BUT the appleTv could have them installed and eventually pursued the users to change based on performance. JUSt like they did with Firewire, still leaving USB as an option.
HDMI's biggest issue is cost and inability to communicate with external hard drives. I think for the appleTV to fully work well, they need total integration.
I'm guessing you're talking about the iTV again. If you have an iTV, you wouldn't need an Apple TV, so the modifications Denny is talking about wouldn't matter. He is saying make a slight mod to an existing product to work with existing TVs and DVRs. That is why adding an hdmi in would work, but a TB port wouldn't.
The media issue isn't the problem. It's having the terabytes to support a large library of media that could be an issue. I guess you could have the iTV be the external HD source, but that creates the "connecting" to the TV; which personally isn't innovative. Samasung and other manufacturers have these "connection type" add ons for their TVs. Apple has to reinvent the way you watch TV.
iTV is a huge purchase that most families would forgo, I'd think. For the $99 price for Apple TV, anyone with a TV could likely afford it. And if Apple did go the iTV route, someone is going to do my idea and bury them anyway.
BTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genlock With HDMI, they could overlay whatever they want on top of the video in source. Like picture in picture, on screen guide, etc. It's nearly free for Apple, and it really could change the way people watch TV. They could notice you like to watch a show like 24 from season 1 to season 8 all at once and tailor its recommendations for you accordingly.
They have devices to convert thunderbolt to HDMI already. It's a bulky add on thing that isn't needed.
Oh sorry... Was busy at work. 439.00 -3.78 (-0.85%) Real-time: 3:23PM EDT 0.85% drop isn't much, especially since they just hit record breaking bond sales of 10 billion just today.
They are avoiding the 35% corporate tax if they bring their cash in the U.S. for the share but back program.
No, I get the math behind the decision. That's pretty obvious and straightforward. I just don't really agree with the general logic of distributing the cash back. They are either 1) Pandering to stockholders or 2) Admitting they don't have a lot of great ideas for investment of capital that will outperform stockholder investments 3) Some combination of 1) and 2). Either way, it doesn't come across as a positive outlook to me.
