Discussion on:

Looking ahead to Apple's next big product innovation

NOT!

But, perhaps Apple will innovate, and turn the iPad into a device with real computing capabilities, Or, just like they did with tablets where Apple "redefined" the field, perhaps they'll re-innovate and reinvent PCs for the "post PC era".

BTW, Apple didn't re-invent anything in the last 10 years, and what they did was to just re-work certain gadgets and technologies that were already out there, and came up with "new and improved" gadgets and technologies. They didn't invent the smartphone, and they didn't invent tablets and they didn't invent PCs and they actually didn't invent tiny-take-anywhere music players.

But, hey, whatever Apple touches to "make better", turns to gold. I can hardly wait for the new and improved HDTVs from Apple. Maybe they'll be the first with 4D HDTVs.

"BTW, Apple didn't re-invent anything in the last 10 years, and what they did was to just re-work certain gadgets and technologies that were already out there, and came up with "new and improved" gadgets and technologies. "

Er.... in most peoples definitions "re-work" and "re-invent" are the same thing. Your wires are very much crossed.

Re-working is not the same as re-inventing.

Rework: Use again in altered form, like remodeling a house, or resurfacing a road, or reducing the size of a gadget, but with the same specs, whereby, it doesn't really do anything that the old version wasn't doing.

Reinvent: Bring back into existence, like when something is out of fashion and it gets revived with some alterations which make the product seem new and cool and different, and has some features which the old form did not.

mp3 players: Creative, Sony and others already had several models out, but quite honestly they weren't moving. Apple re-invents the mp3 player to make it incredibly easy to load and use and the iPod blows away all preceding and subsequent devices for over ten years. Sony is only now re-working their digital walkman in an attempt to honestly compete with the iPod.
Smartphones: RIM and Nokia both have phone-equipped PDAs (or PDA-equipped cell phones) which appear to be popular with corporate entities. Apple re-invents the smart phone to make it easier to use and immediately expands the smart phone into the consumer market--an area neither Nokia nor RIM had garnered any success. Followed shortly by Android, the consumer smartphone market overwhelms the enterprise market to the point that consumer models are seen in corporate offices.
Tablets: Originally created in the 1980s or even earlier, Microsoft makes a strong push to promote tablet computing in 2000 and 2001, to abysmal failure due to lack of support. Apple re-invents the tablet and sells more in nine months than all other brands combined over the prior ten years.
PCs: PCs were relatively unchanged in appearance and general functionality from 1984 through 1996, most using multiple different communications ports for printing, peripheral devices, etc. In 1997, Apple created the iMac which showed that a computer didn't need to be ugly, didn't need half a dozen different communications protocols and didn't need a floppy drive. Despite USB's availability for almost 2 years prior, USB was essentially ignored until the iMac and is now the most popular communications protocol for peripheral devices.

No, Apple didn't "re-work" the designs, they took what was available and completely redesigned it--changing specs to make it more usable for the average person. Devices that were effectively dead in many ways were brought back to life by Apple. They didn't just re-skin it, they changed the way it worked to the point that people wanted to use it.

other than to make those products seem different and perhaps more appealing.

And, oh, a lot of hype and marketing. Without the hype and salesmanship of Apple marketing, none of that "reworking" would've made a difference.

"Seem different and perhaps more appealing"? Excuse me, but how does making something significantly easier to use "seem different"? Quite bluntly, it IS different, and that is where Apple has succeeded for the last 15 years; they've taken existing technologies and made them work they way they should have worked from the beginning.

and, reworking the form factors has not really improved any of the functions in the "new and improved" gadgets from Apple. They may look different, and they may be easier to tote around and handle, and they may look more appealing, but the functionality is basically the same.

So, reworking is the key word, and if you want to make "ease of use" a feature in order to make your argument have some kind of validity, then go ahead; knock yourself out.

... turned a "ho-hum" device into a "must have" device; it was quite obviously a feature since millions of people who knew nothing about Apple one way or another purchased them. The vast majority of iPod sales went to Windows users .

Take a reality pill and visit the techno doctor in the morning.

None of what you said is even remotely "significantly true".

Most of what Apple has done, has been done in the past, and repackaging the old to make them seem new, has not significantly changed the tech markets.

Most of what has happened, for sure, is that, the Apple marketing machine has made their products seem "significantly appealing" with their most significant feature being the Apple logo, which many people seem to go orgasmic about every time they see it.

Now, why are you so defensive on the part of Apple? What's in it for you? Why do you care so much? I don't think that your fanaticism is healthy for your mental well-being, and it makes you look very foolish and mostly, "fanboish".

Why not be non-partisan, and you might be able to notice that, when it comes to most things tech, most manufacturers can produce pretty good quality and enough quality to satisfy even the most picky of consumers, and without needing for people to spend more than they have to.

Explain to me, if you can, how if my statements aren't "even remotely 'significantly true'" the iPod blew away every existing and following similar product, including Microsoft's Zune which so many people thought would be the iPod killer?

Marketing machine? Haven't you realized yet that marketing can only go so far? Maybe you forget the Pontiac Fiero, marketed as America's first true sports car but died after only 3 years because of its mechanical failures. So me a single product today that sells better than any of its competitors (besides Apple since this is supposed to be similes) while offering lesser quality and capability for the same price. People simply won't continue to buy a product that doesn't perform as advertised. There might be a rush, but that rush dies away quickly as people learn its limitations; as yet, no Apple product currently on the market has seen that effect. iPods have effectively saturated the market, but still hold 70% of that market. iPhone sales are still doubling year after year despite Android's huge rush. iPads are still selling in excess of a million per month--closer to two million--after 18 months on the market. This isn't marketing, it's making products people can use and want to use.

I do try to be non-partisan; I look at the benefits and disadvantages of every product I plan to buy and choose the one that works best for me. If I didn't live where I do, I probably wouldn't have AT&T as my cellular provider--in fact, I didn't until AT&T purchased Cingular--they couldn't cover the area where I lived. However, when I bought my first iPhone (3G) the improvement in quality and reliability was so significant that I simply don't want to use something else. If that quality fails me, then I'll find something else that works better. I don't want "pretty good", I demand the best; I'm tired of junk. If I pay more for it, well, you get what you pay for. I paid for the rest too many times.

so, it's you that has to come up with the "proofs".

Statistics matter when you're trying to make a point, so, the 30% figure and the 750 million figures are yours to prove, since you came up with those statistics.

Now, going into tangential examples of other product placements and strategies, is not the proof that makes your points truthful.

I don't care about auto marketing or auto strategies or auto performances or auto prices. I care about the facts of what you and I are discussing in this thread.

So, put up and show the studies that back up your assertions. BTW, your assertions are not just about iPods vs Zunes. So, the iPods were huge sellers, and once established as the premier in the mobile music market, it was going to be hard to displace, no matter how much better a competing device might have been; and in many technical reviews, the Zune was, in fact, a superior product. So, we're left with the advantage that comes from being first to market and the advantage that comes from having a better marketing strategy. But, none of that serves to prove your statistical points that you made, and that is where I'm challenging you, and it's not me that needs to prove any of my figures. I just continued with your ridiculous statistics and extrapolated with Windows-base machines. I don't have to prove anything. It's you that needs to prove your assertions.

I did acknowledge my error in one statement, but it did NOT change the fact that a huge number of Americans, in the ballpark of 30%, still do not have broadband available to them as demonstrated by reports I linked in that same response.

Now, prove me wrong.

That's inconsequential to the general scope of the discussion, and you did admit to the mistakes of your original statistics, but only after you were challenged on them.

"The U.S. doesn't even have 750 million people, and 30% is a lie"

I acknowledged that I had miscounted the number of people, but I then provided data to prove that 30% was an understatement even in the US--as many as 45% or more of the US population without broadband for one reason or another. I don't care what you say, 150 million people without broadband in the US is NOT insignificant.

Try to follow along so that you can put the matter to rest.

Here's your original statement concerning that "30%":

30% of 2.5 Billion people is still... 750,000,000 in the US alone.

Notice the context of your statement? You stated 30% of 2.5 billion people. Not 30% of the U.S.

So, your original figure was a total lie, and you yourself pulled back from it in later posts. However, you changed the context of that 30% to be about broadband "in the U.S.". That's not what you had in your original post regarding your highly exaggerated and made up statistics.

