MacFan782040
Sep 5, 02:58 PM
iTunes Movie Store should be rental only.
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
If you really love a movie, go out and buy it. This way, you have the physical copy to carry around with you where ever you want to watch it (living room, friend's house, car, ect)
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I would probably pay that. Apple figures if you want decent quality, hook your Mac Mini up to your HDTV and play it off there. If not, just watch it on your Mac.
If you copy it to an iPod, the movie will expire in 5 days as well. Or, it will expire next time you connect your iPod to iTunes. (people HAVE to do that!)
We'll probably see Front Row 2.0 as well.
Just some thoughts....
dongmin
Sep 5, 03:40 PM
Quoted from an older thread that has been left behind:
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Somebody cast doubt on the HDMI thing, I don't know - just seemed like the easiest option to get video into an iMac. You don't have to worry about all the different methods of getting TV (free to air, digital, cable) because if you have a HDMI-enabled receiver it would just plug into the back of the iMac. You'd need to use the receiver's remote to do all the channel changing but Apple could offer some sort of recording program. EyeHome could do something with it too? I'm no expert, just trying to look at a simple solution for a complicated, fragmented problem.I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Apple Shmapple
Sep 12, 04:59 PM
At these new lower price points that reads pretty UN-educated to me.
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
Whoopidedoo, a whole $50 off. They HAD to do that because of the lack of actually updating anything worthy on the device. One could argue that it isn't enough of a price cut the way competitors music players are priced.
Anyone with half a brain will avoid these 5th G Part 2 devices like the plague, unless they want to waste money that could be spent 4 months later on a widescreen model.
Should we set up the thread now for the people that rush out and buy this version of the iPod then get burned just after Christmas when the real new iPod comes out? They'll need someplace to vent, and it's usually all over these threads. It would be nice to condense it.
deconstruct60
May 3, 07:57 PM
My iMacs have 2 Firewire ports (a 27" and a 24") which I use for TM and a SD clone external. The new iMacs only have one FW port - with 4 USB connections. Seems like a slower way to have to back up, and I see no externals out there that run Thunderbolt.
Am I missing something? :confused:
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Am I missing something? :confused:
habermas
Mar 23, 04:30 PM
What's the idea of DUI checkpoints anyway? Can't police officers just pull over drivers they suspect of DUI if they catch them while on regular patrol? That's how it works here at least. Much less predictable and it negates the utility of the apps in question..
mozmac
Oct 27, 12:13 PM
I tend to despise radical groups (*cough* PITA *cough*), or maybe it's better stated, activist groups that act radically. However, these guys probably have some reason to what they're doing. Apple probably could do better, so...hopefully this will wake them up.
linux2mac
May 3, 11:04 AM
I want dual out screen on the MBP =(:(
Would be great to have dual out on 11" MBA too. This way I could have dual displays at my remote office.
Would be great to have dual out on 11" MBA too. This way I could have dual displays at my remote office.
GGJstudios
Apr 4, 04:52 PM
ClamXav only detects Windows viruses.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
http://www.clamxav.com
ClamXav is a free virus scanner for Mac OS X. It uses the very popular ClamAV open source antivirus engine as a back end and has the ability to detect both Windows and Mac threats.
fatfish
Aug 23, 07:00 PM
There's more to this than anyone here as realised I believe.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
A hundred with 6 zero's is an awful lot of cash, even for Apple, but what gets me is just how quickly this has been settled.
Before going down that road though, lets understand that fighting this case could have cost Apple between, let's say half as much and maybe 3 times as much, so it's a fair gamble. Additionally it seems that Apple have endorsed the creative patent, which may pave the way to creative receiving further license fees of which it seems Apple will receive a share.
The deal also lets creative move into the accessory market with made for ipod and out of the mp3 player market. I don't know if this is usual but I have an ipod which cost � 270, but I have around � 400 of made for ipod accessories. Perhaps creative will earn more from accessories than their zen. creative have struggled against the ipod, the zune may not have a significant impact on ipod sales but it would destroy the zen.
In many ways it is all the accessories for the ipod that make it so irresistible. creative may not only join the made for ipod market, but enhance it and ultimately benefit Apple. Also whilst not clear here whether the tag is free or not, I believe the made for ipod tag earns apple 10% of sales, which if not free is likely to recover all if not more than the $100 m paid to creative.
Now to the issue of how quickly Apple settled. I have to wonder why Apple could not have hung on for 6 months, offered creative half or 3/4 as much and had their hand snapped off because of creative's declining situation. Put simply I believe the deal had to be done quickly because Apple are about to announce something big, something that may have made the $ 100m look miniscule.
jholzner
Oct 12, 05:25 PM
Dude... That has to be the most racist thing I have ever read! :eek:
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
Disregarding the poster you were responding to, humans are animals and are the result of natural selection just as much as any other species on the planet. Funny how the intro of a red iPod has led to me posting this.
I think the pict. of the iPod is awesome and I think they will sell well on color alone.
