Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Kerrigan · Sep 3, 2010, 12:39 AM

I like Bing. And Wings.

Salty · Sep 3, 2010, 01:28 AM

I'm really surprised that they didn't decide to leverage the iOS aspect of it, unless they're gonna do that a little later and back port it. Apps on the TV could be huge.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2010, 02:12 AM

But completely incompatible with any iPhone/iPad apps.

brassplayersrock² · Sep 3, 2010, 02:17 AM

The volume slider button in 10 looks like gorickey’s ball stars!

Salty · Sep 3, 2010, 05:43 AM

Incompatible in the sense that they can't be back ported sure. You won't be running unmodified games on the Apple TV. But, at the same time you could use it for a bigger screen for the ones you're using, and in that sense run any of your iPhone apps on a bigger screen while running them on your iPhone, plus it could have allowed for using your iPhone as a game controller or any number of other options.
Sure they wouldn't have a huge stupid App store like the iPhone, but there's a ton of useful apps that would have been great to run on there. AirVideo for any video you might have that was "the wrong codec" like i said, tons of games, Pandora, Last.fm, and any of other services that would have been nice but that Apple might not want to spend the time integrating themselves.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2010, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Incompatible in the sense that they can't be back ported sure. You won't be running unmodified games on the Apple TV. But, at the same time you could use it for a bigger screen for the ones you're using, and in that sense run any of your iPhone apps on a bigger screen while running them on your iPhone, plus it could have allowed for using your iPhone as a game controller or any number of other options.

No.

You could use an iPhone as a controller for an Apple TV game, but you could NOT run an iPhone game on the Apple TV. It would be completely useless, as iPhone games are built for on-screen controls, not off-screen controllers. Manipulating a game through on-screen controls *requires* that you look where you put your fingers, and not at some big screen hanging on a wall.

Phileas · Sep 3, 2010, 06:42 AM

True, but there are some exemptions. Racing games, for example, could easily be played on the big screen, with the iphone being the control unit.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2010, 06:56 AM

True.

And of course, it makes perfect sense to implement a function that will work maybe 2% of the time.

Salty · Sep 3, 2010, 07:29 AM

Yah you wouldn't want to open it up to new and different things that haven't been developed... totally not an Apple thing to do.

If you build it, they will develop for it. Honestly Apple missed the boat. Steve said that people didn't want a computer. Steve also said people didn't want apps on their phones.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 3, 2010, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Steve also said people didn't want apps on their phones.

Um…no, he didn't?

Big Mac · Sep 3, 2010, 09:35 AM

Of course he never said that. He claimed that writing web applets was an awesome way to write software for the iPhone, and we all know how that went over.

ort888 · Sep 3, 2010, 10:55 AM

I believe he said that no one wants to watch video on an ipod.

He recently said that no one wants a phone with a bigger screen. I think that statement too will come back to bite him. Not that it really matters.

Salty · Sep 5, 2010, 10:35 PM

He also said people don't read. Steve's notorious for saying that anyone doing what they're going to do is stupid, and then when it finally happens he talks about how only Apple could have done it.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 6, 2010, 01:24 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

He also said people don't read.

Um, what?

Sealobo · Sep 6, 2010, 02:28 AM

i guess people said things with respect to existing conditions (constraints).

At least SJ didn't say 640k ram is all you ever needed.

Laminar · Sep 6, 2010, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by Sealobo

i guess people said things with respect to existing conditions (constraints).

At least SJ didn't say 640k ram is all you ever needed.

The '640K' quote won't go away -- but did Gates really say it? - Computerworld

Salty · Sep 6, 2010, 10:41 AM

Honestly it seems like every time Steve says a product is a bad idea, a few months later Apple releases one. PDAs are dead, the future is smartphones... anyone ever notice that aside from handwriting recognition the iPod touch is pretty well a PDA?

Laminar · Sep 6, 2010, 10:45 AM

Anyone ever notice that the iPhone is just a PDA with phone capabilities?

Sealobo · Sep 6, 2010, 10:56 PM

no, it's a phone with PDA capabilities. you got it all mixed up.

... wait.

Salty · Sep 6, 2010, 11:02 PM

Wow... way to miss the fact that I already mentioned that he had said something about Smartphones replacing PDAs. Fact is though there was still a market for PDAs... you just need to start calling them iPods.

Laminar · Sep 6, 2010, 11:21 PM

Thanks for playing.

iMOTOR · Sep 7, 2010, 01:22 AM

Thanks for hosting.

brassplayersrock² · Sep 7, 2010, 01:26 AM

Thanks for nothing. (what?)

Sealobo · Sep 7, 2010, 01:34 AM

So... will there be any more Apple event this year? we still have 1/3 of the year left.

subego · Sep 7, 2010, 01:54 AM

They could livestream Steve unloading the rest of his clip into a MacBook air.

Yeah, yeah. It's a "magazine". **** you.

Brien · Sep 7, 2010, 01:55 AM

I'd pay to see that.

imitchellg5 · Sep 7, 2010, 09:25 AM

Originally Posted by Sealobo

So... will there be any more Apple event this year? we still have 1/3 of the year left.

Doubtful. Anything else will probably be a quiet refresh of something.

iMOTOR · Sep 7, 2010, 03:06 PM

So, no Apple event when the iPhone becomes available on T-Mobile and Verizon?

Spheric Harlot · Sep 7, 2010, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

So, no Apple event when the iPhone becomes available on T-Mobile and Verizon?

I'm not holding my breath.

Mrjinglesusa · Sep 7, 2010, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

So, no Apple event when the iPhone becomes available on T-Mobile and Verizon?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

I'm not holding my breath.

And even when(if) that happens, it's not likely to be "this year" anyway.

Salty · Sep 8, 2010, 12:39 AM

If that comes before the next refresh it'll likely be in either January or February. Actually Feb would be great, since there's always a lull in sales in february, though I kind of doubt Apple will do that as they'd like to talk about the millions of iPhones they added as a result. My guess is they'll just wait for summer so that they don't risk a lot of people saying they're gonna wait for the June release. Though that would also be good they could double dip on a lot of customers... either way you slice it they'll sell a boat load.

imitchellg5 · Sep 8, 2010, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

So, no Apple event when the iPhone becomes available on T-Mobile and Verizon?

You speak of a CDMA iPhone like it's an absolute thing.

Sealobo · Sep 8, 2010, 10:03 AM

i believe the only thing preventing a CDMA iPhone is some sort of contractual exclusivity between Apple and AT&T.

imitchellg5 · 10:22 AM

I think there is more than that. Rolling out a CDMA iPhone right now is a stupid idea, with the rising of LTE. Verizon's got LTE working in quite a few metropolitan areas right now. Releasing a CDMA-only iPhone means that people aren't going to be able to browse the web while they're talking on the phone. If Apple waits for LTE and makes a CDMA plus LTE iPhone, LTE is used for data, while CDMA is still used for voice. Of course, there isn't enough room in the iPhone 4 for those chips. Also, I don't think Apple really feels the need to put the iPhone on Verizon. Sales are through the roof regardless of AT&T hatred. Finally, Verizon is well-populated with Android phones which Verizon has a habit of either locking down or making absurd decisions about (such as using Bing search and Maps with the Fascinate and not allowing you to change the engine or download Google app from Marketplace). Obviously Apple won't let Verizon lock down the iPhone like that.

I don't think Apple is or ever has been truly held back by a contract. This is the company that comes out with a product called iPhone and THEN pays for the name from Cisco. They don't follow the rules, and don't have to.

Brien · Sep 8, 2010, 01:36 PM

Well, according to a post on MacRumors from a couple months ago, Qualcomm is supposed to be working on a hybrid CDMA/hexaband GSM/LTE chip for Apple. If that's the case, expect an international/worldphone iPhone 5 that'll (hopefully) run on all the carriers.

imitchellg5 · Sep 8, 2010, 03:44 PM

That sounds way too good to be true, for any phone.

Laminar · Sep 8, 2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

I think there is more than that. Rolling out a CDMA iPhone right now is a stupid idea, with the rising of LTE. Verizon's got LTE working in quite a few metropolitan areas right now. Releasing a CDMA-only iPhone means that people aren't going to be able to browse the web while they're talking on the phone.

The best example of this being useful that AT&T could come up with for a commercial was a friend calling from a game show. Is it really anything near a dealbreaker?

imitchellg5 · Sep 8, 2010, 07:06 PM

I think it could be. It's gonna suck when a million people buy a CDMA iPhone and figure out that they can't talk on the phone and load Google Maps at the same time.

Brien · Sep 8, 2010, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

That sounds way too good to be true, for any phone.

It does, but it would be nice if true.

olePigeon · Sep 9, 2010, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by imitchellg5

I think it could be. It's gonna suck when a million people buy a CDMA iPhone and figure out that they can't talk on the phone and load Google Maps at the same time.

Or if they get pissed off at Verizon and want to switch to Sprint, learn they have to buy a brand new iPhone just to switch.

ort888 · Sep 9, 2010, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

What's funny is that if you want a new pair of apple headphones it's $29 bucks... and if you want a shuffle it's $49. If you need new headphones you can basically get a shuffle for $20.

BZZZZZZZZ

Actually, NONE of the new iPods come with the headphones with the built in remote.

A super LAME move if you ask me.

Brien · Sep 9, 2010, 07:11 PM

What? That is lame. You would think they'd save money by only making one kind of headphone, but apparently there are 4 different versions (short cord (shuffle), long cord (nano), in-ear and iPhone). Stupid, if you ask me.