Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by UntidyGuy View Post
    Look at the video of it from Engadget, though. The demo is of Yahoo, news, weather, Facebook, sports, stocks, RSS, Barnes and Noble books, email, calendar. Clearly, their intention is for the user to use this as some kind of awkward tablet. Why anyone would want to torture themselves by trying to use this as a tablet, though, is beyond me. The interface looks like an Archos media player.
    I've seen the video. It's not significantly different than the Touchsmart UI and printers they already have out there. I'm sure when they came to the realization that just sticking touchscreens and "apps" on their current products wasn't going to be enough, that's when they got serious about Palm. They may still completely blow this, but I don't think the Zeen will have anything to do with how WebOS is implemented.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    I've seen the video. It's not significantly different than the Touchsmart UI and printers they already have out there. I'm sure when they came to the realization that just sticking touchscreens and "apps" on their current products wasn't going to be enough, that's when they got serious about Palm. They may still completely blow this, but I don't think the Zeen will have anything to do with how WebOS is implemented.
    Thanks Mikah - I was hoping not. That Zeen implementation is just plain odd. The tablet is close to the size of a piece of letter-sized paper sticking up in the top front of the printer. It seems like a 'whole lot of control' for a simple office ink jet printer.
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by Kupe View Post
    Didn't HP say that they plan to incorporate webOS into a whole lot of their product lines? Including printers? I wonder what they would do differently that the Zeen with webOS?
    The UI would be quite different since WebOS doesn't do widgets. Yet. Even if they did, the look and feel of WebOS would set them apart somewhat. They'd always have the most updated OS instead of pushing a skinned Android 2.1 out. There are significant look/feel differences.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    As opposed to every iteration of Apple TV thus far? Every company releases dud products at some point or another. Clearly, their percentage of hits-to-misses is pretty high in the hits column.
    The ATV has nothing to do with this, although, it is a mass-market failure. It was not a bad idea. It just never received the support of the entertainment industry. In truth, all livingroom, computing solutions have been market failures. If this was HP's effort to enter that market, you might have a point. Unfortunately, this is HP entering the pad market where Apple is an unqualified success.

    Furthermore, this is not ancient history. This is their most recent offering in the space. This represents their current thinking in the category. I am not just predicting that it will be a market failure, but saying that it is a bad idea in principle. Next stop, webOS. At the very least, it is a cause for concern, not of optimism.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by dandbj13 View Post
    The ATV has nothing to do with this, although, it is a mass-market failure. It was not a bad idea. It just never received the support of the entertainment industry. In truth, all livingroom, computing solutions have been market failures. If this was HP's effort to enter that market, you might have a point. Unfortunately, this is HP entering the pad market where Apple is an unqualified success.
    No one is in this market, actually. No one sells a product like this. And there most certainly have been successful set-top boxes, which is what Apple TV is. Not sure what "computing" you think a box that rents and streams videos does.

    Furthermore, this is not ancient history. This is their most recent offering in the space. This represents their current thinking in the category. I am not just predicting that it will be a market failure, but saying that it is a bad idea in principle. Next stop, webOS. At the very least, it is a cause for concern, not of optimism.
    That was my first take, too, but the more I think about it, the more I believe the purchase of Palm was probably at least partially reactionary to their execution of this idea.

    What I mean to say is this: Nothing that is wrong with this product is Android's fault. A lot of it has to do with how decentralized and configurable Android is, but that's what also makes it great. WebOS is quite the opposite in its stock form, so it shouldn't be subject to a lot of these problems on the basis of that alone.

    I think the potential pitfalls for WebOS on tablet form lay elsewhere, really. They've never done a virtual keyboard before, much less a great one - which it would need. All of those PDK ports are going to need additional work to look sharp in an upgraded resolution unless Palm/HP copies the iPad resolution exactly as well and updates the PDK to port "HD/iPad" games too. Way too many WebOS apps - including native ones - are locked into one orientation (no landscape mail....really, Palm?), which is bad for a tablet.

    This sort of stuff gives me pause. The Zeen does not.
  6. #26  
    It seems HP will be taking "inspiration" from the iPad. Even mentioning the iPad in relation to your upcoming product just relegates your product to the "also ran/me too" category. It seems the Apple fetish continues.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    And there most certainly have been successful set-top boxes, which is what Apple TV is. Not sure what "computing" you think a box that rents and streams videos does.
    You have set top box and digital media receiver (Apple TV) confused.

