Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Announces New iPods, iTunes 10, Social Network, AppleTV

CmdrTaco posted about 4 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-special dept.

Handhelds 579

Steve Jobs gave his iPod keynote this morning. He started with iOS 4.1 and Game Center which will be coming out next week. iOS 4.2 will add printing to the iPad and will be out in November. The new iPod Shuffle has buttons again, and costs $49. The new iPod Nano has a tiny multi-touch screen, and an FM radio, and starts at $149. The new (thinner) Touch has the iPhone 4 screen, an A4 chip, and FaceTime over WiFi, starting at $229 for 8GB. They all ship next week. iTunes 10 looks the same, but adds a social network called "Ping," which basically looks like Last.fm integrated, and should be out today. AppleTV is updating: 1/4th the size, no purchases — only rentals. 99 cents for TV rentals (ABC & Fox), Netflix on Demand built in, and for $99.

cancel ×

579 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 4 years ago | (#33438566)

iOS 4.2 will add printing to the iPad... About. Fucking. Time!

Re:Really? (2, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about 4 years ago | (#33438858)

But why would you want to print to the iPad?

Re:Really? (0)

poetmatt (793785) | about 4 years ago | (#33438892)

in this day and age, why would you even print anything?

for the most part it's just not as needed. Especially having an ipad. Need to show something to a friend? Just bring the ipad.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

onkelonkel (560274) | about 4 years ago | (#33439208)

The standard non-answer. Kind of sad.

Q. User - How do I get (Linux/Apple device/whatever fanboi loves the most) to do $foo?

A. Fanboi who won't admit that his precious can't do $foo. - Why would you want to do that?

Why would you want to cut and paste on an iphone? Why would you want to print from an ipad? Why would you want your email client to integrate with your calendar? Why would you want to move the "song name" column in itunes..........

Re:Really? (3, Funny)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 4 years ago | (#33439258)

So does the iPad have print drivers to print to the Kindle?

Re:Really? (1, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about 4 years ago | (#33438896)

I know RIGHT?! They also added USB, Flash, a camera, and an HDMI output!!! Oh wait... no they didn't.

Re:Really? (1, Flamebait)

daveime (1253762) | about 4 years ago | (#33439020)

... as if millions of fanbois cried out in disappointment and were suddenly silenced. I fear nothing special has happened.

Never mind, there's always iDevice 5.0 right ? Maybe next year.

Re:Really? (3, Informative)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 4 years ago | (#33438984)

I suppose. For me -- and I'm really invested in Apple hardware, both for myself and my family (5 mac users) -- there's nothing here of interest.

The iPad (which yes, we own two of) still lacks cameras and IR emission, needs a flat, un-wobbly back, still has enough wasted sq inches of bezel area to fit an iPod Touch into, still is bound to AT&T, still is too low-res to properly display even 720p, still lacks CF, SD and USB connections, still syncs by cable, still charges by cable, and still has a paltry 512 mb of memory, which, when they eventually get around to implementing multitasking, means that what you're actually going to get is something on the order of windows 3.1 multitasking with a few services, not actual task switching, etc. And it still costs *way* too much.

The iPhone... still bound to AT&T, still missing features other phones have had for quite some time. Can't use it here because of the AT&T monopoly, so it isn't worth anything to me.

Mac Mini... from a $499 (barely) entry mac with a great footprint to a seriously overpriced block that eats way more desk space...

Still no reasonable desk mac or straight up tower mac (not talking macpro... talking *reasonable*.)

Still got those OSX widgets stuck back on an invisible screen, where they're utterly useless to us... (luckily, there's Yahoo Widgets, which actually work like you'd want them to)

The iPod Touch... mm, nice new display and camera, they almost got me there, but considering the ios4 fake multitasking... I'll wait for one with a couple gigs of memory and some better battery technology so the thing can *actually* multitask.

Aperture still doesn't support stacked plugins... and we're on major release 3... oy. Likewise, Logicpro... still buggy as heck, still hasn't been updated.

And as for trying to sell me 99 cent TV shows... now that's simply straight-up funny.

Honestly, I think they're losing it. I have money, I like the gear, and it doesn't even seem like they are *trying* to get me to hand it to them.

Re:Really? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439128)

Gay cocks raping your eyeballs.

