Apple is just a good IT department for everyone else.
Every good IT department attempts to distill computer usage into a few core functions that are reliable and easy to use.
The difference between Apple and everyone else
51–60 of 75 posts
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#52So 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.
You'd do it by grabbing your iPad off of the coffee table, searching for something, and clicking 'send to TV.' So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely. I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge…
But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html.
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd do it by grabbing your iPad off of the coffee table, searching for something, and clicking 'send to TV.' So much easier and simpler than trying to make everything do everything. Leave the keyboard to a device that's better used with one, and make the two work together nicely. I still think that little 'Oh, and I can push stuff to my tv with my iPhone' feature they skimmed over at the Ping event will end up huge…
But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html .
There's a difference between "There's a checkbox that's been ticked for this feature" and "this product has been designed around this concept."
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#54Doesn't seem to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to sales figures though, does it?
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#55Did they really need to put CAPS LOCK on a remote?
How else are you going to make YouTube comments? Hold shift?! Pssh.
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
But wait, that's exactly what you can do with an Android device or an iOS device and a GoogleTV already. See the section "Your phone = remote control" here: http://www.google.com/tv/features.html .
There's a difference between "There's a checkbox that's been ticked for this feature" and "this product has been designed around this concept."
Of course there is. What is it that makes you think the latter is so vastly superior to the former though? I like the fact that I can choose an input device that meets my needs, one of which happens to be my phone. What's wrong with choice?
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#57I have to wonder how many people proclaiming that "Apple just gets it" have actually used the remote in question rather than looking at its (admittedly gorgeous) picture. We have one of the previous generation Apple TV's with a very similar remote. It currently sits unplugged next to the television on top of an upturned yogurt container. It's on the yogurt container because its lack of vents causes it to overheat if…
Amen: the Apple remote is /ludicrous/. The original poster also was talking about how great it is for being small... it isn't like the people who make television remotes couldn't easily make them smaller: if you take one apart you realize they are almost entirely hollow.
The real world use case for a remote involves grasping it in your hand, which is not even remotely comfortable to do with the Apple remote. Meanwhile, I normally can't even find the thing, because it is so irritatingly small, thin, smooth, and tapered that it is constantly lost: it slides under papers, falls into the couch, or even manages to disappear into your own lap.
This simply isn't a remote that a normal person can use.
Frankly, the more I deal with people who insist "Apple is for end users" the more I realize that these people don't even understand what an end user is. Instead, these people are all geeks who happen to be geeky in the same way the product designers at Apple are, and therefore they get turned on by the same ludicrously ineffective-for-actual-end-users design choices that Apple often ends up making.
(By the way, it isn't usually holding one button: the Apple remote has a bunch of "secret" combo pushes that involve holding down two buttons at once for at least 6 seconds and then letting go. Rather than add buttons to a design, Apple prefers forcing users to remember large numbers of obscure gestures and modifiers keys, and the Apple remote is no different.)
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#58So 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.
I don't have an AppleTV, but I do have a Mac Mini that runs iTunes and FrontRow. It has a small remote that is excellent for controlling the volume, fast forwarding, rewinding, and so on. If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time. Discl…
If I want a fuller interface, I can use Apple's remote application on my iPad or iPhone or iPod Touch. I don't care for the idea of trying to make one remote provide both the minimal and the maximal interface at the same time.
This seems like a good direction for Apple to take. Instead of putting a full keyboard on every remote, just allow additional peripherals to be added via USB or Bluetooth. Unfortunately they certainly hasn't made this easy: http://www.hackint0sh.org/f98/77420.htm
I guess I can see why Apple would keep this entirely within their own ecosystem for economic reasons, but this feels like it really limits the utility of their devices. Wouldn't they do as well to have a simple way of connecting standard devices AND provide what they feel is the best experience via custom apps?
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Except that Search _is_ the answer to what we need on a TV right now. Whenever I fire mine up right now, I either want to go to a specific channel, find if a particular program is playing right now, browse a category of programs, or access my existing digital library. Existing remotes, including Apple's minimalistic design, are worthless for doing this. It might look sleek and thin, but it's probably the worst user e…
Its funny you say the answer is "Search" but of the 4 things you want to do when you fire up your tv, none of them are "Do a text based search for content".
1. Go to specific channel
2. Find if a program is playing right now
3. Browse a category of programs
4. Access an existing digital library.
Existing remotes actually do many of these pretty well. A keyboard based search only really helps with 2 and 4 and even then might actually be an ancillary experience unless you are looking for something specific. Text search only helps when you are looking for specific content it helps you find content you know exists. But I really don't think thats the main problem for people watching TV.
I think most people do what I do when I get home, sit down and try to find something interesting and new to watch. I think the problem is that most people have a hard time finding that cool new show or video. Now similar to the web, when I want to try to find something interesting I don't go to Google. I go to reddit or HN or fark or digg or some other source of curated content.
Re: The difference between Apple and everyone else
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between "There's a checkbox that's been ticked for this feature" and "this product has been designed around this concept."
Of course there is. What is it that makes you think the latter is so vastly superior to the former though? I like the fact that I can choose an input device that meets my needs, one of which happens to be my phone. What's wrong with choice?
Nothing is wrong with choice. An analogy:
I love using vim. It's super awesome. But most people don't want to use vim. I'm in the minority of users. That doesn't mean that vim is wrong, or that Notepad++ is 'better.' It just means I'm in a minority.
In this case, the latter is vastly superior (for me) because a TV isn't something I want to screw around with. I want to do two things with my TV: Start playing the game that's currently in my XBox, or flip through my Netflix queue and click play. I've never used 99% of the options on my XBox dashboard, because I don't care about any of that stuff. I just want something super simple.