    A set top box is a device that connects to a television and an external source of signal, turning the signal into content which is then displayed on the television screen or other display device.

    A digital media receiver is a home entertainment device that can connect to a home network to retrieve digital media files (such as music, pictures, or video) from a personal computer or other networked media server and play them back on a home theater system or TV.

    Apple tv has not been a failure. It is a device that, as dandbj13 has already said, been limited by the entertainment industry. No manufacturer has become dominant in the digital media receiver market.

    Just because the tech pundits think that because Apple tv does not sell on the level of the iPod does not make it a failure. It is still an emerging market that has not taken off yet.
    Last edited by SoFly; 09/20/2010 at 04:58 PM.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    You have set top box and digital media receiver (Apple TV) confused.

    A set top box is a device that connects to a television and an external source of signal, turning the signal into content which is then displayed on the television screen or other display device.

    A digital media receiver is a home entertainment device that can connect to a home network to retrieve digital media files (such as music, pictures, or video) from a personal computer or other networked media server and play them back on a home theater system or TV.
    I think you are splitting hairs here.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    Apple tv has not been a failure. It is a device that, as dandbj13 has already said, been limited by the entertainment industry. No manufacturer has become dominant in the digital media receiver market.

    Just because the tech pundits think that because Apple tv does not sell on the level of the iPod does not make it a failure. It is still an emerging market that has not taken off yet.
    Actually, even Steve Jobs sees it as a bit of a failure...for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Jobs back in May/June of this year
    ...no one wants to buy a box. Ask TiVo, ask Roku, ask us... ask Google in a few months...
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by taharka View Post
    I think you are splitting hairs here.


    Actually, even Steve Jobs sees it as a bit of a failure...for now.
    LOL! Really? So, if I have no cable whatsoever and I buy Apple TV and I want to watch the local news in my area. Will I be able to watch the local news? No. Because I don't have cable and/or a set top box.

    If I have cable, like Comcast, and I have a set top box, but no digital media receiver, like Apple TV. Will I be able to show my photos from my computer on my TV? No. Because the set top box from Comcast cannot show pictures from iPhoto on my computer.

    So, it seems to me that a digital media receiver and a set top box does two different things and it's not splitting hairs.

    It is a failure because people don't want to have to pay a monthly cable bill for a bunch of channels they don't want and also buy an Apple TV and still have to buy or rent digital media to utilize it.

    If the entertainment industry would allow people to rent the shows or channels they actually wanted then Apple TV could be a suitable replacement for traditional cable. BUT, that is currently not the case. Which is why Jobs says it's a failure.
    Last edited by SoFly; 09/20/2010 at 06:18 PM.
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    LOL! Really? So, if I have no cable whatsoever and I buy Apple TV and I want to watch the local news in my area. Will I be able to watch the local news? No. Because I don't have cable and/or a set top box.
    Uh, digital antenna? You even get your locals in HD, if'n you like....

    If I have cable, like Comcast, and I have a set top box, but no digital media receiver, like Apple TV. Will I be able to show my photos from my computer on my TV? No. Because the set top box from Comcast cannot show pictures from iPhoto on my computer.
    Because that's why people buy set-top boxes...to view photos....yeah...

    So, it seems to me that a digital media receiver and a set top box does two different things and it's not splitting hairs.
    No, you're splitting split hairs. That's how silly this is. I rent movies from my DirectTV TiVO or cable PPV. I rent movies from Apple TV. I stream TV through On-Demand. I stream/rent TV through iTunes. I stream music from digital radio stations from cable providers. I stream music from iTunes catalog. Those are the primary purposes, and they're done pretty much the same.

    It is a failure because people don't want to have to pay a monthly cable bill for a bunch of channels they don't want and also buy an Apple TV and still have to buy or rent digital media to utilize it.

    If the entertainment industry would allow people to rent the shows or channels they actually wanted then Apple TV could be a suitable replacement for traditional cable. BUT, that is currently not the case. Which is why Jobs says it's a failure.
    If you knowingly release a product under conditions that guarantee failure, then you are the one that is failing. Trying to scapegoat the same studios and labels that already give you access to most of their movies, shows, and bands is ridiculous.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    LOL! Really? So, if I have no cable whatsoever and I buy Apple TV and I want to watch the local news in my area. Will I be able to watch the local news? No. Because I don't have cable and/or a set top box.
    Actually, yes because the local news is likely OTA in your area (or build box a with a cablecard inside).

