+ Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Why Apple or Anyone Needs to Disrupt the Boring World of TV Technology

is a discussion within the

Mac News

forums, a part of the

General Apple/Mac

section;
Originally Posted by GmAz A lot of TVs now come web enabled with apps. Not sure what Apple thinks they can do. Plus, PS3s and XBOXs bring even more to
...
  1. #21
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    22
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GmAz View Post
    A lot of TVs now come web enabled with apps. Not sure what Apple thinks they can do. Plus, PS3s and XBOXs bring even more to the TV scene besides games.
    That's right they do. But as he mentioned in the article, those smart tv interfaces suck. Mine is so slow and clunky. Forget actually watching a YouTube clip on it. I'd rather use the BluRay interface than the tvs. It's actually not half bad.

  2. #22
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    13
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Stray View Post
    Samsung just released something that does that. So Apple wouldn't be the first.
    Expand on this, what do they have? Not being a ****, I'm honestly curious.

  3. #23
    What's Jailbreak?
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by mofolo View Post
    Apple have never innovated. They simply get existing technologies, wait until they're good enough, or develop them till they're good enough, then refine the software and drivers that use the technology.
    They are, by no means, innovators.
    Ignorance at its finest

  4. #24
    iPhoneaholic
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 32 Times in 21 Posts

    No, we wouldn't pay $20 per month per channel. The price should probably be between $2-$3 per channel per month, especially given the amount of advertising on these channels. And that is on the high end, for the best of the best, Disney Channel, HBO, Cinemax, etc.

    Channels that are watched less frequently should probably be $0.99 or less per month. The reality is that cable charges too much for a lot of junk that you don't want.

    Better still, if these options were on Hulu or Netflix, then I would be fine with that and I could watch on my schedule, not theirs. Some of them already are, but it would be nice to have more of them.

    If I were to get cable, etc. all that I would want from it is: History Channel, Disney Channel, Food Network, HGTV and Animal Planet. The rest that I want can already be obtained on Roku, Hulu Plus, Netflix and/or Over the Air Television with nothing more than a pair of rabbit ears.

    If I combine my Hulu Plus and Netflix subscriptions, my T.V. costs us about $15 per month. The cheapest Cable/Satellite solution here runs about $50 per month. For those keeping up, that means a savings of about $420 per year.

  5. #25
    My iPhone is a Part of Me NSXrebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    511
    Thanks
    12
    Thanked 43 Times in 36 Posts

    I too would only pay for the very few channels I watch. History Channel, Food Network, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, TLC, Comedy Central, and to a less extent, Speed TV aka NASCRAP TV, but only for Formula1 and MotoGP. In fact, I would rather have a dedicated channel/app from FIA/FIM for F1 and MotoGP.

    Just about everything else on TV is crap. I don't watch any "reality" shows, and I LOATHE MTV for starting it all! Right now, I don't pay for cable, and haven't done so in a long while. It's just not worth it. Any tv shows that I miss/want to watch, I'll just go to Hulu, Youtube, or just download torrents.

  6. #26
    My iPhone is a Part of Me vantheman169's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Outter Space
    Posts
    888
    Thanks
    87
    Thanked 114 Times in 75 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Sharpjunkie View Post
    Your comment isn't very innovative, anyways, I would like to see an 80-100 inch screen as thin as paper that I can roll up like a poster and throw in the back of my car and take it to my friends house then unroll it and tack it to the wall. I'd rather have a display do one thing, display. I would rather buy external devices such as an apple tv or roku. I will never understand gimmicks like waving your arms or talking to a tv, what's the point? Rather develop eye sensing tech like Steven Hawkings uses to change channels.
    That would be AWESOME check this out. I think this is what you have in mind. ME TOO!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cf7IL_eZ38

+ Reply
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts