4 ms·

Not quite a real BitTorrent app, but still a nice move forward. I doubt it's any coincidence that Apple started relaxing their grip on the App Store with the r

by risotto 16y ago

Not quite a real BitTorrent app, but still a nice move forward. I doubt it's any coincidence that Apple started relaxing their grip on the App Store with the release of the iOS AppleTV. This is too many platforms and markets to leave vulnerable to competition by a more open solutions. For example: BitTorrent for a TV device is a killer feature for me. Will AppleTV ever offer this or should I wait to see if Google TV will?

IgorPartola 16y ago
Roku is a really nice open player that already has Netflix and will have Hulu support later this Fall. Price is the same or cheaper.
- dangrover 16y ago
  I'm waiting for the Boxee box. Seems the best bet unless Apple pulls off something really amazing with the next rev of the apple tv.
saurik 16y ago
I'd love an explanation of how BitTorrent for a TV device is a killer feature for any purpose other than "illegally obtain content". If that were to be an even remotely popular application on the AppleTV it would seriously jeopardize Apple's relationships with content providers and, by proxy, their ability to cater to their actually paying customers.
- risotto 16y ago
  You are correct. It's generally used for illegal purposes. I'd like to think there's some grey area. If I pay for cable, and have access to Hulu, can I torrent a copy of House too? Probably not since the rip is stripped of advertising. And there is legal video distributed via BitTorrent. Yadda yadda yadda. It's just a given that many people want a TV device that can acquire and play video from anywhere and in any format. Bittorrent would be a killer feature for me personally, that is all. If AppleTV doesn't do this, the adoption rate will be lower. I think it's safe to say that AppleTV hasn't been a runaway success to date with the iTunes Store as the only source. The video sharing stuff in the new AppleTV indicates that Apple wants to open it up to more options. The question is how much farther can it go via 3rd party apps and it's exciting to think about. But Roku or Boxee, as others have suggested, look a lot more attractive in their openness and integrated sources right now. A theoretically hackable Google/Android device seems quite tantalizing too. A fast VLC on the AppleTV sounds like a killer device just begging to download content too.
  - saurik 16y ago
    I am starting to think you believe Apple is making a lot of money on this particular piece of hardware. While that is classically Apple's shtick (sell hardware, lose money on software), I don't feel like the AppleTV falls into this category. Specifically, it is just too cheap in comparison to the other devices that it is nearly identical to. Even the cost breakdowns of it are showing way too low margins from the raw parts (which were priced at almost $70). They really seem to be selling this product subsidized by iTunes and Netflix. Therefore, an argument that "the adoption rate will be lower" seems kind of silly to me... about as weird as the people who claim "the (ads or paywall) on your website are causing you to lose readers": it doesn't matter how many people are using it, the question is whether it is making money. So, if everyone in the world buys one because it supports getting moves for free via BitTorrent (are legal things distributed via BitTorrent? yes. more than two movies you'd ever want to watch? no. are you allowed to get a copy of House via BitTorrent if you pay for cable and hulu? no.) the product would be a complete failure: it would be more successful if no one owned it.

by risotto 16y ago

IgorPartola 16y ago

Roku is a really nice open player that already has Netflix and will have Hulu support later this Fall. Price is the same or cheaper.

dangrover 16y ago
I'm waiting for the Boxee box. Seems the best bet unless Apple pulls off something really amazing with the next rev of the apple tv.

saurik 16y ago

I'd love an explanation of how BitTorrent for a TV device is a killer feature for any purpose other than "illegally obtain content". If that were to be an even remotely popular application on the AppleTV it would seriously jeopardize Apple's relationships with content providers and, by proxy, their ability to cater to their actually paying customers.

risotto 16y ago
You are correct. It's generally used for illegal purposes. I'd like to think there's some grey area. If I pay for cable, and have access to Hulu, can I torrent a copy of House too? Probably not since the rip is stripped of advertising. And there is legal video distributed via BitTorrent. Yadda yadda yadda. It's just a given that many people want a TV device that can acquire and play video from anywhere and in any format. Bittorrent would be a killer feature for me personally, that is all. If AppleTV doesn't do this, the adoption rate will be lower. I think it's safe to say that AppleTV hasn't been a runaway success to date with the iTunes Store as the only source. The video sharing stuff in the new AppleTV indicates that Apple wants to open it up to more options. The question is how much farther can it go via 3rd party apps and it's exciting to think about. But Roku or Boxee, as others have suggested, look a lot more attractive in their openness and integrated sources right now. A theoretically hackable Google/Android device seems quite tantalizing too. A fast VLC on the AppleTV sounds like a killer device just begging to download content too.
- saurik 16y ago
  I am starting to think you believe Apple is making a lot of money on this particular piece of hardware. While that is classically Apple's shtick (sell hardware, lose money on software), I don't feel like the AppleTV falls into this category. Specifically, it is just too cheap in comparison to the other devices that it is nearly identical to. Even the cost breakdowns of it are showing way too low margins from the raw parts (which were priced at almost $70). They really seem to be selling this product subsidized by iTunes and Netflix. Therefore, an argument that "the adoption rate will be lower" seems kind of silly to me... about as weird as the people who claim "the (ads or paywall) on your website are causing you to lose readers": it doesn't matter how many people are using it, the question is whether it is making money. So, if everyone in the world buys one because it supports getting moves for free via BitTorrent (are legal things distributed via BitTorrent? yes. more than two movies you'd ever want to watch? no. are you allowed to get a copy of House via BitTorrent if you pay for cable and hulu? no.) the product would be a complete failure: it would be more successful if no one owned it.