[arhans]

Quote

Apple TV versus Mac mini Once Again After obtaining a new Apple TV to replace the Mac mini I had se up with our family TV, I'm back to the Mac Mini. The reason is that the Mac mini can essentially do everything Apple TV can plus access more content. As far as I can see the Mac mini only lacks control with a remote. I use a wireless Apple keyboard attached to a Magic Trackpad using Henge Docks Clique, although it would be nice to control the computer with an iPhone or iPad. Also when I shut down my TV attached to a Belkin power saving strip Apple TV shuts down and restarts automatically when the juice flows to it again after turning the TV on. Mac mini has to be manually restarted. I thought Air Play from a MacBook Air would be the solution for the Apple TV but our MacBook Air heats up and uses so much battery to project on the TV through Apple TV that it is concerning for a fire! Although everyone has different tastes, I find I watch MLB on Safari, my videos, movies and shows on iTunes and other channels like videos from PBS.org, Ted.com, out of town news on ABC web sites all on a Mac mini attached to the TV. It's too bad that Apple TV is not more like a Mac or iOS device where we can download apps like ABC News (or PBS.org or ESPN3, etc.) and watch out of town taped or live video streams. It doesn't seem to make sense to me why I can watch ESPN3 on Safari on a Mac or iOS device but not through an app (or optional download app) on Apple TV attached to my TV? Right now it seems to me the best Apple device for watching the most internet content as well as iTunes media on a TV is a Mac min, and better power management and ability to use a remote would make it perfect.

to solve your remote issues with the mac mini - check out REMOTE HD app. It'll take care of the wireless keyboard and mouse issue for you. Use it all the time with my Mini. Also take a look at www.tvshowsapp.com

[gzenitsky]

"For example: Last week, Roku announced a deal with Time Warner Cable that will let the cable company’s subscribers stream up to 300 live channels through through Roku box. And Roku also added several new channels—including Fox Now, PBS, and PBS kids—to its 700-channel lineup."

No thanks! The last thing I want to be is a cable subscriber, in particular, a TWC subscriber. I want my Roku to replace cable not enable it. I want to cut the cord and there are some good ideas in this article and reader comments on how to do that.

[whitedog]

Quote

The big problem with cord cutting is that the people who own the TV service also own the internet connections. If you cut your TV service they jack up your internet service prices for "not bundling". So, when you combine: -Higher Internet fee -Fees for Video services (Netflix, iTunes, Hulu Plus, etc.) -Equipment purchase (Roku, Apple TV, etc.) You wipe out a significant portion of your savings. Then, throw in no live sports or local news, etc. and it's a lot less palatable. Cord cutting is a lot more like cord augmenting. The reality is that there are a lot more people who pay for cable and do streaming services.

I agree. Though streaming options are getting better, there are still big holes in the available programming. I do some streaming to my TV. But I don't need a Roku or an Apple TV to get streaming content: my 46" Sony flatscreen is internet enabled, with access to many, though certainly not all, streaming content options. Internet enabled TVs will eventually eliminate the need for a separate box - though here, too, at the present time, options are limited and they vary from one TV brand to another. The fact is that a perfect solution is still not available at any price. Whatever option(s) you choose, you will sacrifice some program choices. And it remains the case that the more money you save, the less content you will have access to.

Of course even the most limited options probably provide more content than any person or family can view in an average day - or week. Ultimately, the trouble is not content volume, or even price, but in the selection. For instance, I have HBO but can't afford Showtime and Cinemax. However, if I'm willing to wait a while, I can get Showtime and Cinemax content from Netflix and HBO Go. I'm currently watching the Borgias via Netflix; with On-Demand from my cable provider I'd have to pay a fee to watch every episode. Needless to say, Netflix is a much better deal.

Apple may be behind the curve in some respects, but no one has yet untied the Gordian knot the content creators and providers have wrapped around their products. For that reason the entire premise of this article is specious. Streaming content is far from a tipping point, however much some fans may wish it otherwise.

One other point that always seems to be overlooked by streaming aficionados. One of the biggest criticisms of cable is that we pay for a lot of content we don't use. But streaming services have the exact same problem. Your subscription pays for far more programming than you will ever watch.

As for the Apple TV, using Air Play to access content not available directly from the Apple TV is a big time kluge. All it goes to show is how limited the Apple TV is. But given the confusion in the marketplace, Apple has plenty of time to catch up - if and when a truly customer friendly solution can be worked out. Of course Apple's market model is somewhat different than Roku's: Apple does, or tries to do, a lot of pay-per-view. Pay-per-view is the closest we can come right now to an a-la-carte menu, but it's still very pricey unless your viewing is limited.

And, of course, there are still movies on Blu-ray, which are superior in quality to anything you get over cable or via streaming. My by-mail Netflix subscription is far less expensive than watching the same movies over pay-per-view from my cable provider. And Netflix's streaming selection is still the widest available anywhere, so that's a bargain, too.

In sum, I agree with VitaminCM: for most of us no one option is ideal. If we can afford it, we mix and match the ones that suit us best. Some tech savvy people may cut the cord, but however much they may save over the cost of a cable subscription, they lose out on a lot of programming options that are simply not available via streaming. Not to mention the loss of video and audio quality.

Streaming is great, as far as it goes, but it's not anywhere near "there" yet.

[LanceMiller]

When you spend more money on litigation than you do on R&D somethings got to put on the back burner & it looks like really new innovations is what took the hit.

[ksmith610]

This is all well and good, but how the hell can you do any of this without high speed Internet? Have you researched getting that without dealing with the criminals like Verizon or Comcast? Please advise.

[robotstorm]

I'm surprised Boxee Box doesn't get a mention. I got mine over a year ago and would never go back. It offers more content than Roku for anyone outside of the US. Hulu is US only as well.

[missionChris]

Lots of great points here.

I bought a Roku box over an Apple TV because it's cheaper and has more, and better, services. I don't want to buy a subscription to see a show. If I'm ok with doing that, then I might as well have a cable subscription.

OTA works for me, but I know that it doesn't work for everyone.

My Internet comes from a local company, again, not an option for everyone.

Are there compromises? Yes. Am I ok with making those compromises? Yes.

[alanskyone]

Quote

This is all well and good, but how the hell can you do any of this without high speed Internet? Have you researched getting that without dealing with the criminals like Verizon or Comcast?

They may be criminals, but without high-speed internet, you're out of luck. Your choice.

[stevenoz]

In a quick scan of the posts I don't see anyone mentioning aereo.com

OMG, it's fantastic. It feeds a high-def signal of local OTA stations to you via the Internet. It's $8 a month or free for an hour a day, so you can verify it works for you. You can cancel at any time.

It's got DVR capabilities. It's got other stations too, like Antenna TV, Spanish and Asian language TV stations.

So I can still watch my local news at 10pm... and then Charlie Rose on PBS after that.

It's only in NYC at the moment, but it's expanding to 22 other cities.

I use it with an Apple TV... It comes in via a browser, but I feed it to my big TV via HDMI. Again, it looks like the cable signal, except without the occasional video corruption of a high-def signal over cable.

Thumbs-up from me.

[sensel]

This should have been written 4 years ago.

That is when I thought the same. Apple is the only company with the power (money, tech, influence, connections) to actually compete with big cable. But, for some reason, they missed this.

[wallacestuart]

For me, aereo.com sounds like the approach that would meet my viewing habits if it were in central New Hampshire. I don't watch much sports (except Red Sox), go to see movies in theaters or via DVD, and love CSPAN, NH public TV, and community access cable TV programming. I'm also big on Mac, iPod, and iPad. Cord cutting isn't something that fits my current TV viewing style.