1. Boot up time for the current AppleTV is pretty fast as is, and that's running on archaic hardware that is actually slower than what is in the iPad. 2. As my idea of a new AppleTV uses a suped up version of 3Gs or iPad hardware (multicore ARM, multicore SGX GPU) apps would probably load faster, actually. 3. I could've just answered your response away by saying this: by the time you grab your iPhone and boot that up you could've already have posted something real quick on Facebook using this new AppleTV 4. Sleep mode. Near instant boot up. Not every HDTV in homes already or coming on market have that, so, not really a good point to bring up. Of course. But Mac Mini is $599, whereas AppleTV is far closer to the perceived value of an entertainment device. The current archaic hardware is $229, and that's because the older Pentium M is actually expensive to implement (as not very many products use that processor, hence no mass scale production), particularly compared to a multicore ARM solution that Apple could (and should) implement in a hardware update. Using a new multicore ARM and SGX solution, the thing would probably be no more than $300, and that's with a larger HDD. Why would you need to download it if it would come stock with the device, as the mobile me webmail client and Youtube apps do on iPhone/touch? Only thing you'd "need" to download would be the Facebook app in my scenario, and that thing takes seconds. And, yes, you are eating your own words.
No, not "necessary". But is an iPad "necessary" if you already own an iPhone/touch or laptop (or netbook)? No. But you're under the impression that the average consumer owns ALL of those things, which is an absolutely faulty assumption to have. Nearly all of the products you mentioned exist in different markets, and thus generate different levels of interest among different types of consumers. Some consumers may own devices in different markets, but it's to suit different desires, not the same ones.
I have little interest in debating whether or not the Apple TV will be the Wyld Stallyns of the consumer electronics world. It's mostly just highly amusing to me watching you pound out these epic rants on a forum where no one cares... Which is why I suggested caulking your wagon and floating it over to MacRumors.
And yet again, try harder Eli. See, the very fact that you respond to these "diatribes" (honestly, what happened to our educational system where a few paragraphs are "too much text"?) shows that you care on some level. That you find it "highly amusing" cements that line of thought. Stop stalking me, Eli. It's...unbecoming.
Wait, me posting in a thread on forums I admin where you called me out in the thread title is stalking you? Seriously? LOL.
Except you responded my previous posts on the topic where you haven't been "called out". Hell, you do so on just about every topic I post in over here in the lounge area. And you took the bait, Eli. C'mon, man...honestly. I thought you'd be smart enough to avoid walking right into it.
the cookie-snatcher strikes! *snatch* MWAHAHAHAHA!!! *runs off into the night with an extra star on her wanted level*
Is this a reference to the iPad? Because, honestly...it's not really a new paradigm when you get down to it. Although the references to "oversized iPod touch" have been met with groans and sarcastic replies, in essence, when you get down to it, iPad really is an oversized iPod touch. The key difference isn't what it does, however, but to whom it will appeal (the difference is in the type of consumer it will most appeal to). iPod touch appeals primarily to younger consumers, iPad will appeal to older consumers, in particular those interested in the burgeoning e-reader market. By offering something akin to an e-reader, but that does so much more (movies, etc.) Apple presents an evolution for that target market with a product offering entertainment on the go, not "just" reading on the go. How do I think a refocused AppleTV, with an open SDK and its own App Store section, could be "bigger" in terms of impact than iPad? Tossing aside my belief that iPad has a more limited target base than iPhone/touch and/or the laptop market, there's the appeal of offering a revolution in the home computing front AND the digital download entertainment set top box front AND even the video game home console front all in ONE device with a mass market friendly price (thereby appealing to a vaster group of potential consumers). Examples: You can download TV shows and movies on, say, a Roku box, and other digital set top boxes, but you aren't very likely to use those for gaming...or quickly editing things together...or even video conferencing, etc. You can play games and download movies and TV shows on XBox 360 and PS3 (and, soon, Wii). BUT...you can't quickly edit videos or photos, put together a slideshow presentation, etc. This new AppleTV wouldn't just be a set top box, but a mini personal computer in disguise, similar to how iPhone/iPod touch is basically a mobile personal computer in the guise of an iPod. And to those pointing out that Mac Mini does a lot of that already...again, Mac Mini is $599 intro, whereas AppleTV, even with new hardware, would be less than $300; price does broaden potential market. Added to that the ease of integrating apps and the product-user experience via the App Store (which the Mac computer line really doesn't have) and you have something that appeals to a wider range of consumers through basic ease of use. And because it wouldn't be as close to iPhone/touch as iPad is in terms of "mobility", there's less overlap of market.
I'm not saying that the average consumers has bought all those products, I'm just saying there's an over-abundance of how many different mediums you can use to achieve the same thing: getting on the internet. And these products already cover every conceivable market. Where does an internet-compatible media player that you hook up to a TV enter the realm of necessity or even useful, especially since every piece of software that would appear on it be moderate by Apple? All I can see it is being a novelty.
again, the fact that it would have Safari wouldn't be the "big" selling point. It's there, one could use it, or one could ignore it. No, the "big" selling point would be a mini personal computer of sorts in the guise of an entertainment set top box, in much the same way iPhone was in disguise as a phone. Yes, Apple will "control" every piece of software, but that's the beauty of the business model more than a bad thing (for Apple as a business, anyway). Tight integration of the device and iTunes/the App Store means that ease of use, of finding software that one wants, is not in question. "Wanna [insert use here]? There's an app for that" is used in Apple's iPhone/touch ads for that very reason. Where do you find the apps? Only on the App Store, only on iTunes. Would it be a necessity? No. No more than the iPhone/touch, really. No more than 360 or PS3 or Roku or any other entertainment device. Entertainment of that sort isn't a necessity for life at all. However...the device would be more useful than the other home based devices listed as it would have a far wider range of use. Again, you can play games and download movies and shows on 360 and PS3, but you can't quickly edit videos or photos and such. So I'm not alluding to "need" but rather "desire". No one "needs" most of the crap they buy, but they want those things, y'see. How do you generate desire? One way is by showing how "useful" something might be. In this case, the AppleTV I envision would be more "useful" than products already staking a claim to Apple's territory (Apple doesn't have the living room with iTunes, while Sony, with PSN, and MS, with LIVE Marketplace, are making strides, and Google is coming out with their product soon), and therefore allow Apple to not only maintain some of the grip they have now in that market, but solidify and increase the strength of it.