    Anyway, the point is people seem to be using the term loosely here just as loose as Steve when he simply said "box"; hence the splitting hairs comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    If the entertainment industry would allow people to rent the shows or channels they actually wanted then Apple TV could be a suitable replacement for traditional cable. BUT, that is currently not the case. Which is why Jobs says it's a failure.
    Speculation. Those were not the reasons given by Steve in that interview. I think he's correct for the most part. Seems services like NetFlix have a better shot since they are now targeting the devices that users already own rather than pushing yet another box. We'll have to see if that works out in the end.

    Anyway, sorry for the topic hijack.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Uh, digital antenna? You even get your locals in HD, if'n you like....
    You will not be watching any live TV, be it OTA or cable on Apple TV. Better?

    Because that's why people buy set-top boxes...to view photos....yeah...
    I was giving you an example of what a set top box CAN'T do that a digital media receive can. Since you had them confused.

    Another example is the family vacation movie that was edited in iMovie. You will need a digital media receiver to show that on the big screen TV because a set top box can't do that.

    No, you're splitting split hairs. That's how silly this is. I rent movies from my DirectTV TiVO or cable PPV. I rent movies from Apple TV. I stream TV through On-Demand. I stream/rent TV through iTunes. I stream music from digital radio stations from cable providers. I stream music from iTunes catalog. Those are the primary purposes, and they're done pretty much the same.
    EXCEPT you can't watch any user created digital content from any device except a digital media receiver, like Apple TV. So, if anyone wanted to watch their own user created movies, photos, etc on their TV they will have to buy a digital media receiver to show it on their TV. Which is why I said set top boxes and Apple TV are not the same.

    Why do people buy all these camcorders? Why do people buy all this movie editing software? Do you think they do all that editing to keep the movie on the small computer screen? Do you really want to burn a DVD every time you want to show your movies or photos on the big screen tv? Or is it easier just to get a digital media receiver and have it stream from the computer to the big screen? You will need a digital media receiver to do that, not a set top box.

    If you knowingly release a product under conditions that guarantee failure, then you are the one that is failing. Trying to scapegoat the same studios and labels that already give you access to most of their movies, shows, and bands is ridiculous.
    It's only a failure if your product fails and another product in the same category did not. No product in the digital media receiver category is extremely more successful than the other.
    Last edited by SoFly; 09/20/2010 at 07:54 PM.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by taharka View Post
    Actually, yes because the local news is likely OTA in your area (or build box a with a cablecard inside).

    Anyway, the point is people seem to be using the term loosely here just as loose as Steve when he simply said "box"; hence the splitting hairs comment.


    Speculation. Those were not the reasons given by Steve in that interview. I think he's correct for the most part. Seems services like NetFlix have a better shot since they are now targeting the devices that users already own rather than pushing yet another box. We'll have to see if that works out in the end.

    Anyway, sorry for the topic hijack.
    You will not be watching any live TV, be it OTA or cable on Apple TV.

    When Jobs talks about the "box" he is talking about that generic set top box that the average person gets from the cable company. He does not use "box" and Apple TV interchangeably because they are not the same product category.

    It's the uneducated masses that want to lump them together, or gloss over what each product category uniquely does.

    Quote taken from iLounge transcript of the last iPod event. What Jobs said.

    #1 #2 #3 things they want are Hollywood movies and TV shows whenever they want them.
    It's not speculation.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    You will not be watching any live TV, be it OTA or cable on Apple TV. Better?
    No, not really.

    I was giving you an example of what a set top box CAN'T do that a digital media receive can. Since you had them confused.

    Another example is the family vacation movie that was edited in iMovie. You will need a digital media receiver to show that on the big screen TV.
    No, you don't. You burn it to DVD. Like a lot of home movie makers and professionals alike do.


    EXCEPT you can't watch any user created digital content from any device except a digital media receiver, like Apple TV. So, if anyone wanted to watch their own user created movies, photos, etc on their TV they will have to buy a digital media receiver to show it on their TV. Which is why I said set top boxes and Apple TV are not the same.
    But you can move the content to another format easily or even plug up your computer directly to many modern flatscreens. You're grasping at the flimsiest of straws separating them. People buy these boxes and receivers to watch programming, not their own content on a 42-inch HDTV. You don't need a box for that.

    It's only a failure if your product fails and another product in the same category did not. No product in the digital media receiver category is extremely more successful than the other.
    Apple TV isn't a failure. It's an embarrassment.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    You will not be watching any live TV, be it OTA or cable on Apple TV.

