On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:37 PM, James Nick Sears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> People want to watch TV on TVs not PCs, especially now that we have >> large screens. You also get more bandwidth so you have higher >> resolution. Is basically trying to deliver on the promise of >> video-on-demand.
The resolution is still the problem here for me. "Near DVD quality" just isn't acceptable on a big TV in a world when even DVD quality is substandard compared to Bluray. This is an early adopter sort of product, and my bet is that most of us early adopters don't want to feed our high end plasma "Near DVD quality" signals. I'd have an Apple TV if it did 1080p, but it's only 720p (which is a good bit better than DVD and the Netflix product). Plus the architecture of using your PC to pipe movies to the device, while interesting, is extremely inconvenient. Imagine the lights dimmed, glasses of wine on the table, candles lit: "Hey honey, want to watch a movie?" "Sure, let me go in the other room and spend 10 minutes booting my computer and logging onto Netflix and browsing for one." No thanks. So what you've got is a substandard Apple TV, but with prepaid subscription content from Netflix. If there was a 1080p version that cached the files ahead of time to overcome the bandwidth issues and had a usable interface for browsing, I'd have one, even if it cost 2-3x as much. But IMO this one was dead in the water before it released. The intersection of the group of people who are geeky enough to control a video player from their PC and the group of people don't care about video quality is just too small. -n. ________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)! To post to this list ....... [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help