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439200)

still charges by cable

Really really? How many devices have you bought recently from other companies that charge over the air?

Re:Really? (1)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33439220)

I suppose. For me -- and I'm really invested in Apple hardware, both for myself and my family (5 mac users) -- there's nothing here of interest.

[...rant...]

Honestly, I think they're losing it. I have money, I like the gear, and it doesn't even seem like they are *trying* to get me to hand it to them.

Sell or do not sell... there is no try.

Re:Really? (2, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 4 years ago | (#33439234)

Well if you've been an Apple fan for any amount of time you should know that they will not ever, at least as long as Jobs is around, produce a consumer tower. There has been hue and cry for one for as long as I can remember, and they ones that the clone makers made during that brief time did well. Apple does not care, they will not produce it for some reason.

As for cable charging, what other kind of charging do you suggest? Power does not travel through the air well, that whole inverse square law bites you in the ass. Tesla wanted wireless power, never could make it work for that reason. Inductive charging is possible but increases bulk and decreases efficiency, plus the device has to sit right on the charger to work. How is that better than a wire (inductive charging is normally only used for things like electric toothbrushes where water in the connector would be an issue). Cable is how power is done.

Re:Really? (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 4 years ago | (#33439262)

and still has a paltry 512 mb of memory, which, when they eventually get around to implementing multitasking, means that what you're actually going to get is something on the order of windows 3.1 multitasking with a few services, not actual task switching, etc.

The system requirements [microsoft.com] for Windows 3.1 was 2MB (4MB recommended). I'm not a big fan of the iPad myself for various reasons but you sound like you're on an anti-Apple rant. Computers have been fast "enough" for most people for a long time, and I can't really see why you'd try abusing an iPad into running anything like a workstation load. Or at least if you do, that you got any reason to complain about it not being the right tool for the job.

Re:Really? (1)

yuriyg (926419) | about 4 years ago | (#33439060)

iOS 4.2 will add printing to the iPad...

Apple just invented printing!

AppleTV? (1)

ibsteve2u (1184603) | about 4 years ago | (#33438578)

Nothing but Microsoft commercials on it, right?

Re:AppleTV? (2, Interesting)

Pojut (1027544) | about 4 years ago | (#33438702)

It will be interesting to see how it compares to GoogleTV once that launches. If GoogleTV does even half of what they say it will, things will get mighty interesting mighty quick.

Re:AppleTV? (1)

daveywest (937112) | about 4 years ago | (#33438784)

I think the MSRP on the Boxee Box just got pushed down a bit.

Re:AppleTV? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439038)

Roku dropped their prices yesterday http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/30/businessinsider-roku-slashes-prices-ahead-of-apple-itv-launch-2010-8.DTL

First iPost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438602)

directly from Steve Jobs keynote and only readable with authenticated apps.

Re:First iPost (4, Funny)

plover (150551) | about 4 years ago | (#33438724)

directly from Steve Jobs keynote and only readable with authenticated apps.

Nice try at a first post. Too bad it took you two-prior-posts worth of time to get it approved through the App Store.

why no AM as well? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 4 years ago | (#33438614)

why no AM as well?

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

plover (150551) | about 4 years ago | (#33438674)

why no AM as well?

What is this "AM" of which you write? Is it related to that unused setting on my home stereo, or that collection of unprogrammed numbers labeled "AM" on my car stereo?

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about 4 years ago | (#33438826)

[Puts tin foil hat on] The same reason there is a push behind FM in cellphones. iBiquity wants a paycheck and is very happy to cut deals to get hybrid receivers in as many devices as possible.[/Puts tin foil hat on]

Or it could have something to do with the range and poor reception of AM.

Re:why no AM as well? (3, Informative)

fotbr (855184) | about 4 years ago | (#33438874)

You do realize that AM stations, by virtue of being much further down the RF spectrum, have a much, much bigger range, right?

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about 4 years ago | (#33438930)

Honestly. No, I didn't.

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

mini me (132455) | about 4 years ago | (#33439124)

The iPod I can understand, but why does a cell phone need an FM receiver? It already provides an internet connection that gives you access to virtually every FM station on the entire planet.

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

NetDanzr (619387) | about 4 years ago | (#33438854)

I use my mp3 player only for audio books. If it could receive AM signal, I'd also listen to sports and talk radio shows. Believe it or not, but AM stations are still very popular.

Re:why no AM as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438944)

Not in Europe, they're not.

At best there are two or three stations on AM that rebroadcast the FM stations, but mostly the whole AM band is empty. Well, except for a handful of pirate radio stations or local church services, but those have a range of about a mile. The rest is blissfully empty.

Re:why no AM as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438956)

AM talk radio caters to the Beck/Hannity/Limbaugh Axis-of-Evil, iProducts don't.

Re:why no AM as well? (2, Insightful)

derniers (792431) | about 4 years ago | (#33438838)

being Apple it only comes with PM

Re:why no AM as well? (5, Informative)

WMD_88 (843388) | about 4 years ago | (#33438880)

AM radio requires a special ferrite bar antenna, which won't fit inside a small device (and give decent reception). With FM, they can just use the headphone cable as an antenna.

Re:why no AM as well? (5, Funny)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 4 years ago | (#33438954)

You just a succinct (I believe accurate) technical answer to a question about an Apple product on Slashdot... Is that allowed? :-)

Re:why no AM as well? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439052)

AM Radio also doesn't require power :D just something to amplify the signal to audible levels.

Try this, grab a coil of telephone wire, RJ45, RG6 etc, plug it into the wall (wether you have service or not) then stand on it. Now touch the end of amplified speakers. Voila, AM radio. Given, no way to tune it, but hey, you can hear everything at once.

Re:why no AM as well? (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about 4 years ago | (#33439272)

No, AM radio works fine without a ferrite bar antenna. If it doesn't it's because you're holding...

Ah, fuck it. Too obvious.

Facebook dead (3, Funny)

line-bundle (235965) | about 4 years ago | (#33438624)

This sounded like a hammer nailing the first nail into the facebook coffin.

Take my word: Ping is the Next Big Thing(tm)(sm)(c).

Re:Facebook dead (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438748)

We need an extraction team in here, now! This man has been fully swallowed by the RDF!

Re:Facebook dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438822)

Oh could you imagine? And you know that they are going to discriminate you based on whether or not you use OSX. IMO it has the potential to be a grand purge of stupid off of the internet.

Re:Facebook dead (1)

localman57 (1340533) | about 4 years ago | (#33438882)

grand purge of stupid off of the internet.

Again? It's not gonna require a merger with Time Warner this time, is it?

Re:Facebook dead (3, Insightful)

Crash Culligan (227354) | about 4 years ago | (#33438870)

line-bundle: This sounded like a hammer nailing the first nail into the facebook coffin.

Take my word: Ping is the Next Big Thing(tm)(sm)(c).

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I'm more inclined to believe you are.

First off, they are not going to overtake the likes of Facebook by following it, and the first thing I thought when I saw the Ping design is, "What, did they reskin Facebook or something?"

Second, integration with iTunes does not a social network make. It's a good start making it extraordinarily convenient to a lot of people, but what ultimately makes or breaks a social network is two things: 1) how many people actually make use of it, and 2) how the owners handle people who cause trouble, whether being disruptive, destructive, or dissident. In that second regard, Apple has a somewhat dubious history.

Re:Facebook dead (1)

vivek7006 (585218) | about 4 years ago | (#33438902)

Oh yeah! Facebook is like totally dead. Especially since installing crappy, bloated iTunes is so easy and way better that using facebook on a browser!

Re:Facebook dead (1)

JayWilmont (1035066) | about 4 years ago | (#33438908)

Right idea, wrong target.

There is one social network that is still holding on by its fingernails by focusing on music, which has always been a strength: MySpace.

Re:Facebook dead (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33439180)

Is that thing still around? That's like GeoCities 2.0, right?

Re:Facebook dead (3, Funny)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33439010)

Nah. It's not killing Facebook. It's just a further fragmenting of the social networking world.

You've got Facebook for social networking with most of the people you know.

You've got MySpace for networking with the teenagers you know that are still living in 2005.

You've got Twitter for the people you know who think you'd like a play by play of every meaningless event of their day, or who like to regurgitate political talking points in 140 character form.

You've got LinkedIn for people you know professionally.

Now you'll have Ping for the hipster douchebags you know. Since some people are or know a lot of douchebags, it could be a big success, but I still don't see it overtaking Facebook at this point.

Re:Facebook dead (1)

srussia (884021) | about 4 years ago | (#33439090)

Nah. It's not killing Facebook. It's just a further fragmenting of the social networking world.

You've got Facebook for social networking with most of the people you know.

You've got MySpace for networking with the teenagers you know that are still living in 2005.

You've got Twitter for the people you know who think you'd like a play by play of every meaningless event of their day, or who like to regurgitate political talking points in 140 character form.

You've got LinkedIn for people you know professionally.

Now you'll have Ping for the hipster douchebags you know. Since some people are or know a lot of douchebags, it could be a big success, but I still don't see it overtaking Facebook at this point.

You forgot Orkut.

Re:Facebook dead (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | about 4 years ago | (#33439226)

You forgot Orkut.

You're right. It's for the people you know who live in Brazil who aren't on Facebook. (In my case that's an empty set -- my Brazilians are on Facebook or LinkedIn as appropriate.)

Re:Facebook dead (2, Funny)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 years ago | (#33439248)

So did everyone else...

Re:Facebook dead (1)

JxcelDolghmQ (1827432) | about 4 years ago | (#33439252)

For the Brazilians you might know?

Re:Facebook dead (1)

kdogg73 (771674) | about 4 years ago | (#33439036)

I don't think Facebook is going anywhere. Especially a coffin. Maybe you are being sarcastic, but what Facebook has encompassed is a one-stop-shop. But even being the closest thing to online social perfection, everyone still struggles to find the importance of staying on top of it everyday. If it doesn't feed your needs, then it can't cater to everyone like breathing air. Although, there are those that breath Facebook like air.

Sure, I see this Ping being useful for expanding music tastes, but covering high school reunions and what you are doing right now? No. It will all merge one day. It's natural like precipitation that falls from the sky will make its way to the ocean.

I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

hsmith (818216) | about 4 years ago | (#33438644)

Apple TV, and I do enjoy it. But going to "rentals only" is sure a load of shit. I don't mind paying for TV I like, but if I am going to be forced to "rent" shows I'd like to watch a few times, I'll just go buy DVD's then.

But, the netflix addition is nice, but they don't have enough content to view on demand anyway.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (4, Informative)

luiss (217284) | about 4 years ago | (#33438676)

You can stream from your computer.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

grub (11606) | about 4 years ago | (#33438798)


You can stream from your computer.

But will it stream x264 and/or xvid from the computer? That's the big question for me. The original AppleTV didn't, only Quicktime and MP4 IIRC.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438966)

Same formats as the original unfortunately.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

ricosalomar (630386) | about 4 years ago | (#33439034)

Yeah. That's gonna be a problem.

Gonna have to get a dedicated box just to run handbrake.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

JakiChan (141719) | about 4 years ago | (#33439016)

I'm gonna bet it will only stream videos that can play in iTunes. That would rule my subtitled anime mkv files right out.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

StoatBringer (552938) | about 4 years ago | (#33439056)

The problem then is that you have you have to have your computer turned on and have iTunes running. Not a huge inconvenience, in the grand scheme of things, but if I'm downstairs and decide I want to watch something, I then have to run upstairs and turn everything on, log on, start up iTunes and then go back down again.

With my current AppleTV I have the internal drive full of my favourite movies and TV shows and it works quite happily as a stand-alone device. If I buy movies from the AppleTV they eventually
get synced to the machine upstairs and backed up, but I don't need to worry about the other machine being switched off or going into standby .As for the "instant streaming" from the web, that's great if you have a decent connection. If not, with the old ATV you could start it downloading and then watch the whole thing later when it had finished.

Re:I am prob one of the only people here with an (1)

EvanED (569694) | about 4 years ago | (#33438982)

But, the netflix addition is nice, but they don't have enough content to view on demand anyway.

What about all of these [screened.com] ?

Market Dominance (2, Insightful)

Haffner (1349071) | about 4 years ago | (#33438654)

The new iPod Touch is going to dominate the market. It's better than many point and shoot cameras, it's better than pretty much every other media player, it beats out flip video recorders, it has extensive gaming platform options, and it's good enough for watching media on.

I don't love Apple, but it looks like they've created the gadget for teenagers or people who rely on a non-iphone as their primary phone.

Re:Market Dominance (4, Informative)

kdogg73 (771674) | about 4 years ago | (#33438808)

OT:

"Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf

I liked that quote so much, I had to look it up. According to Snopes, Jed Babbin said that [snopes.com] .

Carry on.

Re:Market Dominance (3, Insightful)

Gazoogleheimer (1466831) | about 4 years ago | (#33438960)

It's better than many point-and-shoot cameras? That's simply an absurd claim. I suppose, however, that instead of actually judging it upon what the pictures look like, modern cameras are now ranked based on how well you can share your (bad) pictures on (bad) websites so you can show your (bad) friends your (bad) adventures.

Re:Market Dominance (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439264)

I love the iPod Touch. It's so bad.

Re:Market Dominance (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438978)

"Better than many point and shoot cameras"? You must be joking.

It has two cameras. One is 0.3 megapixels, one is 0.6 megapixels. Both have cheap, plastic, fixed focus, fixed focal length "lenses". Both have absolutely tiny sensors like the typical cellphone cam, vastly smaller than even a cheap entry-level point-and-shoot camera, and microscopic compared to the sensors in many cameras.

It doesn't "beat out" Flip's products, either. It just barely matches them on feature set -- not a difficult task, because the Flip recorders are likewise extremely poorly specified, and sold mostly on hype.

The iPod Touch isn't a replacement for even the cheapest dedicated camera. It will slightly edge out absolute bottom of the line camera phones, and that's about it.

Re:Market Dominance (1, Redundant)

mrjatsun (543322) | about 4 years ago | (#33439044)

> The new iPod Touch is going to dominate the market. It's better than many point and shoot cameras

ummmm... yeah... No....

From the tech spec...
        still photos (960x720) with back camera

They put a crappy camera in there.. Just meant for video. Doesn't make much sense...
Maybe they're trying to protect the iCamera market in 2011... ;-)

Re:Market Dominance (3, Informative)

WillAdams (45638) | about 4 years ago | (#33439078)

You said:

``It's better than many point and shoot cameras''

According to:

http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html [apple.com]

it has ``still photos (960 x 720) with back camera''

If it had the same camera capabilities as the iPhone, I'd agree --- but either those numbers are wrong, or it's seriously crippled as a camera.

William

Re:Market Dominance (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 4 years ago | (#33439260)

No the gadget for teenagers is a smartphone. I suspect it will be the new wave of cheap Androids. I say this simply because listening to your music on your phone is just "What people do". Its become nonsense to say otherwise.

I also suspect saying that its an extensive gaming platform has yet to become a reality, although MOST of the hardware is there, even for some unique gaming experiences. Its not the new Nintendo. However much it is sold as such.

Rear cam stills under 1MP is not dominance (1)

xmark (177899) | about 4 years ago | (#33439270)

960 x 720 = 691200 pixels

I'm guessing this must be the front cam spec, and the article reported it incorrectly.

Also, it's surprising that the base model will have 8GB of RAM. That's actually a downgrade from the previous version.

They had to name it ping, didn't they? (5, Funny)

Steauengeglase (512315) | about 4 years ago | (#33438686)

That's gonna be awesome for internet help-desk workers. How about creating a Flickr clone and calling it iFconfig?

Re:They had to name it ping, didn't they? (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#33438922)

Sure, and the Windows version can be called iPconfig.

Re:They had to name it ping, didn't they? (1)

six025 (714064) | about 4 years ago | (#33439014)

Sure, and the Windows version can be called iPconfig.

As a Mac convert, I think the Windows version would be more appropriately named Pong ;-)

Re:They had to name it ping, didn't they? (5, Funny)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | about 4 years ago | (#33438992)

There should be absolutely no confusion about this, since iFconfig and ifconfig are clearly not the same. Any unix user knows this!

Re:They had to name it ping, didn't they? (5, Funny)

Dancindan84 (1056246) | about 4 years ago | (#33439050)

A mapquest clone called traceroute?

Pretentionassholebook? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438688)

Finally, a social network for all of the pretentious money wasting dick heads that love apple products. At least this means they will be to busy smelling their own farts on their "we are better than everyone else because we overpay like retarded children for shiny objects" social network. Good news all around. Plus, this means apple can finally make the final step from controlling everything about your devices to influencing thoughts to an even greater extent. Finally the plan is in motion.

No iTunes yet but... (2, Funny)

sherpajohn (113531) | about 4 years ago | (#33438698)

We got a few significant OS X 10.6 updates today - firmware, graphics and security. Well maybe not today, MacBook has not been on for a few days...darned wedding.

Re:No iTunes yet but... (5, Insightful)

Flea of Pain (1577213) | about 4 years ago | (#33438928)

You know your apple fandom has gone to far when you are angry that you are getting married because it means you can't turn on the MacBook for a few days. Seek help.

Re:No iTunes yet but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439126)

It's not necessarily his wedding.

[whoosh]

Coldplay? (1)

quangdog (1002624) | about 4 years ago | (#33438756)

I thought John Mayer was the go-to artist to show up at Apple events....

99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 4 years ago | (#33438824)

I'm really glad to hear that ABC and NBC will be paying us 99 cents to watch their shows.

Re:99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33438886)

I assume if we're paying $1 per show, there aren't commercials in the shows, right? .....right???

Re:99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (1)

DCstewieG (824956) | about 4 years ago | (#33438998)

Ars Technica live blog said they are commercial-free.

Re:99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (1)

scorp1us (235526) | about 4 years ago | (#33439004)

Right, but why would you pay when they broadcas tit for free?
We need a TV tuner solution that can stream to our AppleTV.
This device would be called a DVR.
So what we need are DVRs that can stream to AppleTV.

Re:99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (1)

ProfessionalCookie (673314) | about 4 years ago | (#33439054)

Yes, that's correct.

Re:99 cent rentals for ABC and NBC (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 4 years ago | (#33438948)

Yes, it's the AllAdvantage business model for TV! Can I also get referral commissions?

The top things AppleTV users requested... (4, Insightful)

thestudio_bob (894258) | about 4 years ago | (#33438888)

They listed the top things users were requesting for a new AppleTV, but I have a sneaking suspicion that their users were maybe the content providers.

Seriously... the number one requested feature is a frick'n DVR!!!

Hoping for Shuffle UI improvement (2, Interesting)

dsgrntlxmply (610492) | about 4 years ago | (#33438926)

I use a Shuffle to play nasty industrial "music" to get me through gym sessions. The gen. 2 Shuffle worked very nicely, but eventually succumbed to some combination of sweat and battery cycle limit. The gen. 3 that I got to replace it has been a bitter disappointment.

I can only hope that the newly announced Shuffle has cured itself of the extreme idiocy of having the controls embedded in the earphone cord. "Ear buds" do not work for me - they fail to block external noise, and they fall out of my presumably alien mutant (not-Apple-spec.) ears. I ended up having to buy a $20 Belch-kin accessory to be able to use a decent Sennheiser sports headset.

Navigation with the single-button control has been an unspeakable horror. Having to click 3 times to move backward, would be a challenge for me if I were doing nothing else, and is made worse while I am grinding away on a stationary bike. I end up getting voice titles, fast forwards, replays, and anything other than the steady backward progression through recently played songs, that I wanted.

I want something small and minimal: no glowing screens. I want something that was designed to be USED.

Re:Hoping for Shuffle UI improvement (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 4 years ago | (#33439106)

That's the fourth generation iPod shuffle. Almost the same as the second generation, a tiny bit smaller, with playlists and voiceover.

Re:Hoping for Shuffle UI improvement (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 4 years ago | (#33439134)

I love the theory of ear bud controls, but the practice seems to have a lot of flaws. I got a fancy set of ear buds with my iPhone that allow me to control the iPod functionality (and are also the mike when I use the phone function). If I'm just walking down the street they work great. They also work fine as a telephone headset. The problem comes when I attempt to jog with them, which as it happens, is the primary intended use for headphones on the device for me.

I start to sweat, and beads of water run down the cord to the mike/controller. Eventually enough water hits it to start shorting the switches that are supposed to control the music and I start getting random stops, pauses, plays, fast forwards, or rewinds. Now I have to keep to two sets of headphones. One for use while I'm working out, one for use when I need to use the phone hands free. It's a minor complaint, but I sure wish they'd do something about it.

