Greg Alexander's Profile

One mistake in the article - if you download a TV show in High Def, then the free iSquint will make the resolution lower. One extra mention for the article - if you convert to MP4 but not H264, conversions of your files run much quicker. Can't do HD this way though. I like the AppleTV, but it needs expandability. It would be great to allow plugins - ranging from extra video codecs to "dashboard-like" applications. If Apple wants to stay on-side with the networks, then something simple like allowing access to the network streaming videos would be an interesting start.

I think Chrome using Webkit is a great thing. Webkit is also based on open source, it's designed to allow multiple providers... that's not a bad thing at all. Anyway - Chrome gets Webkit into more user and developers' hands, and Webkit is being used in Android too. It's a significant movement in where attention will focus, and Apple & Google are both following a related strategy for web-application development. All that said - I'll probably end up continuing to use Safari & Firefox. But I'm a Mac user, and I don't think we're Google's main target by a long shot, since I think that as long as we're using Webkit (and thus supporting this alternative to Microsoft) then Google is happy.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning in this article. When people want more than a thin client - they'll still have the same choices they have today - Microsoft or Apple. There is such a low profit margin on sub-$1000 desktops, that it would seem that's a good reason for Apple not to play that game, though I'm still not sure that Apple couldn't make a nice OS profit if it released purely for sub-$1000 Dell desktops (since Dell has such a high marketshare in home and small businesses). Anyway - back to the Thin Client ideas - if the net is moving towards thin clients, then Apple has 3 markets it can approach 1) stick with their high end solutions (as above) 2) produce thin clients. Clients that look like iMacs but run Safari only. 3) produce hybrids. Simple machines that work better when online but still work offline. Come to think of it... Google Chrome still requires a fast and sophisticated client device doesn't it?

Sorry my mistake.. it's under opinion... I thought it was under "reviews" yesterday... Still - I think a nice clear "I've read the blurb and it doesn't interest me" would be useful.

Hey Doug, Interesting idea - since TiVo isn't doing well, why would Apple be able to make it work. Very good question. And you're right that the provider is supplying their own boxes which makes it harder for TiVo to provide a competitive system (but the TiVo doesn't re-compress the data it records, that's not an issue, not sure why you think it does). I think Apple (and TiVo) could only make a PVR work in combination with other products - or if they can entirely replace the cable subscription. To replace cable you'd have to be able to record FTA and subscribe to downloads from popular cable channels (like discovery etc), as well as rent movies - though this leaves sports-lovers behind. There's no reason that Showtime couldn't charge the same monthly subscription as now but offer it via download (just this week's movies downloadable to the AppleTV, expiring in 1 month). If Apple tried that, expect the big cable providers like Time Warner to start offering content that is exclusive to their own networks, to fight subscription loss. The battle simply changes where it focuses. So coming back to "is the current AppleTV a good product", I still think it is, but whether you buy it depends on your needs. My parents had a new HDTV and wanted HD movies, and bought the AppleTV as a cheaper alternative to a BluRay or HD-DVD player (though it turns out they mainly like it for the photos shown as a screen saver). I have a laptop I plug into the TV and that does much more than the AppleTV (except HD), and I have a standard def DVR (HD DVRs record HDTV but are much more expensive.. a TiVo can rent HD movies from Amazon afaik). The AppleTV has more than one issue, and they have missed a few opportunities. The HD comes at a cost, and the bandwidth is only just capable, while rental content has been too limited. Apple could have made a SD version, and allowed DivX files plus a DVR - that's what other manufacturers would have done. It would have been more complex and less good looking and may have meant the networks didn't release their TV shows on iTunes.... so many trade-offs to move to the future.

Hey Chris - that Sony or Panasonic PVR with greater capacity at half the price... to be a fair comparison they'd have to be high definition - are they? Overall, if it wasn't for high def, I'd agree with much of what you're saying. I mean - it is expensive compared with standard def players. In fact, I think Apple should have released a Standard-Def AppleTV for $100... it would have hit a different audience. Instead they paid a premium for high def h264 decoding and made it only work with widescreens... cutting off a huge number of potential customers AND more than doubling the price. Now that h264 decoding is being built into so many BluRay players etc I hope it's time for h264 to become mainstream anyway. ps. I also really like PVRs so I would be pleased to see the AppleTV take on that functionality. pps. If you really want a pet dog, don't buy a pet cat. Even if they do lots of similar things.

I agree Telstra is charging too much, and I wish Apple could force Telcos to repackage their services. But really, I'm just happy the iPhone is on all 3 networks. As long as there's scope to let competition discover the best packages. Also, fortunately, the iPhone is changing people's usage AND teaching Telcos about that different type of usage.