With that 30% having been a lie or a huge exaggeration, your last statement in that post:

That's a vast number even if it is a minority. I personally know entire communities still on dial-up copper.

...would also have been a huge exaggeration.

There might still be communities using copper lines for communications, but the lie I caught was about the 30% and the 2.5 billion and the 750 million. So, your numbers were, obviously, quite a lie in your original post.

Understand now?!?!?

One hundred and fifty million Americans out of three hundred and thirty million Americans is still a vast number of Americans without Broadband. Trying to minimize that by focusing on my original error is merely hiding the fact that my ratio was still valid.

The US is behind the rest of the Western world and even the Eastern world in offering broadband to its population simply because our Capitalist society refuses to spend money to extend benefits to rural locations. People in our country--even in some of the most populous parts of our country--are stuck with nearly century-old telephone wiring for their internet access. The only reason they even have that telephone wiring is because the US Government forced the telephone companies to make phone service available to everyone, no matter where they lived. Our government is going to have to do the same for broadband just to catch up to far more rural countries like Norway.

changing your line of attack, and you aren't even acknowledging that I proved your figures to be lies.

One hundred and fifty million Americans out of three hundred and thirty million Americans is still a vast number of Americans without Broadband.

What kind of math are you using?

First off, 30% of 300 million is not 150 million. Perhaps your using a numbering system and a calculation method from another planet?

Now, even though I proved that your original 30% was a lie, you continue insisting on using 30% for your broadband numbers. So, in order to prove that 30% who don't have broadband, I want to see the studies that you use that contain that 30%.

Trying to minimize that by focusing on my original error is merely hiding the fact that my ratio was still valid.

When your original numbers were completely bogus, and more than likely, made up, why should any of your future statements not be dismissed as just more junk?

Also, even if 30% were to be the percentage used to calculate the lack of broadband, the calculations would still be way off on the number of people. When it comes to fiber and cable broadband, the lines go into households, therefore, the calculation should measure the number of households that don't get broadband. A household, normally, has multiple family members and perhaps 3 people to a family, so calculating to come up with number of people in that 30% would be incorrect.

Then, is "your" 30% figure, really about the number of people who don't get broadband, or is it about the number of areas not covered by broadband? Think about that.

Most large and medium metro areas do get broadband, which would then mean that the majority of people are getting coverage. If the 30% is about regions not covered, then that 30% cannot be translated to number of Americans not getting coverage, because, rural and sparsely populated areas would not have the same density of people as the larger and "broadband covered" areas.

You also have to understand that, broadband companies are in business to earn money, and not to just provide a service to someone in the boondocks, no matter what the cost. Somebody out there would be better off trying to get mobile broadband, but, good luck with the signals out there.

The US is behind the rest of the Western world and even the Eastern world in offering broadband to its population simply because our Capitalist society refuses to spend money to extend benefits to rural locations.

People make choices to live in the rural and sparsely populated areas, and they knew that whatever services they did get out in those areas, would be harder to come by and perhaps more expensive to get. Post office service would be harder to come by, and going to the supermarket would have to be a once every 2 weeks or once a month endeavor, and getting TV signals would be a chancy proposition, and reaching a hospital when needed could mean having a greater opportunity at dying. Those are choices people make, and it has nothing to do with "capitalism".

People in our country--even in some of the most populous parts of our country--are stuck with nearly century-old telephone wiring for their internet access.

If the century old telephone access still works, I don't see the problem. I still use my trusty old wired phone for most of my personal communications to family and friends. I also still use the wired phone to conduct most personal business transactions. Broadband should not even enter into the picture when it comes to what a phone is used for, unless you're out and need a mobile phone.

The only reason they even have that telephone wiring is because the US Government forced the telephone companies to make phone service available to everyone, no matter where they lived. Our government is going to have to do the same for broadband just to catch up to far more rural countries like Norway.

Sure, government is the answer, right?

If government does force the issue, who is going to pay for it? If a company is forced to pay for it, it would mean that, that company would have less in profits, and perhaps have to lay off people to make up the difference. Government is always the answer with highly negative repercussions. What happens in small countries, like Norway, cannot be compared to what happens in much larger countries, where providing services would mean much higher expenses to a company. Then, even when "government pays for it", they aren't really paying for it. It's being paid by the rest of taxpayers who opted not to live in the boondocks or in sparsely populated areas. So, that would be adding an extra burden on taxpayers and on businesses, and look how well those ideas have turned out, where the country, because of its socialism, has us in virtual economic collapse.

If people want to have good service, and low cost services, then they should take it upon themselves to live where that/those services are easily provided.

First off, I've proven, with links, that a vast number of Americans can NOT get broadband. Whether you like my numbers or not, that is still a fact. Nit-picking is merely an attempt at diversion.

Yes, broadband companies are in business to earn money, as are cable companies and the phone companies. That doesn't mean they don't have responsibilities to their current and future customers. Back in 1911 Bell Telephone only wanted to make their service available to people they knew could pay for it--the wealthy and the corporations; forget the lowly worker. Because of a Federal mandate, they were required to make their service available to anybody who wanted it. As in today's world, that didn't mean giving it away, but making sure that anybody, and I do mean anybody who wanted phone service and could afford to pay for it would receive that service. This is where we're falling short with both cable and broadband today.
But what that means is that nearly half of the American population can only get internet at about 33.6kbpm. With today's graphic-intensive web pages (Flash in particular) that means that many websites are effectively impossible to view and software updates such as Windows Service Packs take hours to perhaps days to download over that century-old copper.
Your argument about, "People make choices to live in the rural and sparsely populated areas, and they knew that whatever services they did get out in those areas, would be harder to come by..." really shows your ignorance. Many of these people have lived in these areas all their lives, owning farms and property that have been in their families for decades if not longer. They didn't choose to avoid technology (except the Amish) but rather want that technology so they can work their farms or ranches better. That lack of communications is actually costing them money in the long run which is why so many old family farms are getting sold to the big farming conglomerations. That is not a matter of 'choice', as you so succinctly put it. Again, my point was that people are forced to get their internet over that old copper, not just their phone service.

Yes, government regulation is the answer; we've seen many times throughout US history how that lack of regulation has driven our country into recession after recession. In every case it was corporate abuse of the general population which drove inflation to the point of depression. Lack of regulation caused the S&L incident back in the '60s. Removal of regulations set in the '30s caused the banking and stock market crash of the '00s. No, if people want good service they need to have abusive corporations controlled. The problem is, they need balanced control which is a product of a government that finds compromises--something we really haven't seen in our American government for over 40 years.

So many of your statements are just plain wrong

Of course, with someone as blind as you seem to be, you wouldn't recognize the difference between right and wrong, and anything that disagrees with your nutty ideas would be called "wrong" by you.

First off, I've proven, with links, that a vast number of Americans can NOT get broadband.

You proved no such thing.

And, stop using that "vast" word, because, it's not the "vast" number of Americans that cannot get broadband. Broadband is available to the vast majority of Americans, and if there are regions that don't get broadband, that is still not a "vast" number of people.

Whether you like my numbers or not, that is still a fact. Nit-picking is merely an attempt at diversion.

If your numbers don't jive with reality, then they are still lies or made up. Made up numbers are not facts. The majority of Americans have broadband available, whether through cable/fios or through wi-fi/3g/4g.

Yes, broadband companies are in business to earn money, as are cable companies and the phone companies.

Well, I'm glad you recognize at least that one fact.

That doesn't mean they don't have responsibilities to their current and future customers.

A company is NOT obligated to provide service to anyone. They do, however, want to provide services that can earn them money, and to as many customers that they can get signed-up for a price. A future customer is not someone that requires current services, and future customers are targets of a company, only if the company can see a future earnings to be made from them.

One doesn't acquire customers if those customers aren't going to result in earnings for the company.

A company is not in business to be socialistic.

Back in 1911 Bell Telephone only wanted to make their service available to people they knew could pay for it--the wealthy and the corporations; forget the lowly worker. Because of a Federal mandate, they were required to make their service available to anybody who wanted it.

No mandate should ever be imposed on a business if that mandate doesn't also compensate for any losses that a company might suffer. Mandates are good only in socialistic economies, but, the price for that socialism will be noticed in later years, when it will be too late to recover. That's what's been happening in the U.S., where socialism has killed the golden goose.

As in today's world, that didn't mean giving it away, but making sure that anybody, and I do mean anybody who wanted phone service and could afford to pay for it would receive that service.

