Pull the other one.
Google menaces Apple's 3-year-old toddler with its cheap stream tech
For years in PCs, Apple was the R&D lab for the entire industry, and Microsoft would roll out similar operating system features long after Apple users had them as standard. As a result, Microsoft users would get a feature late. It would also usually be offered in a less adventurous manner – and while sometimes it was weaker …
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 13:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
> For years in PCs, Apple was the R&D lab for the entire industry, and Microsoft would roll out similar operating system features long after Apple users had them as standard.
Fanboy alert. Apple and Microsoft both borrow from each other, and that's a good thing. Although Apple does tend to be more stuck in their ways, sometimes refusing to borrow good ideas from Microsoft, such as window maximization, aero snap, being very late to the party even allowing you to resize windows in a sane manner.
And if you were really paying attention, you would know that most of the innovation is coming from the Linux/BSD communities anyway, it's just that Apple love taking credit for "inventing" other people's inventions.
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 08:20 GMT Ian 62
Research...
Apple offered a preview of the device in September 2006[1]
So thats Google at the same point 7 years later than Apple.
With improvements in tech, you'd expect them to be able to produce something that kicks the @rse out of the 7year old Apple product. And even still be better than the 3year old product.
Frankly, it's a good thing. It's competition, which means innovation in price and features.
The current AppleTV is good, but could be better. So hopefully this might inspire Apple to rev the hardware, or drop the price, or both. And then Google need to do the same to compete.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_TV
-
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 14:42 GMT JEDIDIAH
Re: Research...
> Apple's device is stand alone and much the better for it
Every time someone says that the AppleTV is artificially crippled and lame, some fanboy chimes in and says "just use AirPlay".
This Google product is just that concept take to it's logical extreme. Treat the AppleTV as nothing more than a wireless video transfer dongle and cut the price by 1/3rd.
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 12:40 GMT Mark .
Re: Research...
But they're not at the same point, it's cheaper and more cross-platform than even the latest Apple TV. If you're going to criticise Google for not getting it to us sooner, you might as well criticise Apple for not being better in that 7 years, or indeed anyone else (there are loads of people making TV streaming boxes, not just Apple, and most of them work with other manufacturer's products - not sure why Apple is getting all the mention, when their box was as much a fail as any other TV set-top box).
And to borrow an expression, "It doesn't matter if they weren't first, Google'll be the first to popularise it".
-
Monday 29th July 2013 14:45 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Research...
This isn't Chromecast vs AppleTV it's Chromecast vs AirPlay. Sure AppleTV may be 7 years old as you say but AirPlay has only been around since 2010. I suppose it is possible, albeit implausible, that Apple actually had AirPlay in the AppleTV and didn't mention it for the first four years.
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 09:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
If it specifically need Chrome, I'll propably be stuffed
Ever since Google descended into the gutter in their enthusiasm for Chrome and became a malware purveyor, I decided I don't really want that kind of software anywhere near me.
Yes, Chrome is being punted like malware. I have had a couple of instances recently where an application installer decided to take it onto itself to ram Chrome down my throat with the usual scumware approach of having the "yes, I don't care how crap your offering is, install it anyway" box neatly pre-ticked.
Anything (Foxit, are you listening?) that tries to perform an unnecessary, unwanted and totally irrelevant act on my property and is set to do so by default is malware. Pure and simple.
Google used to have a mantra "Do no Evil". Now, putting their name to product being distributed like scumware and their latest trick of screwing around with GMail; launching tabbed inboxes without the common decency of asking first, I suggest the mantra should now read "We're Google. Screw You"
-
Monday 29th July 2013 12:54 GMT Philip Lewis
Re: If it specifically need Chrome, I'll propably be stuffed
Foxit did that during a "security patch update" without so much as a "by your leave, guv'ner". Just stuffed chrome browser on my machine.
That is a criminal offence in Australia.
But since when has google or it's evil minions cared about such things.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 15:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: If it specifically need Chrome, I'll propably be stuffed
It would probably be prudent blame the program itself. Foxit has been at this a while. It briefly changed your default search engine and added a toolbar for 'Ask' without even having a tick box to allow it.
Chrome (Google) pays referral fees and the program makers try to solicit extra fees by hiding the install. But you really have to blame the software company that doesn't make it obvious.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 09:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Paid muppets
What is this muppet on about?
Does he/she/it not know of all the devices that preceded the me-to from the fruit factory? Never heard of DLNA? WDTV? HTPC? Evidently not, since all we get is ill-informed spew from someone who probably hasn't even looked at the SDK page (too hard). Why are thereg bothering with running puff pieces from a know nothing agency ('frontline'?)
Hey, if you want to run apple centric drivel, you could at least get the target right. This is targeted on the postulated 'iTV', by providing TV manufacturers a route to include google's streaming answer - cutting the legs out from apple at the same time as they chat with cable firms.
-
-
-
-
Monday 29th July 2013 11:02 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"And MMS was so popular wasn't it?"
Dunno about popular, but I'm inclined to think that, being a method of communication, it's a more useful feature for mobile phones than being able to get screenshots.
"It wasn't a core feature and you could do the same thing (for less money) by sending an email."
Provided the sender and recipient both have email addresses. Not everyone does.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 11:37 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
Do you see me complaining about Android and Screenshots? The point here is that when a new product comes out it will have gaps in its feature set. Providing those gaps aren't grievous (and if you can work around them) then early adopters generally won't mind.
The lack of MMS was an issue pretty much only to Android fans. They'd scratch about for some unlikely use case and make like it was pretty much the only thing they did with their phone. MMS was expensive and only ever had a limited number of users. As its pretty much impossible to own a smart phone and NOT have an email address then you've suggested a pretty limited example once again.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 12:39 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"Do you see me complaining about Android and Screenshots?"
It's hard to say, actually. El Reg's very limited threading doesn't actually tell me which post you replied to. Just because you only mentioned MMS and not screengrabs doesn't mean you weren't replying to, say, Bhodi's post defending your beloved phone-maker's inclusion of screen grabbing pointlessness over its lack of MMS. I assumed that was your angle; you're saying it wasn't. <shrugs>
"The lack of MMS was an issue pretty much only to Android fans. They'd scratch about for some unlikely use case and make like it was pretty much the only thing they did with their phone."
Remembering that the initial comment was that the first iPhone lacked MMS. That being in 2007. AFAICR Android was still in development at that point, with the first phone the public could buy being about a year later.
I'm not saying it couldn't have already developed a fan-base by then; it could. I just thought it was pertinent to mention that point.
(For the record, when the first iPhone came out, I was using Windows Mobile devices.)
"MMS was expensive and only ever had a limited number of users. As its pretty much impossible to own a smart phone and NOT have an email address then you've suggested a pretty limited example once again."
Wow. Just wow.
Meanwhile, here in the real world not everyone has smartphones. And in 2007, when the first gen iPhone came out - remembering that the comment that started this discussion was the original iPhone's lack of MMS capability - even less people had smartphones than now.
So it's not a pretty limited example at all - your dismissing it as such is just you either clutching at straws to defend your beloved Apple, or being rather a long way up your own jacksy.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 12:50 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
As at least one party here would have to have an iPhone and the other party would need a dumb phone with MMS capability, no internet access and a pressing need to spend £1.50 on an MMS then yes, it's a limited scenario.
For most people the lack of MMS was a non-issue. It was a minor feature that Apple hadn't got around to building in and not worth making a song and dance about.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 13:11 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"As at least one party here would have to have an iPhone and the other party would need a dumb phone with MMS capability, no internet access and a pressing need to spend £1.50 on an MMS then yes, it's a limited scenario."
You're desperately trying to make it sound unlikely, but the truth is that MMS was around and in use - fairly widespread if my own experience is anything to go by (I'm not sure if I've ever sent one, by I know I've received plenty over the years).
-
Monday 29th July 2013 14:21 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
MMS was around and in use, but in nowhere near the numbers that SMS was. It wasn't something that most users bothered with, partly because of the cost and partly because you needed a camera phone to make use of them (and cameras were't a must-have feature back then). Keep screaming all you like, but MMS wasn't a killer feature that all phones MUST have, the very fact that the IPhone survived proved that.
The original iPhone was an incomplete product, but what it did it did pretty well. It was the first mobile phone I've used with a really good mobile web browser (which was how it was originally planned to run apps lest we forget, it wasn't like Apple forgot about them). It was also the first mobile to put touch together in a way that was natural and fluid to use.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 15:01 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"MMS was around and in use, but in nowhere near the numbers that SMS was."
Since I never suggested it was used in numbers comparable to SMS, arguing that the numbers aren't comparable is introducing a strawman.
"It wasn't something that most users bothered with, partly because of the cost and partly because you needed a camera phone to make use of them (and cameras were't a must-have feature back then)."
Cameras may not have been a must-have feature, but they were certainly a fairly common feature of phones back then. Many models of phone lacked them, but there were plenty that incorporated them - and that means many users who could use them and who could be inclined to send them to others.
Just because you feel that it wasn't worth bothering with, doesn't mean "most users" felt the same way.
It doesn't seem too unreasonable to guess that the reason you feel this way about MMS is because of your choice of phone.
"Keep screaming all you like, but MMS wasn't a killer feature that all phones MUST have, the very fact that the IPhone survived proved that."
Well, no, actually, it does nothing of the sort. Mainly because nobody said it was a killer feature - that's another strawman - only that it was a fairly obvious feature that the iPhone lacked.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 15:17 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
Apparently beating ideas into your skull with a large stick is what is required.
My point was and has always been that most users couldn't give a damn if the iPhone (or any other smart phone of the period) did MMS or not. It wasn't a popular feature. The numbers sent prove that. I owned MMS capable phones before the iPhone (various O2 XDA phones and the LG Viewty to name a few), and never used the feature. Making it out to be a hideous omission is beyond ridiculous. All manufacturers reach a view over which features are required and which they can leave 'till later when designing new devices. The lack of MMS in the iPhone was at best a minor annoyance rather than a fatal flaw, but the fandroid community like to make out that it was a basic feature that every phone should have had. Android also lacked many features when it first shipped, it seems to have survived the experience also.
-
Monday 29th July 2013 15:27 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"Apparently beating ideas into your skull with a large stick is what is required."
Wow, someone doesn't agree with you and so they have to have your viewpoint beaten in to them!
It may be hyperbole, but it to feel that someone needs to have *your* ideas beaten in to them is somewhat ridiculous.
-
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 07:14 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
AT&T, Apple's home market carrier, didn't support MMS on any phone so it absolutely wasn't needed in their most important market. They finally added it to their network at the point that Apple also added it to the 3G.
I'm still amazed that the Fandroids don't understand the basic concepts of software development. When you're building a system you prioritise features. As you approach deadlines low priority features get dropped. This isn't an opinion, it's the way that the world works.
The original iPhone didn't support Airplay either, it wasn't added until, IIRC, iOS 4, after MMS. You add features to subsequent releases. The point is not that no one need them, but that you cater to the majority of requirements first and add the outlying requirements when you have time and resources. Software is something you can update in the field at a later date (which is what happened), so holding dates is more important than making sure that every last feature is included.
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 11:54 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"AT&T, Apple's home market carrier, didn't support MMS on any phone so it absolutely wasn't needed in their most important market. They finally added it to their network at the point that Apple also added it to the 3G."
So why didn't you use this as the basis for your arguments from the outset, instead of nonsense that comes across as you not using/liking MMS so nobody else must use it?
"I'm still amazed that the Fandroids don't understand the basic concepts of software development."
I will repeat for the hard of thinking: My argument was simply that MMS was a useful feature to have on a mobile phone. If Apple had a good reason not to include it - which you've now suggested - then fair enough. But I never once said, suggested or hinted it was down to Apple's ability to finish the software (or not).
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 13:12 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
And my point was that ANY manufacturer can't put all the features they can think of into a new product. There isn't enough time (and normally capacity either). Apple didn't bother with MMS because it was of use to only a small proportion of their target audience. Fandroids seem to think this is somehow a grevious omission and like to point it's lack out as some sort of sign that Apple was somehow backward.
Google likewise skipped features from early Android versions. This is normal and trying to mock fans from the opposite camp for something that wasn't included in an early version (but is included now) is pointless and stupid.
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 13:43 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"And my point was that ANY manufacturer can't put all the features they can think of into a new product."
Looking back at your early posts in this thread, they make it very much look as though your original point was that MMS was pointless because (initially) people could use email, conveniently forgetting that not everyone has (let alone had in 2007) email.
How on Earth is that making the point that no "manufacturer can't put all the features they can think of into a new product" because I'm really struggling to see it.
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 14:35 GMT Steve Todd
Re: what a load of old bollocks
Quoting from my second post in this thread :-
"The lack of MMS was an issue pretty much only to Android fans. They'd scratch about for some unlikely use case and make like it was pretty much the only thing they did with their phone. MMS was expensive and only ever had a limited number of users."
Did this make out that MMS was pointless? No, only that it didn't have a big audience and that there were work-arounds for most users. As such making it the major plank of an argument that the iPhone was backwards is a ridiculous line to take.
-
Tuesday 30th July 2013 15:02 GMT VinceH
Re: what a load of old bollocks
"Quoting from my second post in this thread :-"
Yes, Steve. That was your second post, after you initially defended the lack of MMS on the basis that there was an alternative that everyone could use:
"And MMS was so popular wasn't it? It wasn't a core feature and you could do the same thing (for less money) by sending an email."
That very much does read as you suggesting MMS is pointless.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This topic is closed for new posts.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