Re:Hoping for Shuffle UI improvement (1)

adamstew (909658) | about 4 years ago | (#33439254)

Congratulations. You got exactly what you wanted. They are going back to the old design of the shuffle: clip on device with a 4 way nav and a center button. They are then adding to that, the voice-over ability, so you can have multiple playlists, etc.

morning announcements from Apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439028)

Yay.

(hits snooze button, rolls over and goes back to sleep)

99c shows is not good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439096)

If I watch 2 shows a night, that's $60, which is what I pay now for cable (taxes included) for hundreds of channels, + HD channels, a PVR, free shows on demand, music channels, etc, etc...

NO THANKS.

Bluetooth for the nano (2, Interesting)

oracleguy01 (1381327) | about 4 years ago | (#33439110)

I was hoping they would be adding bluetooth into the nano. That would have been a reason for me to buy a new one. I don't like those bluetooth add-on accessories, it would be a lot nicer if it was integrated in.

OSX or IOS only (-1, Troll)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | about 4 years ago | (#33439114)

No one mentioned that unless you are on OSX snow leopard or IOS using safari that you cannot even watch the announcement.

I see Apple is now preaching to the converted.

Re:OSX or IOS only (5, Informative)

Phleg (523632) | about 4 years ago | (#33439206)

Anyone with VLC could have watched the keynote. Apple was using standard RFC-standard HTTP video streaming. Microsoft hasn't implemented it on Windows yet — what do you want them to do?

Maximum HD resolution is 720p (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439122)

And why is it still limited to 720p (Apple TV Tech Specs [apple.com] ) as the maximum HD resolution>? I under stand the iTunes store currently only offers 720p HD content; however, since you can also stream from your own computers it would be nice if you can watch 1080p content from them on a large screen HDTV via this device....

Re:Maximum HD resolution is 720p (1)

Reason58 (775044) | about 4 years ago | (#33439202)

I think that you answered your own question: if you could stream your own content at 1080p then it would make their stuff look worse by comparison. The AppleTV is there to rent you iTunes content.

WTF is wrong with tactile feedback? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439140)

Touchscreen on the nano. No more reaching into my pocket to advance songs, no more using it for running wrapped in plastic to keep the sweat out of it, basically no more using it. Except to watch what, HD movies that I rent from Apple? Cause those look great on a 1/2 inch screen...

Repeat After Me (0, Flamebait)

magusxxx (751600) | about 4 years ago | (#33439148)

*holds up the new iPod Touch with Red leather lockscreen* The People's Republic of Ping...on AirTunes we sing...

Not what I was hoping for from AppleTV (1)

GlobalEcho (26240) | about 4 years ago | (#33439162)

I had been hoping for (but not expecting) an AppleTV capable of working with 1080p (or at least 1080i) video. Instead, they went the other direction, making it tiny, less power-hungry, and cheaper.

Many folks will probably be happy with this one, but I would have liked something more DVR-like to go with my OTA antenna and MythTV/Plex setup.

For those keeping score at home, Plex just went to v9 and is supposedly even more awesome.

What's with the coverage on this? (1)

liber9 (1480479) | about 4 years ago | (#33439176)

The Slashdot/Gizmodo/Engadget coverage isn't headlining the fact that this doesn't do 1080p. What's going on here? That's a huge, and inexcusable, shortcoming.

appletv = fail (-1, Flamebait)

roubles (716740) | about 4 years ago | (#33439212)

* You can not mount a network hard drive (without hacking it)
* You can not mount a usb hard drive (without hacking it)
* Format support is very limited. For example: you can not play xvid, divx and a bunch of other formats
I think you're currently better off connecting a computer to your tv and run VLC on it... unless of course you like apple dictating what technology and media you have access to.

they just kicked Facebook in the balls... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33439244)

... I'm a little stunned that the ping 'iTunes Social Network' isn't getting more attention. They just completely ripped off Facebook, basically verbatim. It will have proper privacy controls, be linked in to all of your iTunes media purchases... and basically instantly on all iOS devices. Sure it was pitched as a way to talk about music, but only to distract people from the fact that it does everything Facebook does (pictures, general status updates and conversations, Liking, etc). I don't see how they avoid a lawsuit from Facebook, but more directly, I think it will be an instant smash hit and will erode Facebook's userbase considerably-- particularly if they do privacy controls properly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?