Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The difference between Apple and everyone else

blog.zachwaugh.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 75 posts

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#21

Post by moeffju »

As a nitpick, the Apple Remote has seven buttons: Four direction buttons, center button, Menu button, and play/pause.

This does not really detract from the central point of the argument, but then I believe the argument is flawed since the remotes are made for almost entirely different things. You cannot run searches using the Apple Remote, for example. Whether the solution picked by Sony and Logitech is the best solution remains to be seen (although I find it doubtful at best), but the article, IMO, makes a bad point.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#22

Post by rodh »

I'm really disappointed in the next generation of remotes. What I really want to know is why, when we have touchscreen phones and devices like the iPad, our remotes are still hunks of plastic with dozens of tiny rubber buttons?

Forget remotes, I want the whole UI for my TV to be on a dedicated touchscreen device. I want to read about what's on next, preview what's on other channels and schedule recordings without disrupting what's on the display screen.

The rest of the time, show me two big volume buttons.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#23

Post by gamble »

jherdman wrote: post #20

I had a really good conversation yesterday at the Dev Lunch in Toronto about so-called Smart TVs. Here's a quick summary: * TVs are about media consumption, not about interaction in the PC-sense of the word. * When one wants extra content or information regarding the media they are consuming, they tend to use a secondary device (e.g. iPad, notebook) * Most devs in the room merely wanted a device that would allow them…

Yeah, I think the tech industry has consistently overestimated how much people want to interact with their television. TV is a fundamentally passive experience. Basic DVRs are probably pushing the limit of how much thought most people want to put into the viewing experience.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#24

Post by bbatsell »

siglesias wrote: post #18

The best remote for the TV products are touch screen phone apps with shifting UIs: a four-d pad when it needs to be, a keyboard when it needs to be. (A quick reference IMDB device when it needs to be).

I'm really not sure I agree. Remotes do their jobs best when one fully learns their layout and can operate every function while keeping their eyes on the content they're wanting to see, not looking down at a small screen to figure out where your tap target is at any given moment.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#25

Post by gaius »

gvb wrote: post #16

Engineers are all basically high-functioning autistics who have no idea how normal people do stuff. -- Cory Doctorow http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow#Eastern_Standard_... Apple takes the time to figure out how normal people do stuff. I'm not sure what Microsoft does, but I'm picturing what some a focus group determines followed by the interpretation by committee (with the necessary compromises) followed by…

It would be equally valid to observe that bloggers are all basically self-absorbed wankers who have no idea how normal engineers do stuff.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#26

Post by jordan0day »

Does anyone else think the recent release (and positive reviews) of Kinect might indicate that the Sony and Logitech solutions will quite soon be anachronisms? People seem to say the Kinect's voice recognition is still a bit dodgy, but for the solutions the monstrous remotes are meant to solve, I don't see why voice input wouldn't generally work? If I want to find the next showing of It's Always Sunny in Philadelpha, it's a heck of a lot easier to just say it than type it out, and since it's search-based, the voice recognition doesn't have to be perfect anyway.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#27

Post by tortilla »

rodh wrote: post #22

I'm really disappointed in the next generation of remotes. What I really want to know is why, when we have touchscreen phones and devices like the iPad, our remotes are still hunks of plastic with dozens of tiny rubber buttons? Forget remotes, I want the whole UI for my TV to be on a dedicated touchscreen device. I want to read about what's on next, preview what's on other channels and schedule recordings without dis…

I still like physical buttons I can feel and click when I'm a couch potato.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#28

Post by pornel »

recoiledsnake wrote: post #2

Apple TV is meant to be a media browsing and consumption device, whereas Google TV includes Chrome(with Flash). You can use an Android phone to control Google TV anyway. I would love to see Apple solving the problem with typing using a remote(especially things like URLs) without using resorting to an iPhone or iPod Touch.

> without using resorting to an iPhone or iPod Touch

Why not? You have iPod/iPhone in your pocket, or iPad on your coffee table. They can be used to look something up, and with AirPlay you can send content to TV once you find it.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#29

Post by siglesias »

bbatsell wrote: post #24
siglesias wrote: post #18

The best remote for the TV products are touch screen phone apps with shifting UIs: a four-d pad when it needs to be, a keyboard when it needs to be. (A quick reference IMDB device when it needs to be).

I'm really not sure I agree. Remotes do their jobs best when one fully learns their layout and can operate every function while keeping their eyes on the content they're wanting to see, not looking down at a small screen to figure out where your tap target is at any given moment.

Apple's implementation solves this by allowing you to perform directional swipe gestures within a large area of the screen, with a tap proxying for the select button. It's quite nice.

Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else

#30

Post by zachwaugh »

mikeryan wrote: post #13
amastilovic wrote: post #6

So if you want to search for something on TV, which GoogleTV is supposed to enable you to do, how would you do that using Apple's three-button remote? I have an idea about a prayer and Steve Jobs, but wouldn't elaborate on it. I think the blog post doesn't have a point at all, since it compares apples to pears.

Actually the article is missing a larger point. Most users probably don't want to be searching on their TV. Maybe a larger cognitive disconnect of Google's Device is that their answer to the problem isn't the right one. At some point Google really needed to try to figure out whether search was the feature that people really needed. I'd say content discovery is still a huge gaping hole as more IP Delivered video gets…

I agree, and that is my point actually, the remotes were just an example. But the remotes reflect how they approached the whole problem. Google went with the assumption search was necessary, and had to find a way to fit it in. Apple thought about the entire experience, and realized people don't want to search on their TV and left it out.
Post reply on HN