No, there would be no blu-ray. With iCloud and iTunes moving to 1080 there would be no need. Steve Jobs was not fond of disks and cables, think wireless n and airplay in and out.
C
Awesome story bro. i don't care. i as a consumer want Blu-Ray.
No, there would be no blu-ray. With iCloud and iTunes moving to 1080 there would be no need. Steve Jobs was not fond of disks and cables, think wireless n and airplay in and out.
C
TV sets complicated? That's new to me. Yes, if you have 3 pieces of equipment to start a universal remote with touch screen comes in handy. But complicated? And the remark of cable operators being in total control strikes me as odd. Apple wants to be in total control as well, and they're doing a fine job at it. It's about the business model, even more money has to be generated although I'm fathomed why. They already have so much in cash they don't know what to do with it![]()
a la carte will never happen. The television and movie industry will not fall for that like the music industry did by giving so much control to Apple. Apple redefined how music was purchased, and was basically able to dictate to the industry since they had the lion's share of the market. The video industry wants to control it's content and pricing. Allowing Apple to become the main provider would upset the balance of control. That is why they make separate contracts with Amazon, Apple, Netflix and so on. No one company will get the whole pie, just parts of it. Thus in order to get all of it, the consumer would end up paying more. And that is exactly what the industry wants. So yes, cable tv may slowly fade away, but in the end, streaming will be even more expensive when that does happen. Don't wish for the demise of cable. It will cost you.
Mactvman is obviously not an Apple product user and therefore doesn't know why people are willing to pay more, and at time a heck of a lot more, for Apple products. Ignorance is bliss, and enables one to make dumb and stupid statements without knowing it.
i am a little surprised Apple hasnt developed their AppleTV line into more of a Tivo type box that can be used with cable channels. The interface is excellent on tivo, but to blend internet offerings, existing recordings, etc all together would be really nice if it had an Apple interface on top of it
Response: No, it's not as good as Blu-ray, but it's not crap. It's darn good, as a matter of fact. Apple doesn't need to match Blu-ray quality, they just need to provide "good enough" HD quality, at a reasonable price, so that the masses will buy into it. Ever hear of MP3? Not as good as SACD, but the mass market has decided the convenience of MP3 combined with its "good enough" quality is worth more to them.
It would definitely be in the high-end of the market, however it wouldn't be more expensive than TVs in that range... the size of the potential TV is what I'm wondering... 1 size fits all? several sizes?
a la carte will never happen. The television and movie industry will not fall for that like the music industry did by giving so much control to Apple. Apple redefined how music was purchased, and was basically able to dictate to the industry since they had the lion's share of the market. The video industry wants to control it's content and pricing. Allowing Apple to become the main provider would upset the balance of control. That is why they make separate contracts with Amazon, Apple, Netflix and so on. No one company will get the whole pie, just parts of it. Thus in order to get all of it, the consumer would end up paying more. And that is exactly what the industry wants. So yes, cable tv may slowly fade away, but in the end, streaming will be even more expensive when that does happen. Don't wish for the demise of cable. It will cost you.
No longer would users have to fiddle with complex remotes for DVD players and cable channels. 'It will have the simplest user interface you could imagine. I finally cracked it.'"
Argument: It won't replace my Blu-ray with 1080p/24 and 3D. Their 720p movies are over-compressed crap. I demand quality!
Response: No, it's not as good as Blu-ray, but it's not crap. It's darn good, as a matter of fact. Apple doesn't need to match Blu-ray quality, they just need to provide "good enough" HD quality, at a reasonable price, so that the masses will buy into it. Ever hear of MP3? Not as good as SACD, but the mass market has decided the convenience of MP3 combined with its "good enough" quality is worth more to them.
This is it, man. My $400 Dynex TV is so complicated. And I have to actually stand up and move around for 10 seconds to watch a movie on BluRay.
You ignore the fact that casual readers of MR (like myself) happen to land on the front page without any say in what goes on it. Now if MR had a spoiler free section like they do for keynotes you might have a valid point. But they don't. The only alternative is to not visit MR.
Enough with the spoilers about the biography, I want to read the book!
These posts should have an alert before them, so people can skip them. It seems I'm going to have to restrain myself of macrumors until I've read the book in a couple of days!![]()
This is it, man. My $400 Dynex TV is so complicated. And I have to actually stand up and move around for 10 seconds to watch a movie on BluRay. It's just really frustrating how difficult and complex all of that is...
I can't wait to pay $1500 for a $1000 TV just because it has an Apple logo on it!![]()
And what do you think all the Apple devices in the world run on, hopes and dreams? They're plugged into the same wall sockets as set top boxes.
Awesome story bro. i don't care. i as a consumer want Blu-Ray.