
> <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-127.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> > In article <fmoore-0CB33C....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred
> > Moore <fmo...@gcfn.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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!'
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hmm... I can imagine a crowded room, with various clowns calling out
> tidbits like 'Siri, kiss my ass' or 'Siri, change from this championship
> sporting event to the easy-listening music channel'. :\
>
> > Another rumour is that TV functions will be included in the next iMac
> > release as a test-bed before releasing standalone TVs.
>
> Now _that_ is interesting. What's the speculation on when that iMac will
> be released?

It *is* only a rumour. The usual "schedule" for iMac releases is around
April / May (sometimes with a speed bump release in about August), but it
does of course rely on various factors like Intel having new CPUs worth
using.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Tom Stiller]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> In article <9kp71l...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> > On 2011-12-06 18:47:34 +0000, Fred Moore said:
> >
> > To me the biggest problem today with television sets is the almost
> > always use of several remotes each equipped with a plethora of buttons.
>
> That's not really a TV set problem. It's caused by the TV "entertainment
> centre" having multiple devices (TV set, recording device, Sky TV / cable
> box, etc.). An Apple TV set by itself can't be expected to solve this
> problem.
>
> To be fair, some manufacturers have tried to get around this problem. For
> example, the remote for our TV set does have a switch on it to swap
> between TV and DVD devices ... as long as you buy the two devices from the
> same manufacturer.
>
> Of course, there are also "learning" remotes that you can use to
> amalgamate all the separate remotes into one remote. I vaguely recall
> reading about an iPhone add-on that does the same thing.

Yeah, my wife likes the Harmony 520 for controlling our HDTV and 4
different input/recording devices.

[Fred Moore]

In article <jollyroger-20458...@news.individual.net>,

Yes, of course. However, _I_ can't imagine an easy solution; and I'll be
fascinated to know how Apple plans to handle it.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <fmoore-E9D107....@news.eternal-september.org>,

I suppose we'll find out eventually.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <tom_stiller-6046...@news.individual.net>,

Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article
> <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,
> helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
>
> > In article <9kp71l...@mid.individual.net>, TaliesinSoft
> > <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> > > On 2011-12-06 18:47:34 +0000, Fred Moore said:
> > >
> > > To me the biggest problem today with television sets is the almost
> > > always use of several remotes each equipped with a plethora of buttons.
> >
> > That's not really a TV set problem. It's caused by the TV "entertainment
> > centre" having multiple devices (TV set, recording device, Sky TV / cable
> > box, etc.). An Apple TV set by itself can't be expected to solve this
> > problem.
> >
> > To be fair, some manufacturers have tried to get around this problem. For
> > example, the remote for our TV set does have a switch on it to swap
> > between TV and DVD devices ... as long as you buy the two devices from the
> > same manufacturer.
> >
> > Of course, there are also "learning" remotes that you can use to
> > amalgamate all the separate remotes into one remote. I vaguely recall
> > reading about an iPhone add-on that does the same thing.
>
> Yeah, my wife likes the Harmony 520 for controlling our HDTV and 4
> different input/recording devices.

We also love our Logitech Harmony remotes. Good stuff. Siri would be
better, of course.

[Tom Stiller]

In article <jollyroger-8317E...@news.individual.net>,

No argument there.

[Helpful Harry]

In article <fmoore-E9D107....@news.eternal-september.org>, Fred

Easy, you ignore silly voice control and instead create a little box with
buttons that wirelessly controls the TV ... not sure what we'd call that
little box though. ;o)

Helpful Harry :o)

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <tom_stiller-CAA8...@news.individual.net>

Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You forget that Apple produces both hardware and software. Form factor
> is an important aspect of any Apple product but it's what the product
> actually does that makes it a success.

No I didn't. I just made no comment on it.

