Dude, Samsung isn't the first to announce a smartwatch. Plus Apple has never cared about being first. I'd rather Apple take their time and come up with something people will want rather than rushing to beat a competitor to the punch.
You are right
However, Samsung being first does mean that they set the standard.
That is what I am most worried about
When you have spent several thousand dollars in the Apple ecosystem you tend to get a bit defensive when you see things that you think are bad.
So yeah, maybe I overreacted a bit
And STILL no Time Warner
Tim Cook needs to be fired
Not just for letting Roku beat them to it, but because of the big **** up that he allowed to happen today. Moron let Samsung beat them to the market with a SmartWatch.
He's got to go for his incompetence. He is killing Apple!
I'm less interested in an AppleTV "app store" and more interested in seeing if adding these "authentication required" channels is just a step toward making the same channels(and more to come, I hope) available as direct subscriptions without an associated cable account in the future.
Seeing More Attention going to Apple TV has been great. Still wish it was open to application developers......
And STILL no Time Warner
Tim Cook needs to be fired
Not just for letting Roku beat them to it, but because of the big **** up that he allowed to happen today. Moron let Samsung beat them to the market with a SmartWatch.
He's got to go for his incompetence. He is killing Apple!
Seeing More Attention going to Apple TV has been great. Still wish it was open to application developers.....
I too wish they would open it to user installed apps. The Berlin philharmonic digital concert hall is a real gem and it would be nice to not have to use the iPad app and mirror.
It is open to developers via AirPlay.
Image
Don't know why one would want an increase in cost associated with built-in processing power when that processing power is in their iPhone/iPad/iPad Mini already.
I am thinking the same. Instead of paying $100/month to a cable company to access 500 channels that I don't watch, I would sooner pay, say, $5/month each to subscribe to, I dunno, HBO, Discovery Channel, Food Network, etc. Some channels could command more than others based on their programming demand.
Maybe this is what Steve's big idea was. Everyone could access only and exactly what they want to see, pay for only those channels, and get them streamed directly. Add to that some PVR or on-demand scheduling/streaming, and you've got the perfect way to watch whatever you want, whenever you want.
What app is that?
What doesn't make sense to me is that if we have to have cable in order to view some of this content, like the new Disney Channels and HBO, then why would I even bother watching it through the AppleTV over just watching it directly on my TV through the cable box. We're adding an unnecessary middle-man.
Now, if this is all paving the way for allowing us to subscribe to these channels without having to buy cable tv then I'm all for this. I've been saying for years I'd be more than happy to give HBO 20-30 dollars a month to be able to stream their content online. I do watch enough of their content that I can easily justify the cost being 20-30.
It should be forbidden to write 'WATCH' on channel icons.
Not just for letting Roku beat them to it, but because of the big **** up that he allowed to happen today. Moron let Samsung beat them to the market with a SmartWatch.
You are right
However, Samsung being first does mean that they set the standard.
That is what I am most worried about
When you have spent several thousand dollars in the Apple ecosystem you tend to get a bit defensive when you see things that you think are bad.
So yeah, maybe I overreacted a bit