That a person can afford to pay for a service, doesn't mean that providing that service will be cost effective to a company. That's why providing services to sparsely populated areas is so expensive. If a company is "forced" to provide such services, it means that a company will be suffering losses or that service is going to have to be subsidized. But, subsidizing a group of people will be at the expense of the people who can afford to pay for their own and more easily available service, or through taxpayer funding.

This is where we're falling short with both cable and broadband today.

You are under the belief that broadband should be a right, but it isn't. Communications through phone wires still provides internet services, even if through a phone modem or through DSL lines.

But what that means is that nearly half of the American population can only get internet at about 33.6kbpm. With today's graphic-intensive web pages (Flash in particular) that means that many websites are effectively impossible to view and software updates such as Windows Service Packs take hours to perhaps days to download over that century-old copper.

Windows service packs can be ordered by mail, and, if need be, downloading through "copper" wires is doable, even if having to allow the download to occur overnight when the computer is mostly unused. However, you are still looking at broadband as being a right, and it's not.

Your argument about, "People make choices to live in the rural and sparsely populated areas, and they knew that whatever services they did get out in those areas, would be harder to come by..." really shows your ignorance.

No you idiot!

People are have been and are still making the choices to move to areas where services are harder to come by, and, the areas that don't really have access to broadband, through cable/fios/wi-fi/3g/4g, would be mostly those people who never expected to get broadband service to begin with or didn't care for it.

Many of these people have lived in these areas all their lives, owning farms and property that have been in their families for decades if not longer.

Farmers aren't a huge part of the population, but, I suspect that even they have access to one form of broadband or another. Those who have had their property in far off places all their lives most likely had come to expect that, by living "out there" that they couldn't expect all the conveniences of "modern life". No company should be forced to provide services to those that insist on living away from the modern conveniences.

They didn't choose to avoid technology (except the Amish) but rather want that technology so they can work their farms or ranches better.

If it's farms and ranches, then I'm pretty sure that they're not that far from civilization, and that they have easy access to modern conveniences and perhaps even broadband. No farm is ever that far from the market that they serve, and thus, it's very likely that even broadband is not that hard to attain.

That lack of communications is actually costing them money in the long run which is why so many old family farms are getting sold to the big farming conglomerations.

Those farmers, for the most part, don't need broadband to communicate, and even I, in my modern civilized middle-sized market, don't use broadband that much to communicate, and I still use, mostly, my phones (cell and wired) to communicate.

The problems that farmers have had in the last few decades is not because of lack of broadband, and those problems started happening way before the internet was even "invented" by Gore. So, you are again making up your own "facts".

That is not a matter of 'choice', as you so succinctly put it.

It's still a matter of choice for those people who are "far out there" and would like to get broadband. Most of them are not farmers. Your 30% figure is not "farmers". Farming is done, last I heard, by about 1% of the population of the country. But, I don't recall any farmers complaining about not being able to get their work done effectively because of the lack of broadband. So, again, stop making things up!

Again, my point was that people are forced to get their internet over that old copper, not just their phone service.

Broadband is not just through cable/fios lines. There are alternatives which can reach where wires aren't laid.

Yes, government regulation is the answer;

Nonsense!

Anytime government steps in to dictate or intervene or regulate, the results aren't too desirable. The direct result of government intervention and regulations and mandates, is something like what we're witnessing right now, with the economy in shambles. The kind of economy you have in mind is one that you can find in Venezuela and in Cuba, so, don't let me stop you from going there if you would like to have that kind of government and that kind of economy.

we've seen many times throughout US history how that lack of regulation has driven our country into recession after recession.

No, you ninny!

It's quite the opposite.

When government steps in, with regulations and laws and mandates, the whole economy starts breaking down, and that's when we end up with recessions and depressions. The depression of the 1930s was a direct result of government getting too big and government over-regulating. The same thing happened under Carter and even under Clinton. Carter and Clinton are responsible for what happened with the CRA regulations, which brought down the housing market and triggered the economic collapse we're currently experiencing. So, you have things exactly azz-backward.

In every case it was corporate abuse of the general population which drove inflation to the point of depression.

You're absolutely nuts and completely ignorant on economic matters!

In most cases that the economy has taken a tumble, it was government that caused them. The problems which bring down economies are things like, high-taxation, and over-burdening regulations and union regulations and government mandates. Every one of the recessions/depressions, have been mostly caused by the direct or indirect government involvement in the economy.

Lack of regulation caused the S&L incident back in the '60s.

That's one of the spins, but there was a lot more to the causes than the simple-minded argument of "lack of regulations". That "lack of regulations" is again being blamed for the housing market crash, but the real culprits were the government and Fannie and Freddie and the CRA and Carter and Clinton and the idiotic Pelosi and Barnie Frank and other big government loving bureaucrats.

Removal of regulations set in the '30s caused the banking and stock market crash of the '00s.

It's the complete opposite.

Non-socialist economists attribute recessions and depressions to the over-regulating government policies and to heavy taxation and to heavy government spending. That is what happened in the 30s and now in the last few years.

So, do yourself a favor and stick to what you seem to be better at, and that's being a shill for all things Apple.

No, if people want good service they need to have abusive corporations controlled.

The job of government is not to control businesses, nor to issue regulations which kill businesses and kill jobs, or end up sending those businesses and jobs overseas. It's sheer stupidity to think that the solution to the problems is to insert more of the same problems into the economy. Th problems that ail the economy is government, and more government would finish us off. Government should NEVER be in the business of controlling or mandating anything from business. There should never be a guaranteed right, except those that exist in the constitution and in the bill of rights.

The problem is, they need balanced control which is a product of a government that finds compromises--something we really haven't seen in our American government for over 40 years.

For most of the last 60 years, and for 40 years straight, the congress was under democrat control, and most of the policies that contributed to the crumbling economy came from the democrat policies which created big government and big social programs.

No, dude! The best direction forward is to get government off our backs and off the backs of the business and jobs creating people in the country. With your ideas, we'd be taking many steps backwards into a society such as what you can find in Cuba and in Venezuela and in North Korea, and in the old USSR. So, if you believe that those kind of countries are what you want, then continue believing in your nutty ideas.

Like I said, go back to discussing the iPad and all things Apple. When it comes to economics and how to build a successful economy, you're way out of your league.

I'm not going to repeat myself about the 150 million Americans; honestly, if you don't believe nearly half of the American population isn't a vast number then I want you to pay me a penny for each and every American that doesn't have broadband available. Confirmed and demonstrable proof, please. I've already offered my proof.

Second: "A company is NOT obligated to provide service to anyone." So wrong it's ridiculous. "Universal Access
When local telephone companies began springing up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they concentrated on areas with high population densities. These areas allowed companies access to a large subscriber base with minimal network setup and maintenance charges; however, providing telephone service to remote areas with few households wasn't deemed cost-effective. With federal oversight came the mandate that AT&T had to provide basic telephone service to all households." ( http://www.ehow.com/list_6737230_fcc-phone-regulations.html )
Here is clear and obvious proof that your opinions do not match history. This rule still stands on the books today. Our current Administration and the FCC are striving to extend this ruling to include broadband internet access.
Whether such a mandate should or should not be imposed is beside the question; such a mandate already exists as far as the telephone companies are concerned. This doesn't mean they have to give the service away, but that it must at least be available for the customer to accept, should they desire it.

You really need to stop throwing libelous terms around; calling me an idiot in the face of facts that people don't necessarily choose to 'move' to a place of limited access just shows your gigantic conceit. Just because you 'chose' to live where you now do doesn't mean that a farmer 'chose' to buy the farm he now lives on--especially if that farm has been in his family for 40 years or longer. You might really be surprised how many people outside of the big cities and towns are still farmers. Just take a drive in the country some time and get off that oh-so-smooth freeway so you can see the real America. Were it not for those farmers and others, you wouldn't have a bite of food on your table in that fancy kitchen of yours. Every statement you made after calling me an "idiot" was pure conjecture on your part.
Many of those farmers do need the internet. They watch the weather in order to maintain and harvest their crops. They purchase seed and supplies, tractors and tools through the internet as well as using cell phones to maintain communications with the house while they're out in the fields. You'd be quite surprised how technical farming has become, and a lack of broadband communications can and will inhibit the farmer's productivity just as much as it would any other industry.
How do I know all this? I personally know farmers, both modern and Amish. I'll tell you now that your opinions are an insult to both groups.

Again, read your history. Black Tuesday in 1929 was caused by a lack of regulation--regulations that were put on after the fact to prevent corporate (and especially banking) abuse of the citizen. Every excuse you make about America's historical recessions totally ignore the fact that those recessions were caused by corporate abuse of their customers. You blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while totally ignoring the fact that deregulation permitted them and nearly every other banking institute to offer--nay, give--loans to people who couldn't afford them. This is why we're in such a credit crunch today--there is no stable platform for our world economies and banks--not the Government--have pretty much free license to 'make money' any time they want to by simply offering more credit. Blame a Republican--Richard Nixon to be exact--for the US Dollar coming off the Gold Standard which in itself triggered yet another recession.

The job of government is to protect the people of the land. Whether that government is a monarchy, an oligarchy, socialist or democratic, its primary purpose is to ensure the safety and livelihood of its citizens. This includes reigning in the abusive practices of greedy corporations. When the corporations begin to own the government, the people WILL suffer.

You don't have the facts, nor the understanding and knowledge of economics to prove me wrong.

So, get off it already! You've become a nuisance already. Stop being so thick!

Adomoe, why don't I prove you wrong--AGAIN.

Why? Because, you can't prove someone wrong by using lies, or fake statistics, or "made up 'facts'".

I'm not going to repeat myself about the 150 million Americans; honestly, if you don't believe nearly half of the American population isn't a vast number

That is not what you've been arguing about, you ninny!

150 million is a huge number, but, the question was not about what constitutes a "vast number"; it was about your statement that a vast number of Americans weren't getting broadband. See the difference? I'll bet you can't.

And, I asked you to provide the study and statistics which prove that 150 million Americans don't have broadband within their reach. You haven't done that, so you can't or haven't proved me wrong.

then I want you to pay me a penny for each and every American that doesn't have broadband available. Confirmed and demonstrable proof, please. I've already offered my proof.

If your whole premise is wrong to begin with, then your expectations would be completely preposterous.

Second: "A company is NOT obligated to provide service to anyone." So wrong it's ridiculous.

Nothing wrong with a very truthful statement. No company should be "forced" to provide services if the customers aren't going to provide at least a break even proposition, but, breaking even is not what being in business is about.

"Universal Access
When local telephone companies began springing up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, they concentrated on areas with high population densities. These areas allowed companies access to a large subscriber base with minimal network setup and maintenance charges; however, providing telephone service to remote areas with few households wasn't deemed cost-effective. With federal oversight came the mandate that AT&T had to provide basic telephone service to all households." ( http://www.ehow.com/list_6737230_fcc-phone-regulations.html )

Did you notice that part about "federal oversight"? That meant that the government was/is in charge in that particular business sector and could dictate how and when a service is provided. The FCC, with its mandates, can "force" a business to provide services, but, if the services do not account for the "loss in revenue" by charging more elsewhere, then the service provider would probably have had to go out of business. In services like that, the service is being subsidized by either government or the other consumers who will be charge more for their services.

Here is clear and obvious proof that your opinions do not match history. This rule still stands on the books today.

It's government dictates, and not good business practice. It's socialism rearing its ugly head in a free-market system, and it's the big reason why so many businesses fail, and the biggest reason that the economy today is in shambles.

Our current Administration and the FCC are striving to extend this ruling to include broadband internet access.

YOUR current administration. Nobody except you wants to be associated with that Marxist in office, and the majority of people have already stated their opinions in polls by saying that they won't be voting for him again.

Now, the current administration is not congress, and congress would have to vote to include broadband as a free service or losing service to those that are out of the regular reach of the broadband providers. What you're advocating is more of the same insanity that has the economy going down the drain. It's a good thing that the country is still not ruled by a dictator, which seems to be your preferred method for ruling the country.

Whether such a mandate should or should not be imposed is beside the question; such a mandate already exists as far as the telephone companies are concerned.

But, it is the question, and the question is not applicable to broadband providers. The FCC mandates and regulations were intended for telephone and over-the-air broadcasts; not for broadband providers. So, again, you're absolutely WRONG!

This doesn't mean they have to give the service away, but that it must at least be available for the customer to accept, should they desire it.

Use some common sense, will you?

To make a service available to the "out of regular reach" consumers, would take some major undertakings and some major expenses by the broadband providers. Those can't be provided for "free", nor at a cheap price. However, telephone service is still available to those in far off places, and even over-the-air broadband is available to, according to the commercials, 98% of the country. So, the service would seem to be "available".

You really need to stop throwing libelous terms around;

Calling you an idiot is not "libelous" if you are, in fact and demonstrably, saying idiotic things.

calling me an idiot in the face of facts that people don't necessarily choose to 'move' to a place of limited access just shows your gigantic conceit.

That's not the only reason for calling you an idiot. I called you an idiot because of your belief that, government is the answer to solving the problems which plague us. And, like all socialists, which you seem to be one of them, you have to be an idiot if you believe that, socialism is good for an economy. Socialism is the problem, and big government is the problem, and the people who believe that "doing the same thing, over and over again, hoping for different results", have to be idiots. Socialism is the definition of insanity.

People do move to areas where services aren't easily available, and they should expect that there is a "price" to pay for it. If one moves to a far away place, and expects a hospital to be built within easy reach because he/she doesn't like being in the metro areas, then that's idiotic. Someone like that shouldn't expect broadband to come to serve his/her special needs. And, people who have lived there before broadband became a service, shouldn't also be expecting any special treatment.

Just because you 'chose' to live where you now do doesn't mean that a farmer 'chose' to buy the farm he now lives on--especially if that farm has been in his family for 40 years or longer.

Farmers, for the most part, aren't in very distant places, and they do have adequate, or even easy reach, to most services they desire. However, farming is not that "30%" or even the "vast" number or the 150 million that you speak of. Making up numbers just to justify your argument is not going to make it "factual".

You might really be surprised how many people outside of the big cities and towns are still farmers.

Believe it or not, I'm living in a good size city right now, and the metro area is about 3 million people. But, I see farms and ranches on a regular basis around the area. And, from what I can gather, though they do take large land masses, the number of people working the farms and ranches, is still not that large. Like I said in my previous post, the number of people doing farming is about 1% or less. Which makes your numbers quite exaggerated. And, like I said above, the people in those ranches and farms aren't too far from the cities and towns, and therefore, they do have broadband available.

Just take a drive in the country some time and get off that oh-so-smooth freeway so you can see the real America.

Florida does have a lot of farms and ranches, and I see them even within the "city limits" and not too far from the city, and I see them when I take a simple 20 minute ride outside the city. From my experiences, none of the ranches and farms are too far away from civilization and broadband. When it comes to a place like Texas or Alaska, perhaps you'll find farms and ranches that are 100 miles from "civilization", but, who is going to lay cable lines that are 100 miles long just to accommodate a few ranches or farms? The infrastructure to accomodate that kind of customer would be prohibitively expensive.

Were it not for those farmers and others, you wouldn't have a bite of food on your table in that fancy kitchen of yours.

Now you're headed off into the red-herring territory. Stay on topic. That secondary argument has nothing to do with the crux of the arguments which you're trying to make. They're irrelevant.

Every statement you made after calling me an "idiot" was pure conjecture on your part.

You may not have liked my arguments, but they were on point and applicable. If you or anybody makes idiotic statements, I'm going to call you on it. If I can call the president an idiot for his policies (and he is), then I can call you and others the same. You can call me the same, but you better be ready with facts to back up your statements.

Many of those farmers do need the internet. They watch the weather in order to maintain and harvest their crops.

Believe it or not, the radio and TV still work in a lot of areas where farmers work, and they still have telephone services. Exaggerations just to justify your arguments, still won't be truthfull. How did farmers and ranchers ever get the weather in the past before broadband? Broadband is relatively new, and farmers and ranchers did get the information they needed even all those long 10 years ago.

They purchase seed and supplies, tractors and tools through the internet as well as using cell phones to maintain communications with the house while they're out in the fields.

Let me guess: they weren't able to do those things before the internet came about? Look, stop the phoney arguments. Exaggerations aren't good arguments when trying to prove anything.

You'd be quite surprised how technical farming has become, and a lack of broadband communications can and will inhibit the farmer's productivity just as much as it would any other industry.

More of the phoney arguments. More red-herrings.

Farming has been "high-tech" for decades, and that's why it doesn't take 10% of the population to grow our vegetables and fruits and get our milk and meats. Maybe it's you that is beginning to find out those simple facts.

Now, again I'll ask you, how did those farmers and ranchers ever get by before the internet and broadband? How did they ever do any kind of negotiations and purchases and selling and delivering of goods before the internet? Perhaps people starved and there wasn't any food before the internet? I had no idea!

How do I know all this?

Let me guess: you heard it somewhere? Or you made it up?

I personally know farmers, both modern and Amish. I'll tell you now that your opinions are an insult to both groups.

You're such a phony!

You're just steering your arguments away from your original points in order to try to score points. Ain't gonna work with me.

Have you ever heard of "fish farms"? Well, you must have, because, all that youre arguments are about lately are "red herrings". In other words, stinky-fishy arguments. They don't fit the original points you tried to make.

Believe it or not, I too was a "farmer"; of sorts. As a kid in Puerto Rico, I lived on a farm, and we grew chickens and cows and fruits and vegetables and sugar cane and other goodies which needed to be brought to market. As a kid, a long time ago, we didn't have the internet, and we didn't even have a telephone and not even a radio or TV. Yet, we managed to do the farming and live off the land and take our products to market. Where there was a will, we found the way. Likewise with the current crop of farmers and ranchers, except,they have it much easier than in the past, when the farmers and ranchers still were able to make a living and bring their products to markets; all without the benefits of the internet and broadband.

Again, read your history. Black Tuesday in 1929 was caused by a lack of regulation--regulations that were put on after the fact to prevent corporate (and especially banking) abuse of the citizen.

Before 1929, the problems were already starting to rear their ugly heads. The problems had been in place before 1929 came about. A recession is not a sudden act of God. Most recessions are the result of overreaching government policies and regulations. Just like the current one that we're all suffering through.

It's you that needs the lessons of history, and you could even use a good dose of common sense. Recessions are the results of cumulative damages to the economy, and they're not sudden events that just crop up out of nowhere.

Every excuse you make about America's historical recessions totally ignore the fact that those recessions were caused by corporate abuse of their customers.

More garbage!

In order for abusive corporate actions to bring on a recession, would require that those abusive actions be on a grand scale, where most corporations and even the small businesses and mom-and-pop stores, be partaking in those abuses. The only thing that could, in practicality and reality, cause recessions, are government actions, which do have an effect on just about every sector of the economy.

Your logic is faulty, just like all of your arguments.

You blame Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

I blame them because without them, the sub-prime loan packaging would not have been possible. Without Fannie and Freddie, the banks would not have had a purchaser ready to take on all of those bad loans.

while totally ignoring the fact that deregulation permitted them and nearly every other banking institute to offer--nay, give--loans to people who couldn't afford them.

You, again, are the one not paying attention to the real history and the causes of those bad loans. The CRA, which was passed under Carter, and given regulatory powers under Clinton, "forced" the banks and lending institutions to make those bad loans. So, it's the regulations from government that created the problem to begin with. When Bush proposed regulations to reign in the sub-prime loans and the practices by Fannie and Freddie, the democrats blocked him at every step. So, the bad regulations in the beginning started the problems, and the good regulations to stop the insanity were prevented by democrats.

This is why we're in such a credit crunch today--there is no stable platform for our world economies and banks--not the Government--have pretty much free license to 'make money' any time they want to by simply offering more credit.

You can't be for real. If you actually believe what you wrote in those statements, they you're really pretty stupid. (Yeah, I know, you're going to chastise me again for using a nasty word against you; but, you are as deserving as anybody that I've ever encountered).

Look, money policy is made by government, through the fed in the U.S. and similar agencies in other countries. But, that money policy is mostly as a result of consultation with the administrative branches of government. The banks don't
print money. The federal government does. Our money has been devalued by large amounts under the current administration, and all because he and congress haven't found a good plan to correct the funding and spending problems we're having because of the recession. There is nothing more stupid that people in government who don't understand economic matters and the repercussions of their idiotic policies. Obama is the most idiotic president to ever be in the presidency. In fact, he would have been wrong even as a manager of a corner lemonade stand; and the American people elevated him to the most important position in the world. I'm pretty sure you're one of those that voted for him. He's outta there after 2012, for sure, even if you do vote for him again.

Blame a Republican--Richard Nixon to be exact--for the US Dollar coming off the Gold Standard which in itself triggered yet another recession.

Utter garbage.

Coming off the gold standard may not have been the greatest decision anyone has ever made, but the problems with the economy after Nixon were because of the utter stupidity of Carter and congress. Carter, before Obama, was the worst president in history. Fortunately for Carter, Obama is outdoing him for the title of "worst ever". 21% mortgage loan rates and 10.4% annual inflation will kill any economy, and Carter was clueless about what to do. Obama is even more clueless now.

The job of government is to protect the people of the land.

That's right!

The government's job is to protect the people from foreign and domestic enemies.

But, it's not the job of government to pay for services that people can't have otherwise, or to protect them from their own stupidity.

Whether that government is a monarchy, an oligarchy, socialist or democratic, its primary purpose is to ensure the safety and livelihood of its citizens.

Safety is not the same as guaranteeing that they will have a good life, or a job or a home or even health care. And, it's not the government's job to provide ot to insure that people have internet and/or broadband. Whenever socialism tries to guarantee a good life to people, the end result is always massive poverty. That's exactly what happened in the Soviet Union, where socialism was never self-sustainable and the country crumbled. It's happeneing in the U.S. and anybody that doesn't recognize the same symtoms is an idiot.

This includes reigning in the abusive practices of greedy corporations.

That is absolutely NOT the function of government. Not in the U.S. That's actually unconstitutional, although the democrats have been able to justify and rationalize those functions since the great depression. But, it's that kind of belief of yours that's thretening to destroy the country.

When the corporations begin to own the government, the people WILL suffer.

You have things completely upside down.

Corporations are composed of people, and as far as the constitution is concerned, the government is supposed to be answerable to the people. The people are supposed to be in control, and the people often come in the shape of corporations and other regulat businesses. The only thing that government is responsible for is to insure that people aren't taken advantage of, but, not providing a service because somebody is way out of the way of civilization is not "being taken advantage of". It's practicality, and govenrment intervention is against the freedoms that the constitution guaranteed. In fact, even the FCC rules and regulations are unconstitutional. Government should not be in the business of regulating or controlling private sector services or products. The only way that government has been able to gain more power has been at the expense of people and business losing some of their freedoms. The bastardization of the "commerce clause" is the excuse that democrats have used in the last century to justify the government's increased power over the people and businesses. But, it's the increased power and control which has become so damaging, and we're now experiencing the repercussions. There is actually no way to recover from the damage, and in reality it's too late.

Now, do the country a favor and go away. Try China or Cuba or Venezuela. They have the kind of government you love.

And, stop being so thick!

Putting Xerox PARC's GUI (which ran on a mainframe) into a small personal computer was like turning a hand-cranked model T into a modern sedan*. Turning homely beige boxes into sleek works of art, ditto. Look at Apple's ads - they merely show the device, and people want it. No hype whatsoever. (None needed for these products: Apple says they're announcing a product, and people flock to see what they've come up with.)

MS apologists whine endlessly about the hype and the enthusiasm and the fandom, but never ask themselves why the phenomenon exists.

*I played with the Xerox system in the late '70s, and while it was certainly a novelty, even the first Mac OS was a significant improvement.

Same reason people bought Pontiac Fieros, and Mazda Miatas in droves................the look. Except Apple has extensive network of fully committed fans, and a simple role out of 1 next big thing. It's definitely not due to better products (maybe in design if you are into that particular one and don't want options). Your own posts prove it, all they have to do is say something and people wait in line to get it before the reviews are in...and it still has the same problems other new devices have. Apple was one of the first to put out the cheap beige products and poor Texas Instruments was run out of business with a combination of better components and better design (slim metal case)...they just missed the price point as people only wanted to pay 300 for a PC at that time aside from enthusiasts.

Based on your statement of, "... Apple has extensive network of fully committed fans, and a simple role out of 1 next big thing," Apple shouldn't be selling more than 700,000 computers per year--not even considering the tens of millions of other Apple-branded devices sold annually. That's how many "devoted fans" Apple had in 1996 when Apple was at its lowest, yet Apple is now selling somewhat over ten MILLION computers a year and that number is still rising. If your statement is true, then Apple is generating fans faster than the overall computer market can keep up.

No, it's not just looks and you should realize that by now. Apple is creating fans by offering them a piece of equipment that's easy to use, more reliable, has better service and just happens to look good too. You might also remember that desktop computers back in 1980 tended to cost a minimum of $1000 while that poor little TI-99 ran about $500 and was practically unusable by anyone not familiar with reverse polar notation. Yes, RPN is more logical, but it wasn't the way people were taught to do their math unless they were in computer-intensive fields like engineering and physics. IBM's PC at the time was priced near $5000 which was one reason why the copycats so quickly dominated the market priced at $2000 or less. Even the first Mac was a $10,000 machine; something I as an individual could afford. Interestingly, I paid only $200 for my first Mac--an 8-year-old Mac Plus.

@adornoe denies anything Apple has ever done was or is good , now you have to see some of his previous posts he is clearly out there to talk the Company down even before he hears all the facts, Apple may soon come up with a very fine product and yes there may be other companies out there making some half assed
p.o.s. pretending to be something it aint , and if an innovative company like Apple takes some of it's features and implements them into their own completing the product to make it a joy and non technical piece of kit that mums,dads sisters and brothers could use easily then that's a damn site better than something like Microsoft's FAILED! Media Center PC's as one example.

What I did say is that Apple did not reinvent anything, they just repackaged what was available already, and they marketed the crap out of the reworked technology.

What I also did say is that, no matter how good or bad an Apple product is, Apple will end up pricing it much higher than comparable products from the competition.

Now, when it comes to the usefulness and quality of Apple products, I won't deny that they're probably better than most comparable products from the competition, but, I doubt that they're so much better to warrant the much higher prices that Apple demands for them.

As far as the "failed Media Center PCs", that's a red herring, and not part of the subject being discussed. This is about Apple "future product" innovation, and not about Microsoft, which I would also say hasn't been too particularly innovative either. Microsoft is about getting into a wide range of markets with a wide range of products, and they do produce a lot of hit-or-miss products and services. Same with Google and most others.

Now, why the heck would I be jealous about anything that Apple does? It makes no sense whatsoever! Being jealous or being a fanatic or rooting for one company over another is utterly stupid. Give me what I want or need, at a reasonable price, and I'll buy from whomever.

The fanatical defense that you presented about Apple is utterly illogical and you didn't even understand what I was saying.

Now, go back to school and take some reading comprehension.

Apple is steal good ideas, package it and resell it with a twist. Nothing more. Maybe people don't like Apple because they see proprietary and closing things and making it more expensive when it is the same a bad thing. I've been using Media Center for years and have a great interface for all my tv's to watch video, stream music, and with an add on fully categorize and pull down my blu ray meta data and trailers for my library stored on my home server. Mac comes out with a dumbed down version and charges ya for it and they call that innovation. Yeah, jealous of the hype, not jealous of the products that are rehashed kitchen appliances that always seem to make the tech section of your local news broadcasts. People want dumbed down...too bad.

Wrong! Apple does far more than merely 'repackage' it; Apple completely recreates it to be as functional and simple to use as possible. I don't deny that Windows Media Center is a nice, full PC solution, but now you're driving your home entertainment center with a full-sized computer that draws more power than 5 standard light bulbs that are on all the time. You've spent on average $350-$700 for a set-top--sorry, set-side--box that probably doesn't get used for any other purpose. AppleTV on the other hand costs less than $100 and gives you access to all the media in your home, no matter what computer it is on, and makes it easy to find, view, listen and even rent or buy any of the above with a simple remote control or your iPhone/iPad with a remote control app on it. Again, Apple makes it easy for the non-techie to do what the techie used to specialize in. Instead of requiring multiple remotes or one huge, complicated and confusing universal remote, everything is made practically one-touch easy.
Now, which really is innovation?

Sorry to be blunt, but instead of reading one person's blog opinion with an agenda, here is the truth...

You can configure media center pc's to be as power efficient as any new mac. I don't need a set top box for media center, because it is routed through an HD Homerun tuner $70 specifially to feed media center. Plus it "just works" with Xbox. And it does netflix for no extra cost other than the netflix monthly fee. I have remote control. I don't specialize in it, plus the setup gives me full control of my local media blu rays and all, internet tv, Free DVR, home movies, pictures, and is easy enough for my 6 year old girl to use the remote to get to her pictures folder and play an animated slide show of her pics while playing her favorite music in the background, Simple to setup, simple to use, better User Interface that is free and can be put on any old pc if wanting to. It's better...just doesn't have the PR.

Dumbing down may be innovaton for Grandma, but we are a tech site here.

Dumbing down for gramdma is a necessity, especially when grandma doesn't want to be bothered with a learning curve, or just wants things simple to begin with. Whatever is produced for the masses, has to done with consideration that, the techies aren't going to be in every household taking care of the setup to make it easier to use by the non-techies.

But, dumbing down doesn't have to depend on Apple doing it, because, any other manufacturer can do it just as well or better.

"But, dumbing down doesn't have to depend on Apple doing it, because, any other manufacturer can do it just as well or better. (emphasis mine)
However, those other manufacturers Don't do it. That's the problem. Even Windows Home Basic is more complicated than it needs to be, as evidenced by the problems one of my 80-year-old clients continues to have.

overreaching with your example of Windows home edition vs an 80 year old grandpa.

Look, Windows is not rocket science, and it's not even elementary arithmetic. Most people can use it without too much training and without too much hassle. That is well indicated by the billions of Windows packages sold world-wide, and even toddlers learn how to use windows before they even learn how to read. It's the same with Apple OSes, where it doesn't require one to have graduated from elementary school.

Most Windows, and even MacOS functions, can be learned in a few days and the more "difficult" functions can be learned as one progresses. So, again, you're overreaching and spending too much time on the irrelevant. That's not way to make or win your arguments. Simplicity is all dependent upon the person and the teacher and the tools. Try something different with which to win your argument.

And totally emphasized my argument all along.
"Dumbing down may be innovaton for Grandma, but we are a tech site here."
Apple isn't catering to the do-it-yourselfers, they're catering to the people who don't have the skills to tweak every little feature; they're catering to the people who are tired at the end of the day and want to hit one or two buttons and let the device do the rest of the work. I personally know corporate IT people who have Apple devices at home simply because they're tired of having to crawl inside their company's machines either physically or virtually all day. "Dumbing down" as you put it takes a lot more work on Apple's part than forcing the user to do all the configurations.

All of that you just described--outside of the tuner perhaps, was available even with the first-gen AppleTV using a 1" wide, 3" long remote bearing a simple click wheel and two buttons. Now that I have the Remote app on my iPhones and iPad, it has even more capability without having to buy a single additional part or software (Remote app was free). Still, I will admit to having four different audio feeds to my receiver rather than pushing them into the TV and back out. I may look into that as it would simplify my own system. (I have xBox, PS 2 and satellite as well as the AppleTV.)

So which really is the better interface? Honestly, the one your grandmother can use without coaching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI-3o_l-E0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oex3Vg2j00I

I could stop there, but let's address some of your distortions of the truth...

Apple TV is easy enough for Grandma to setup...
You are pretty mean if you make grandma set up her own tv...Reality is that it is just as easy to setup for the everyday man. On the interface side did I mention my kindergarten daughter runs this with ease...how much easier do you want it without removing functionality.


Your first gen Apple TV was $300 nice mark-up, but they eventually found out they couldn't get away with that for what you got.
It is just as easy to setup as Apple TV and can be as complicated as you want to get depending on how far you are into media entertainment, surround sound, etc.
You don't have all the features...DVR, DVR, DVR... that is a biggy for the everyday man...dontcha think? A number of others, but this comment would go off the screen.
Remote App...nothing new accept you have a choice from a number of different free ones on android or the official MS one.
I can even run it with my xbox controller if I want.

Interface Really? Two links...get past the flashy Apple TV intro movie that I hope let's you turn that off as it is cool at first but could get quite annoying over time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI-3o_l-E0U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oex3Vg2j00I

Be honest which do you prefer? I will be honest and say I like the Apple book multi touch pad better than my regular laptop. touchpad.

Which interface is better for touch...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuU1j9ZawIw

"Apple TV is easy enough for Grandma to setup...
You are pretty mean if you make grandma set up her own tv. You really don't help your case here. Obviously if it's easy enough for Grandma to set up, it's easy enough for anybody else. And just because your kindergarten child can run it doesn't mean she could set it up on her own. A kindergarten child can run an iPhone too, that doesn't mean she knows how to activate it.

My first AppleTV did not cost me $300, and I've had it now for more than three years with no issues--including receiving updates over Wi-Fi up until the iOS AppleTV came out. In fact, my AppleTV does more than the current version by allowing me to buy and keep movies on the built-in hard drive, something the newer version does not have. On the other hand, the newer version offers iOS which means the capability to do almost anything an iPad/iPod Touch can do, short of direct touch interface (which is provided by said other iOS device.) True, the Apple TV isn't the big seller their computers and iDevices are, but it's still a surprisingly effective device when you want simple but complete functionality. What you have described for your Windows Media Center is available in the AppleTV with the probable exception of over-the-air programming. Still, considering how much of that programming is now available over the internet, over-the-air is becoming a lot more problematical. I don't see it as impossible that broadcast programming will become cable/internet exclusively over the next few decades.

DVR? Not really as much a biggie as you think--yet. Yes, I do agree it's growing; I personally use a Mac Mini as one of my DVRs and my satellite receiver as another. The advantage with the satellite receiver is that when I need to upgrade it, the DVR gets upgraded at the same time, not forcing me to modify other hardware to adapt. My point is that Microsoft Media Center is not the only nor even necessarily the best option available. It still requires the user to have some technology skills that aren't necessary for some other devices. Yes, WMC is more complete, but that doesn't mean it's easier.

Can't Watch TV (cable or OTA)
Can't Record TV
Can't Play DVD's
No 1080p
(Don't think I'm alone in wanting that functionality)

Why not just buy a Roku and get more functionality for $30 less then ATV.
Guess Apple isn't the best for media...

TV (Cable or OTA) - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: No
Record TV - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: No
Play DVDs - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: No
1080p - Roku: Yes ($99 model only) ..... AppleTV: No
Stream Netflix - Roku: Yes ..... AppleTV: Yes
Rent Movies (other than Netflix) - Roku: Yes (through separate accounts at Amazon, etc.) ..... AppleTV: Yes (Directly through device)
Stream music from your library - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: Yes.
Stream video from your library - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: Yes.
Stream music from internet - Roku: Yes ..... AppleTV: Yes. (Through iTunes)

Essentially, the only advantage Roku has available for $30 less than the AppleTV is a broader range of streaming sources with no improved picture quality. Nearly every one of the points you specifically brought up The Roku fails as well as the AppleTV; so is it really that much better even for $30 less? And keep in mind that iOS 5 is supposed to add even more functionality to the AppleTV, including playing games. I'm not saying it will until I know for sure, but I really don't see your argument as valid.

"TV (Cable or OTA) - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: No"
Media Center: Yes
"Record TV - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: No "
Media Center: Yes UI is better than any DVR
'Play DVDs - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: "
No Media Center: Yes and Blu ray and true HD 1080p movies I ripped from Blu ray.
"1080p - Roku: Yes ($99 model only) ..... AppleTV: No"
Wrong Roku is $79 (on roku.com) for HD --$59 version is comparable to AppleTV
Media Center: Yes

"Stream Netflix - Roku: Yes ..... AppleTV: Yes"

Media Center: Yes has the best Netflix UI along with Roku see this...
http://www.highdefdigest.com/blog/the-three-best-netflix-hd-streaming-devices/

"Rent Movies (other than Netflix) - Roku: Yes (through separate accounts at Amazon, etc.) ..... AppleTV: Yes (Directly through device)"
Media Center: Yes (Many options including Gamefly for games) Directly through device? Not sure what that means other than you must purchase them through your iTunes cause it is integrated and your only choice. This is what happens when you get rid of choice just to make everything 'just work', I especially love the last post that jailbroke apple TV just to get HD working reliably (37 pages of thread seems to be a problem with some)...
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2608444?start=540&tstart=0

"Stream music from your library - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: Yes." (Only if you use iTunes)
Media Center: Will just pull it from your personal folders, no matter what digital management system you choose (not biased).
Roku does content side loading with any USB drive on its $79 and $99 models..cool.

"Stream video from your library - Roku: No ..... AppleTV: Yes"
Media Center: Yes with more functionality...
Same as above with not needing iTunes or any digitial media manager, but it sure is fun to multitask and play video/and or slideshow at the same time as playing music and watch a dynamically made video.
Also..Roku does content side loading with any USB drive

"Stream music from internet - Roku: Yes ..... AppleTV: Yes." (Through iTunes) Who doesnt Roku gives you more channels.
Didnt say Roku was better for drm-less content on your home computer, but all you need is a cheap USB with your content to plug in. AppleTV just gives you the connection to iTunes, but dont think that is worth almost twice (maybe to some). Roku is a TV device for everyday people (the thing you always tout with Apple), so is Media Center if you want more for less money.

"Essentially, the only advantage Roku has available for $30 less than the AppleTV is a broader range of streaming sources with no improved picture quality. Nearly every one of the points you specifically brought up The Roku fails as well as the AppleTV; so is it really that much better even for $30 less? And keep in mind that iOS 5 is supposed to add even more functionality to the AppleTV, including playing games. I'm not saying it will until I know for sure, but I really don't see your argument as valid."

Its valid to those that can read and do research and 1080p is an improvement over 720p and just because you can't see the difference doesn't mean others can't. $40 less, and Roku plays games already for the model that is priced just like AppleTV. I think we are talking about the here and now not something that hasnt been released, tested, reviewed.

Summary Truth:
AppleTV priced at $99 which gives you access to iTunes only advantage. I will give you that it has a pretty white case, but my stuff is black and white belongs in the kitchen.
Roku does it better with choice in 3 models and more choices in streaming channels and the $59 one is comparable to AppleTV at $99. With my mother retired and on a strict self budget I easily recommended a Roku device to her when she wanted to watch her netflix also on her bedroom TV as a device that gave her more for significantly less than the alternative AppleTV product.

Roku $79 and $99 gives you true 1080p Apple doesnt with USB content side loaded.

Media Center does it all and more and is just as easy if you keep media on your pc. My wife can listen to music from the central Window Home Server in the basement and browse the internet on her HP Touchsmart (full touch screen all-in one and media center is already configured for touchscreens) from the setup in the kitchen and easily switch back over to kids pictures slide shows playing to her favorite music while kids can play games and watch videos of themselves in the loft, while my 16 year old can stream HD content to the tv in the living room through our 2nd Xbox while I am in the office watching live local HD TV, Blu-ray Star Wars, listening to music, or creating kid movies for the grandparents. All this while still being able to stream content to my android to show people on the fly whats on my server at home, or just stream my own music in a Pandora-like fashion without my head in the cloud.
Sure I bought a $499 server and still running my 6 year old Dell XPS PC on Win 7 and invested in a $40 HD tuner device. Also, have a $699 touchsmart and 2 xboxes, but most people have most of those things (more than one computer and at least one xbox/ps3 per household) anyway. You dont have to be a techie to set it up either. Wizard on your computer and enter an 8 digit code in any device on the extenders.

Sorry Vulpine...
Even Jobs said AppleTV was one of its weakest products, but i believe it has big potential to take over and be the center of everything with the biggest monitor in the house. This is just another example of Apple charging more for less and making it proprietary enough to remove choices because it takes away from their integrated iTunes service. Its not better, not easier, and according to many less reliable. It has a pretty case design though! Can't believe they tried to sucker people in at $300 when it first came out, good thing there was a choice.

That you have to use a PC--priced at a minimum of $375 plus OS--to use it, making it four times as expensive as the AppleTV. I never argued that Media Center couldn't do more, but it's also far more expensive to purchase and set up than an AppleTV. Media Center also does NOT have the easiest UI to use, either, though with today's menu-driven devices it's hardly the most difficult to use as well.

You pay for what you get. I get what I pay for. I'm also quite happy with what I get.

Aside from devoted Apple people who doesn't have a machine in their house that runs XP or better already? It's like you saying my iCool portable self-contained cooling snack holder sure is alot cheaper than your Fridge. Who doesn't already have a Fridge? That's the point, it's a cool feature that Apple trys to charge you more for instead of building into their OS for free like MS (that's the comparison you should be making on price). It's ok...you can say the UI for Media Center is better and easy enough for kids to use. I'm not sure what the comment is about on not the easiest one to use, don't know how easy you want it but the UI is as easy as they get. Scroll up and down or left and right. It's better than Apples' top down menu and more intuitive to find stuff that is just greyed out and you can see it navigate to it. But even easier is already here already with just hand waving in the air to move between movies with Kinect. Don't even have to look for and use your one button universal Apple remote. When you can use touch devices or wave your hand in the air with it, I would say it doesn't get any easier than that. I'll admit I am heavily invested in WMC because it's better, has more features, and has done stuff for years at a time when Apple media was tethered to their computer only. Can't we just agree some are into looks and some are into performance...I personally am into both (being a web designer and a hardware enthusiast) and still fall on to the PC side. I think I know how MAC people feel about their cases when I saw the user interface for Media Center for the first time. With PC's there is so much that can be done to differentiate, from what OS you run to what case you buy, to how your cool internals look in a windowed case, to what skins and widgets you can put on your desktop to what applications you run. It's not Mac Vs. PC...it's MAC vs. Choice. Not just another comparison of brands. Two different people that will never see eye to eye because all you have to do is Google under images for custom mac case, and custom pc case. Both computers, one for one that doesn't like computers, one for the enthusiast. It's why today at Best Buy I was looking at laptop fans to cool my i7 Dell Studio and the salesman says that he has the same thing going on with his Macbook Pro i7. I thought since he knew is cpu and he sold computers all day long, I asked how hot his was running, thinking he would tell me a cpu temp. He said "Pretty hot, too hot keep on my lap without something under it in bed." His recommendation as he leaned over to me like he had an inside secret to not needing to purchase this $30 dollar fan. He looked back at the other associate like he was about to break some store policy. "Ya know, Just take a look at all the programs you have up and running and shut down all the ones except for the one your are using." I thanked him kindly for the secret tech answer and really just felt sorry for the poor boy brought up on a mac.

Many of your statements in this response are quite valid and sensible; yet you destroy their validity by insisting that one is 'so much better' than the other. As you said, it really depends on the user which is better, and the average user doesn't have the same kinds of knowledge that we do.

That said, you seem to make the assumption that anybody with an XP (or later) PC will almost automatically have it connected to their TV, no matter where in the house it may be. My blunt response to this assumption is "Bunk!" While a PC may be in the living room (bedroom or whatever other room may also contain a TV) that doesn't mean it's automatically attached or even that the user knows how to connect it. That alone makes Media Center a more PC-centric function rather than an entertainment center feature. Yes, I know fully well that it can be connected, but for some people at least it's neither intuitive nor easy to perform. That Media Center PC doesn't necessarily come with written instructions on how to connect it the way other devices (DVD players, etc.) do. For those who don't have a PC in their living room, they're most likely to want to dedicate a machine to their media center which immediately generates the cost of a PC (a mini-sized machine well meets the need but still tends to cost in excess of $400 for a decent one) plus the Media Center apps if not already included in Windows. Of course, the TV itself would then serve as the display.

At $100, the AppleTV is a quarter the price and offers much of the same functionality--barring that of accessing third-party media sources like optical disks. AppleTV is easier to set up and easier to use within its limits than a Media Center PC plus offering streaming capability from other PCs within the house and even from mobile devices such as the iPad and iPhone while also allowing those mobile devices to perform as remote control and even game controller.

Which is better? That really depends on the user. I, personally, prefer the AppleTV to Windows Media Center specifically for its simplicity and ease of use. I will admit it would be nice to include some form of Blu-Ray connectivity to the device, but my luck with Blu-Ray players has been abysmal--two different models giving me similar problems but with different disks. What plays well on one, fails to play entirely on the other. I think this is why Apple has refused to utilize Blu-Ray so far.

I said that if you love iTunes, have a Mac, iPhone and more you should shell out the $99 for AppleTV as a way of getting your digital media stored on your Mac access from your TV. What I was comparing was what was best for everyone in general and breaking down feature by feature (which most review sites do to compare what is better). Based on that I can say Roku and Media Center are better than AppleTV hands down. The only advantage is if you are Apple all the way you have a way to stream your content from your MAC now, which I say should have been built in to the OS already without needing to buy a device.

Just making the point that Media Center is better all by itself for those with an xbox and a PC anywhere in there house or and extra pc they could devote to media center for hookup directly to your TV instead of an xbox or media center extender. (I don't have my PC connected to the TV, it just uses the two xbox's as extenders and because it is part of the OS, my wife can use the HPTouchsmart in the kitchen as a TV and Computer...pretty cool) Also if you don't have a Mac, Roku is better, for less money.

The setup is better as well as the product.

AppleTV only has advantages for other media content if you are already a Mac computer user at home. What it is not as good at is it's primary focus streaming video and audio from the internet and on top of that decides not to do standard Blu Ray, DVD, USB, or any type of DVR. (Flash and Silverlight DejaVu?) The reason is it would interfere with iTunes and their agreements with the media giants. No problem business decision, most informed people will also make a consumer business decision. Aside from hooking up to iTunes which I don't think would be worth it for the extra money if you ...

Can't do true 1080p
Can't get as many channels
Can't sideload other media content with USB
Can't Play games
Can't watch HD OTA TV...(I know going away, but I still like taking through my cable connection and still be able to play it in HD)

...all through a UI that is not as easy or functional as Media Center.

Making the decision to not allow any Apple computer to essentially be an AppleTV is all due to having you shell more money out for AppleTV and eventually the Apple add on LED big screen monitor to replace your television.

I understand why AppleTV is good for someone like yourself and would be willing to pay more where you get some extra functionality because you are knee deep in Apple. Just don't say the device is better as a stand alone or if you are already a PC user as I think we've proven that is not true. Roku is better stand alone, and if you want more and have PC's Windows Media Center will take it to the next level.

My bias is towards the truth and having choice and not being limited in my media choices. A media computing giant not supporting Blu Ray...they would have made it happen if it didn't interfere with iTunes especially for all those poor Europeans that don't have the bandwidth that the U.S. has. This is why I will never buy Apple products is because they limit the possibilites and any "Techie" who loves Apple is fooling themselves that they are on the innovative front other than overall hardware proprietary design for looks. They are taking table scraps of whatever one company chooses to feed them and that is not innovation. That is the essence of the Apple vs. Everyone debate....

However, your insistence that WMP is "... best for everyone in general... " is no more true--or false, than mine for the ATV. What's best for any individual is what they like, not necessarily what WE like. I can still promise you that a huge majority of people think an ordinary cable box or satellite receiver is all they need or want. On the other hand, what is easiest for the average user is more likely to be the best in the long run. Roku may be cheaper but lacks things the ATV offers, WMC offers much, much more in its way, but costs 4 times as much and has to be set up by a tech. You don't have to be "Apple all the way..." since you can stream from iTunes in Windows just as easily.

No, your bias is pure Anti-Apple Zealotry. I've played with WMC. I know an MSCE who uses WMC. I know what it's capable of. But I also know that even that MSCE had to do a significant amount of configuration to make it consolidate his media center--something no "average user" could do without help. Even the ATV requires some setup, but not nearly as much and usually can be performed by the user with a little telephone support. I doubt that the Roku, for being $20-$50 cheaper is any easier.

Oh, and I suggest you be careful with your assumptions; you could leave yourself open for libel.

Thanks for the debate. I am seeing a parallel with CarmelApple and it's as ugly on the inside.

is it more innovative when Apple uses the same innovation available to other manufacturers and who have produced the same kind of products and with the same ease of use?

Give me a break!

The only thing you keep demonstrating in all your posts is that, you're nothing more than a shill for all things Apple. That's an unhealthy love affair, and unless you work for Apple, it makes no sense whatsoever to live your life defending Apple so much.

nt

Instead of saying that we're heading towards a Post PC era, I'd say we're headed towards to an "always connected" era...being able to connect to the Internet anywhere at any time has been a HUGE boon on society as a whole. People are now connecting via Smartphones and iPads in ways they had never connected before...on the go.

Computers and PCs will always have their place. Tablets and smartphones are "companion devices"...essentially a mini computer that will keep you connected on the go.

Tablets and smartphones are great for keeping people connected to the Internet and consuming content while on the go...they aren't that great when it comes to content creation. That being said, it is possible to create content (such as an Excel document or an edited movie) on a smartphone or tablet, however creating said content often takes longer and is more cumbersome vs. creating said content on a full size computer.

There are a vast number of people who do not have the connectivity you are talking about. And most of them won't have it any time soon.