> If you've used both an iPod Touch and an iPad, you know that one is not
> a scaled up/down version of the other. If you haven't, you're just
> blowing smoke.

touch screen table, how is it different? (I am referring to the
hardware, BTW)

>> I doubt it will be a flop, but they will need to have some pretty
>> competitive pricing to be a monster, otherwise the fears we are
>> discussing come into play.

> I call bullshit. If Apple does develop a TV, it will because they
> believe they and be the best in the marketplace and will price it
> accordingly.

And it may be priced so that its main customers are those who will
replace it after only a few years, as the OP voiced.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> In reality an Apple TV set is more likely to be a TV set made by Sony (or
> whoever) with an future version of the current Apple TV external box
> built-in.

Which would still be very similar to an iMac. (unless the box is
replaceable.)

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-449A0...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> jesshampshire blows a lot of hot air.

Well that certainly proves your argument.

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <3fbf6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Not really, no.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <548b6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

More hot air.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-39901...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <548b6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

>> In message <jollyroger-449A0...@news.individual.net>
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jesshampshire blows a lot of hot air.
>>
>> Well that certainly proves your argument.

> More hot air.

The main hot air appears to be coming from those who have failed to
make a convincing argument against the OP's (albeit exaggerated)
comment.

Am I now supposed to mention the third reich so you can claim victory?

--
Jess

[Jolly Roger]

In article <bdd0834...@itworkshop.invalid>,

jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

> In message <jollyroger-39901...@news.individual.net>
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <548b6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> > jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> >> In message <jollyroger-449A0...@news.individual.net>
> >> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> jesshampshire blows a lot of hot air.
> >>
> >> Well that certainly proves your argument.
>
> > More hot air.
>
> The main hot air appears to be coming from those who have failed to
> make a convincing argument against the OP's (albeit exaggerated)
> comment.
>
> Am I now supposed to mention the third reich so you can claim victory?

The OP didn't make any argument. He simply pointed out an article about
the rumored Apple television:

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57337300-17/apple-tv-to-come-in-3-size
s-top-out-at-55-inches-report-says/>

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <jollyroger-C09AE...@news.individual.net>

Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:

>>> More hot air.
>>
>> The main hot air appears to be coming from those who have failed to
>> make a convincing argument against the OP's (albeit exaggerated)
>> comment.
>>
>> Am I now supposed to mention the third reich so you can claim victory?

> The OP didn't make any argument. He simply pointed out an article about
> the rumored Apple television:

> <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57337300-17/apple-tv-to-come-in-3-size
> s-top-out-at-55-inches-report-says/>

Sorry, the original respondant to that (The OP in respect to the short
lifetime discussion.)

--
Jess

[Helpful Harry]

In article <3fbf6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.

> co.nz>, helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> >
> > In reality an Apple TV set is more likely to be a TV set made by Sony (or
> > whoever) with an future version of the current Apple TV external box
> > built-in.
>
> Which would still be very similar to an iMac. (unless the box is
> replaceable.)

I haven't used one, but I believe the Apple TV external box runs iOS now,
which would make an Apple TV set more like an over-sized iPad.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <3fbf6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.

> co.nz>, helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
>
> > In reality an Apple TV set is more likely to be a TV set made by Sony (or
> > whoever) with an future version of the current Apple TV external box
> > built-in.
>
> Which would still be very similar to an iMac. (unless the box is
> replaceable.)

No, an Apple TV box built into an Apple TV set will almost certainly not
be replaceable, but will be software upgradable ... which means you're
going to continue with the silly whining it being "obsolete". It's no
different to ANY other "smart" TV and no different to most other products
people buy.

There is NO "problem" with the (rumoured!) product and certainly no
"Apple" problem. If you want to change the system of the business world,
then you should join the "Occupy" people, but you've got an impossible
task.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Helpful Harry]

In article <548b6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:

There's nothing to "prove" since there is no problem. You're making
ridiculous mountains out of non-existant molehills.

Simply don't buy the product, nor ANY other "smart" TV, nor 90% of the
rest of what the world's manufacturers make.

Helpful Harry :o)

[Steve Fenwick]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

If you're saying that the box would be made by Sony, that's possible,
although I would expect Apple more likely to buy the panel from one
vendor and assemble the unit at a manufacturer they are comfortable with
already.

If you're saying that it would be a Sony box (or another other vendor)
with any recognition on the product of the display vendor, like a brand
logo other than Apple's own logo, no.

Steve

--
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, sidecar in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"

[Steve Fenwick]

In article
<helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-132.nzwide.ihug.co.nz>,

helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> In article <3fbf6e4...@itworkshop.invalid>,
> jessha...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-242.nzwide.ihug.
> > co.nz>, helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:
> >
> > > In reality an Apple TV set is more likely to be a TV set made by Sony (or
> > > whoever) with an future version of the current Apple TV external box
> > > built-in.
> >
> > Which would still be very similar to an iMac. (unless the box is
> > replaceable.)
>
> No, an Apple TV box built into an Apple TV set will almost certainly not
> be replaceable, but will be software upgradable ... which means you're
> going to continue with the silly whining it being "obsolete". It's no
> different to ANY other "smart" TV and no different to most other products
> people buy.

You do know that the current Apple TV is limited to 720p, right? If
that's a hardware limit (see
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2566964?start=0&tstart=0>), then
if content is upgraded to 1080p, that device will not be able to handle
it at full quality, even if the SW is upgraded.

That's one kind of thing people are talking about here when they talk
about a device becoming obsolete. That specific change is very unlikely
in an Apple television--they'd be stupid to intro something under 1080p
at this point--but there could be another factor.

I'd suspect that, if there is a limitation, it would be in the graphics
engine--they are being improved in performance at a rapid rate, so the
GPU in a current device will far underperform one from three years from
now. That would have a big impact on UI, games, and special effects.

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-132.nzwide.ihug.

co.nz>
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> No, an Apple TV box built into an Apple TV set will almost certainly not
> be replaceable, but will be software upgradable ... which means you're
> going to continue with the silly whining it being "obsolete". It's no
> different to ANY other "smart" TV and no different to most other products
> people buy.

The whole discussion is down to the fact that Apple have produced many
products where their software updates dried up in significantly less
time than the expected life of a TV set.

--
Jess

[jessha...@googlemail.com]

In message <helpfulharry-1...@203-118-175-132.nzwide.ihug.
co.nz>
helpfu...@busyworking.com.zz (Helpful Harry) wrote:

> There's nothing to "prove" since there is no problem. You're making
> ridiculous mountains out of non-existant molehills.

> Simply don't buy the product, nor ANY other "smart" TV, nor 90% of the
> rest of what the world's manufacturers make.

I don't, and I probably won't. (I prefer a separate monitor, rather
than a TV even).

But for those who do buy HD TVs, most already have "smart" features
built in pretty much for free. (i.e. if the processing is there to
decode a broadcast HD stream, it can be used for files on a USB
stick.)

An Apple TV is highly unlikely to be in the same price bracket.

It is likely to be a much nicer looking devices, with a much nicer
user interface, and a much bigger price tag.

It won't be something you would want to have to replace or add a set
top box to after five or six years, to get current content.

--
Jess

[Steve Fenwick]

In article <5dc8eb4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

Horrible thought--will it have the glossy (glare-y) screen treatment as
found on most Mac laptops? Better blacks, yes, but in anything but a
dark room it's reflect-o-rama.

[Lloyd]

In article <nospam-E28F79....@news.eternal-september.org>,

Good question. I have a Panasonic plasma, and it has a glossy screen.
Great picture, but during the day light can be an issue.

[Lloyd]

In article <4e17eb4...@itworkshop.invalid>,

That is very true unless you figure a TV gets replaced within about 5
years. And I know the TV mfgs sure would like that to become the norm.