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
Disregarding the poster you were responding to, humans are animals and are the result of natural selection just as much as any other species on the planet. Funny how the intro of a red iPod has led to me posting this.
I think the pict. of the iPod is awesome and I think they will sell well on color alone.
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
What do you mean, "you people"
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Lol, I was referring to the Ill wait for the new one to come out people actually. Haha
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Lol, I was referring to the Ill wait for the new one to come out people actually. Haha
JAT
Apr 17, 11:18 PM
You guys are forgetting the most important fact. "Sonos" sounds much cooler than "Airplay". ;)
GuyV
Oct 13, 03:08 AM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
rovex
Apr 30, 05:53 PM
A redesign in 2012?
That seems to align with all the big changes expected for the iPhone, iPad and MacBook pro.
That seems to align with all the big changes expected for the iPhone, iPad and MacBook pro.
GGJstudios
Apr 12, 07:28 PM
Can anybody running Leopard confirm what users/groups have write privileges to Safari, Mail, & etc.
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Leopard:
281058 281059 281060
Snow Leopard:
281066
Just want to clarify if the permissions on that Leopard system have been modified?
Leopard:
281058 281059 281060
Snow Leopard:
281066
TonySwartz
Oct 12, 04:35 PM
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/5216/indexfallingnanos20061012fz5.th.png (http://img189.imageshack.us/my.php?image=indexfallingnanos20061012fz5.png)
UberMac
Sep 15, 05:30 PM
A shame about scrapping the idea of a ground up design - I hope that doesn't lead to a lack of innovation. That's what really leads Apple along! Although if they just make a killer phone (I'm sure they will at some point...) it's bound to sell buckets loads!
Uber
Uber
glitch44
Apr 30, 01:28 PM
Why do they want OS X users to feel as if we were on an iPad!!!???
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Decaf. Look into it.
If I wanted/needed one, I'd buy one. What the hell !!!???????:mad::mad::mad::mad:
Decaf. Look into it.
dejo
Nov 13, 01:37 PM
Jeff LaMarche's (co-author of "Beginning iPhone Development") take on this situation:
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I'm going to risk the ire of the maddening crowd once more, but I think somebody needs to come to Apple's defense this time. I love a good mob scene as much as the next guy, and I keep my pitchfork nice and sharp just in case the need should arise. But… the picture that Rogue Amoeba has painted in their farewell post doesn't look quite so black and white to me. Certainly, Apple could have handled many things about the situation better, but so could have Rogue Amoeba.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
http://iphonedevelopment.blogspot.com/2009/11/rogue-amoeba.html
I'm going to risk the ire of the maddening crowd once more, but I think somebody needs to come to Apple's defense this time. I love a good mob scene as much as the next guy, and I keep my pitchfork nice and sharp just in case the need should arise. But… the picture that Rogue Amoeba has painted in their farewell post doesn't look quite so black and white to me. Certainly, Apple could have handled many things about the situation better, but so could have Rogue Amoeba.
I definitely can see both sides of the argument. And I speak from personal experience. One of my company's apps, CraigsHarvest, was rejected for a similar reason: we had included a cropped version of the Setting app icon in our help file, in order to better direct our users to where to changes their settings. But Apple rejected it because we were using their icon. So, we complied and removed its usage.
But there has to be some kinda happy, middle-ground here. There already are a number of Apple-owned icons that we are allowed (in fact, encouraged) to use, such as Compose, Action, Bookmark (see below attached images). Maybe Apple could expand the range of images, icons, etc. they own that we, as developers, could be allowed to use.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 12:13 PM
But the current Core Duos are "mobile" processors right? :confused:Yes, the Core Duo (Yonah) is a mobile chip. The Core 2 Duo equivalent is Merom.
Peace
Sep 5, 10:46 AM
Appleinsider is indeed putting out a lot of info.
Thats the scary part..
Could well be Apple is going after Appleinsider like it did with Thinksecret by "feeding it" tons of misleading info to get the "other rat"..
Thats the scary part..
Could well be Apple is going after Appleinsider like it did with Thinksecret by "feeding it" tons of misleading info to get the "other rat"..
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
EagerDragon
Sep 13, 10:27 PM
a combo, phone, PDA, Mp3 player and I am sold. Unlike the iTV I would see a lot of value on this.
tkermit
May 3, 10:53 AM
I've heard about stuff from Pegasus (storage), Promise (storage), Matrox (video), LaCie (storage).
Add Apogee (http://news.apogeedigital.com/index.php/press-releases/43-press-releases/190-apogee-electronics-announces-audio-interface-development-based-upon-intels-thunderbolt-technology-for-connection-to-thunderbolt-equipped-apple-computers) (audio) to that list.
Add Apogee (http://news.apogeedigital.com/index.php/press-releases/43-press-releases/190-apogee-electronics-announces-audio-interface-development-based-upon-intels-thunderbolt-technology-for-connection-to-thunderbolt-equipped-apple-computers) (audio) to that list.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق