MacWorld Best of Show Awards

[dloomer]

eyeHome

Before anyone gets too excited about eyeHome, their FAQ states (unsurprisingly) that it can't play AAC files bought from the iTunes music store. Pretty big drawback.

http://www.elgato.com/products/eyehome-faq.html

Apple is either going to have to license their DRM to Elgato or come up with their own set-top box, and I still think they're probably planning on the latter or they would have let Elgato use their DRM already...

The eyeBox also doesn't allow you to control it from your Mac, only with the remote control (and since it uses your TV screen, you can't watch TV while selecting songs). Some competitor ... I forget the name, but it's more expensive ... just came out with something similar with a web interface, and it plays AAC files.

 

[Le Big Mac]

Re: eyeHome

Originally posted by dloomer
Before anyone gets too excited about eyeHome, their FAQ states (unsurprisingly) that it can't play AAC files bought from the iTunes music store. Pretty big drawback.

http://www.elgato.com/products/eyehome-faq.html

Apple is either going to have to license their DRM to Elgato or come up with their own set-top box, and I still think they're probably planning on the latter or they would have let Elgato use their DRM already...

The eyeBox also doesn't allow you to control it from your Mac, only with the remote control (and since it uses your TV screen, you can't watch TV while selecting songs). Some competitor ... I forget the name, but it's more expensive ... just came out with something similar with a web interface, and it plays AAC files.

There's the roku (i think it is) that performs similar functions. Yeah, using the tv to choose tunes is a PITA, and no itms is a problem. it seems apple would be better off cutting a deal with these folks than making their own equivalent product, though.

 

[dloomer]

Yep, you're right, it was Roku I was thinking about.

http://www.rokulabs.com/products/soundbridge/index.php

Love the name too ... assuming it's pronounced "rock you."

Given the choice between Roku and eyeHome, I think I'd go with the Roku even if it's more expensive and lacks some of eyeHome's features. Being able to set up a dedicated music server that can be accessed by both Roku and a web browser is what clinches it for me. Plus the nice on-screen display.

I hope one of these supports the "browse" function that iTunes and iPod have (i.e., focus in on songs from a particular artist or album without having to create a playlist).

 

[dloomer]

Oh, and not to single out eyeHome for not playing songs from iTMS. I am assuming neither Roku or Squeezebox do that, either. AAC, yes, protected AAC, no.

 

[wdlove]

Originally posted by autrefois
No update pricing, but I would think Firewire would be better unless you're low on hard drive space.

I have the USB one (that's what I get for buying it early ) and there is about a 3 second delay between "realtime" and when it shows up on your computer screen. It doesn't cause a problem at all except when you're changing channels (it goes through your cable box to the EyeTV box to your computer). I would assume with the Firewire version the delay would be reduced.

After looking quickly on their website, I see that the Firewire version also has "DVD-quality" MPEG-2 video. The quality of video on the USB version is MPEG-1 I believe. It's good for normal viewing, but if you're fussy or want better quality, then I would go for the Firewire version.

There are more features on both versions (skipping commercials, etc.) you can check out on the website.

Does anyone here have a Firewire EyeTV (EyeTV 200)?

This all sounds very intruiging, it peaks my interest. Plan on taking a look at the product this July at MacWorld Boston. That way I can get a personal demo of the product. Also by that time there might be some addition to the product that you and others mentioned. Either that or Apple will have introduced a superior product by that time.

 

[alset]

Originally posted by wdlove
Plan on taking a look at the product this July at MacWorld Boston.

That is, assuming any verndors decide to show up. Tons of companies are announcing that they won't attend, and the more companies that make public the news that they won't show the more others will follow.

IDG should have just caved to Apple's request/demand that the show stay in NY. Boston MacWorld wasn't nearly as much fun, anyway. When you took a flight to NY for MW you could also count on some fun vacationing. Not that Boston isn't a fun town, but it can't match Manhattan.

Dan