    When Jobs talks about the "box" he is talking about that generic set top box that the average person gets from the cable company. He does not use "box" and Apple TV interchangeably because they are not the same product category.

    It's the uneducated masses that want to lump them together, or gloss over what each product category uniquely does.
    LOL at the excuses.

    It's a hobby...no, wait...it's the uneducated masses fault....no wait...it's the programmers and studios who have filled iTunes to the brim's fault...no wait...
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    No, not really.
    LOL! Because you know what I said is true.

    No, you don't. You burn it to DVD. Like a lot of home movie makers and professionals alike do.
    While everyone else is trying to get all their DVDs and Blu-ray ripped in a manageable digital format to be stored on a hard drive and streamed, you still want to burn DVD's? OK.

    But you can move the content to another format easily or even plug up your computer directly to many modern flatscreens. You're grasping at the flimsiest of straws separating them. People buy these boxes and receivers to watch programming, not their own content on a 42-inch HDTV. You don't need a box for that.
    Or they can have a permanent setup that just streams any media from their computer to the TV whenever they want. I thought technology was supposed to make our life easier? We don't need smart phones, but they do make our lives easier. But, for some reason you think it's easier to connect a laptop to a tv anytime you want to show something on a bigger screen, versus just streaming it.

    I'm not grasping at straws. You just won't admit that Apple TV and a set top box are not the same thing. Just keep coming up with weak arguments.

    Apple TV isn't a failure. It's an embarrassment.
    Who has done better than Apple in the category?
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    LOL at the excuses.

    It's a hobby...no, wait...it's the uneducated masses fault....no wait...it's the programmers and studios who have filled iTunes to the brim's fault...no wait...
    What excuses? I just simply said that he doesn't confuse the two. Again, weak response.

    An excuse is blaming poor advertising for the Palm Pre not being successful. When there is a more important reason, like horrible hardware. Or, them releasing the Pre too soon.
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    LOL! Because you know what I said is true.
    Yeah, the opposite of that.

    While everyone else is trying to get all their DVDs and Blu-ray ripped in a manageable digital format to be stored on a hard drive and streamed, you still want to burn DVD's? OK.
    Who are all these people with hours and hours of video they created that they need to be streaming away from a computer? If that's the target demographic for Apple, no wonder that this has been an utter embarrassment.

    Or they can have a permanent setup that just streams any media from their computer to the TV whenever they want. I thought technology was supposed to make our life easier? We don't need smart phones, but they do make our lives easier. But, for some reason you think it's easier to connect a laptop to a tv anytime you want to show something on a bigger screen, versus just streaming it.
    Is it Apple TV or Apple Embarrassing Streamer? You seem to wanna talk about anything except the TV portion of Apple TV...like, actual movies and TV shows?

    I'm not grasping at straws. You just won't admit that Apple TV and a set top box are not the same thing. Just keep coming up with weak arguments.
    What are you on about? They're virtually identical in the ways that people buy set top boxes for. Aw, man...you can't stream photos to a TiVO? There are so many people who care about that. Looks like they all bought this joke already, tho....
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by SoFly View Post
    What excuses? I just simply said that he doesn't confuse the two. Again, weak response.

    An excuse is blaming poor advertising for the Palm Pre not being successful. When there is a more important reason, like horrible hardware. Or, them releasing the Pre too soon.
    The reality distortion field is strong with this one....

    Any more irrelevant tangents you wanna try?
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by mikah912 View Post
    Yeah, the opposite of that.
    That comment there tells me your just being a <jerk>. You know as well as I do that Apple TV will never have the ability to show any live programming like a set top box. Which is a difference between the two. So, to not agree on that is just sad.

    Who are all these people with hours and hours of video they created that they need to be streaming away from a computer? If that's the target demographic for Apple, no wonder that this has been an utter embarrassment.
    Meaning that why burn a DVD every time you want to show something on your TV versus streaming it from your computer.

    Is it Apple TV or Apple Embarrassing Streamer? You seem to wanna talk about anything except the TV portion of Apple TV...like, actual movies and TV shows?
    Wrong. All I simply said was they are not the same thing. You are the one that tried to come up with all these rebuttals and ignore the differences between Apple TV and a set top box.

    And you said Apple TV was an embarrassment, but I said who has done better and you said nothing. All the smart<> comments, but you can't back them up with facts.
    Last edited by Blaize; 09/20/2010 at 09:08 PM. Reason: Inappropriate language
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions