Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Google and Apple Finally Teaming Up? 126

Posted by CmdrTaco from the peanut-butter-in-the-chocolate dept.
nieske writes "Rumors are spreading about Google and Apple teaming up to form a video alliance. Google might provide streaming video content for Apple's upcoming iTV, which was revealed in last week's Apple event. The only thing that seemed to be missing in the iTV preview was streaming video, and with Google's Eric Schmidt on the Apple board of directors, this alliance might actually not be so far-fetched."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google and Apple Finally Teaming Up? More

Google and Apple Finally Teaming Up?

Comments Filter:

  • Poo Pooing ITV (Score:5, Interesting)

    by esconsult1 ( 203878 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @11:47AM (#16130534) Homepage Journal

    Lots of people dismiss this product, but the kicker for me is that its priced so I can put one in each room with a TV, instead of a PC beside each TV.

    Imagine watching Youtube on your bigscreen... (on the other hand, with that crappy video, perhaps not).

    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by MustardMan ( 52102 )
      Youtube videos look like shit at their normal resolution - I never run them fullscreen because they are so blocky. I can only imagine a 42" SoaP fan video at threegrainy x toosucky resolution. At least google video supports varying resolutions, some of which don't utterly suck.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Amouth ( 879122 )
      the "only thing missing" in my mind.. is a god damn tunner.. if for that price it had a TV tunner card on it i would be first in line no doubt about it.. - that is why i havn't picked up a mini yet.. i can't seem to find a good tunner..
      • Here you go. [elgato.com]

        Even the original Mac Minis are fast enough to handle MPEG2 decoding required for the EyeTV 500 (in software, since the Minis don't have a good video card). Pair it with a projector for a "cheap" HDTV (only $2000 for as-big-as-your-wall vs. $2500 for a wussy little 42").

        • First of all, that's a really horrible design considering how stiff coaxial cables are -- I can easily imagine that thing either pulling out or snapping off it's USB port, especially if you use it with a laptop (as pictured).

          Second, what I'm surprised nobody has made is a TV tuner designed to stack under the Mini (like all those external hard drives, etc.).

          • Re:Poo Pooing ITV (Score:4, Informative)

            by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @01:37PM (#16131565)

            First of all, that's a really horrible design considering how stiff coaxial cables are -- I can easily imagine that thing either pulling out or snapping off it's USB port, especially if you use it with a laptop (as pictured).

            Does that happen? I've never, ever broken any of my USB ports, even though I routinely plug and unplug peripherals, especially for my laptop.

            Second, what I'm surprised nobody has made is a TV tuner designed to stack under the Mini (like all those external hard drives, etc.).

            If you go back to the Elgato Web site, you'll see they offer a half a dozen different PVRs, including several designed to stack under a mac mini. I bought one of these years ago and it has happily been storing my TV shows since, including easy archiving to DVD. It isn't perfect, but it is pretty darn good.

            • Unfortunately, I looked at Elgato's site after I posted the link, and the "old style" breakout boxes are all gone in favor of that crappy USB dongle one.

              It looks like another good vendor has decided to commit suicide by ridding themselves of a decent product line. I was just about to buy one of their EyeTV 200's (I already have the 500) so I could use analog sources into my Mac Mini. Oh well.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 )

                Unfortunately, I looked at Elgato's site after I posted the link, and the "old style" breakout boxes are all gone in favor of that crappy USB dongle one.

                Perhaps you're having difficulty with their odd Web site design? They seem to be selling 250, 310, 410, 610, as well as the USB dongles. The 250 is available directly from their store if that is what you're interested in. Here is a link [elgato.com].

                • I was thinking of the larger ones (like the 200 and 500) with more connectors on them, as well as a Firewire interface.

                  • was thinking of the larger ones (like the 200 and 500) with more connectors on them, as well as a Firewire interface.

                    Well, they have refurbished 500's for sale on their online store. New 500s are available from a number of resellers including macmall.com and www.dvd-rwmedia.com.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Golias ( 176380 )
                If a dongle connected to a coax frightens you, just use the USB extention cable (which I believe they include in the package), and think of it as a REALLY small break-out box.

                There. Problem fixed.

                If *that* is not good enough for somebody, I'll gladly sell them my EyeTV 500 (which connects via firewire) for the price of one of the new hybrids. Not because I give a rip about analog signals, but because I tend to stuff my firewire connection to the gills with external drives and what-not, so shifting the TV
            • Does that happen? I've never, ever broken any of my USB ports, even though I routinely plug and unplug peripherals, especially for my laptop.

              Sorry, what I meant was snapping off the USB connector on the device itself, not the port on the computer. Sadly, my iPod Shuffle met that fate (it was plugged into the front port a desktop sitting on the floor, and my boss bumped it sideways with his leg).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firehed ( 942385 )
        Let's not forget a DVD player. Yeah, they're cheap, but the fewer devices I need hooked up to my TV, the better. And not only for space purposes - I don't want eight sets of cables and need two strip outlets just to hook everything up. As far as I could tell, it didn't have one - which I understand for space purposes, but I really think that it could end up as a fatal flaw (or at least not making it available on a slightly taller $349 model).

        Seeing that it's not a DVR, there's really no purpose to have a
    • The iTV is $300. For that price you could get an entry-level PC or perhaps a secondhand Mac mini. The kicker is that the iTV was actually designed with a 10' interface in mind, whereas you'll have to hack up an interface with a PC solution.

      And I agree, YouTube video would look even worse on a big screen than it does in that little Flash player.

    • Re:Poo Pooing ITV (Score:4, Informative)

      by stubear ( 130454 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @12:41PM (#16131027)
      The iTV is nothing more than a Media CP extender. You still need to have the main system that captures the audio/video or handles the DVDs. The iTV lacks a tuner card and DVD player. While you can put one of these in every room of your house that has a TV, you wouldn't get the same functionality as a Media PC in every room of your house with a TV.
      • The so-called iTV from Apple costs half to a third of the price of a so-called Media PC. It is an appliance. The media center PCs are a tricked-up, slightly extra expensive version of a regular PC running a regular version of MS Windows XP.

        Apple has done a lot of stuff with wireless networking features that other companies have not matched.

        Look at Airport Express "Air Tunes" integration with iTunes running on a Mac or Win 2000/XP PC, for example.

        Apple might be pulling some cool, unexpected features out of
    • I don't have to imagine-

      I do it frequently with my Xbox running XBMC, using an XBMC youtube script. it also will also play nearly any audio/video format out there- I won't be jumping in with iTV, despite being a recent mac switcher (mini).
    • Imagine watching Youtube on your bigscreen

      Oh be still my beating heart.

  • What exactly is an iTV? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acb ( 2797 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @11:54AM (#16130603) Homepage
    Does anybody know what exactly the iTV is based on? Is it based on a special edition of OSX (akin to Windows MCE), a new real-time OS based on Darwin/xnu, Quartz, Cocoa and QuickTime (though lacking large chunks of OSX which are irrelevant), the iPod RTOS, or something else?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )
      My guess is that it is a stripped-down version of OS X. It uses some portions of the kernel, is heavy into Quartz, Cocoa, and Quicktime (as you said), but could not (out of the box) run OS X programs arbitrarily. You'll note that there hasn't yet been a mention of an internal hard drive or other mass media storage, nor an optical drive. From that I would argue that the internal software has a relatively small footprint (less than 1 GB) and isn't meant to be frequently upgraded. This would make it akin i

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by enjar ( 249223 )
      The iTV is based on equal parts marketing, product mock-ups, and Reality Distortion Field :)

    • Mac OS X on the iTV? Don't be silly. The next thing you tell me is that there's a toaster that runs NetBSD...

      Oh wait...

    • Steve said iTV would use wireless streaming or Ethernet and it would have an USB port and a built-in power supply, which kind of points to AirPort Express [apple.com] (and AirPort Extreme), which has wireless (obviously), Ethernet, USB and AirTunes (analog+optical audio). Sounds to me something you could build iTV on.

      Don't know what kind of software it runs, though. Probably something custom made with a couple of shared libraries with OS X.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rubies ( 962985 )
      There are already solutions out there based on Sigma chipsets and Syabas software (the old Neuston mc-500, pinnacle showcenter type boxes). From what I can tell, these are 90% of what the iTV is supposed to be i.e. a box next to the TV with a remote control that will stream music and video off your PC.

      I'm sure it'll be something similar to that (if not based on that). The Neuston/showcenter is actually a nifty little box that was priced way too high when first released. I bought one on sale ($100AUD) and

  • Bandwidth? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by cca93014 ( 466820 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @11:59AM (#16130657) Homepage
    Back of napkin maths...

    My MythTV box in the UK consumes about 1.4 GB of data per hour of programme. That equates to about a 400kbit/second bandwidth requirement to be able to stream broadcast quality standard definition video (I think? Can anyone confirm that?). So basically I'd need at least a 4Mbit ADSL/Cable connection to stream video in real time and that's without enough of an overhead to ensure a 99.9% free picture.

    What resolution did they say the iTV was running at? If I download a film from iTunes, what resolution is it? 640x480? That's a fair bit less than PAL. Maybe they could use a different codec to squeeze some more performance out of it, but it seems that the bandwidth requirements are pretty high right now...

    The problem is that my dad, for example, expects the TV to work, when he turns it on, all the time. If he turns on his TV and gets some "buffering" messages up, he's going to take the thing back to the shop and tell the guy that sold it to him that "it doesn't work properly"...

    Anyone else think that streaming TV is just not ready yet? I'd say we need another couple of years at least...
    • To hell with "Streaming TV." If the iTV does a good job of getting DVDs, music videos, and maybe some tunes with visualization on my plasma TV from my Windows or Ubuntu boxes, I'm going to be first in line to buy one.

    • Re:Bandwidth? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Siberwulf ( 921893 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @12:18PM (#16130814)
      Anyone else think that streaming TV is just not ready yet? I'd say we need another couple of years at least...

      Honestly, I think _quality_ streaming TV is just a pipe dream. As we introduce new TV standards, such as HD, we increase the size and standard of "Normal". With Normal going higher and higher, is it feasible to think that the web will catch up? Will Normal even plateau? I'm not sure, but I venture to say "No"
      • Once people actually get high-speed Internet access at home (fibre, not cable/DSL) it could work. As it stands, Comcast serves HDTV movies on demand to its cable boxes. The quality is good and it takes 20-30 seconds from the time you hit "play" to where it's buffered up enough to play reliably. That can only improve but it's a great start.

        When you consider that most home Internet connections became fast enough for streaming good quality music just a few years ago, I'd say that we have a ways to go before

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by stunt_penguin ( 906223 )
        Honestly, I think _quality_ streaming TV is just a pipe dream.

        Exactly, exactly, exactly! TV over t'internet needs to learn to crawl first- technology writers talk about IPTV and TV over the web as though it's something that can be deployed in the next few years, or as if it's something that isn't going to cost trillions of dollars to roll out. We don't have the means to deploy that kind of network yet, nor do we need to.

        We currently have a way of deploying streaming video to hundreds of millions of T

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *

          Oh, and if 6 differnet people want to watch 6 different programmes, well then that's okay, since all you need is 6 different receivers, not 6x as much bandwidth on your cable connection.

          Not really; the only reason cable doesn't need "extra" bandwidth is that you're already sending all the possible data. The better comparison would be that you'd be sending all those 6 different programs all the time, and if 6 people didn't want to watch then the bits would just be piped to /dev/null.

      • What do you think digital cable is? It's streaming a digital feed over a network. Now, I don't know exactly what protocols and compression they use, and I'm sure they must be doing some QoS stuff behind the scenes so my neighbor's bittorrent doesn't keep me from ordering a movie, but it demonstrates the capability of high-quality streaming. I can get OnDemand HDTV movies over the same line that I could order a theoretical 30Mbps downstream-- don't tell me that video streaming isn't possible.

        Plus, HDTV i

      • you are assuming that television and internet video streaming are growing at the same pace, or with the web growing slower. given that it has taken television to get 60 years to where it is now, and internet streaming just 10 years to get (admittedly only) half decent, my money is on internet video streaming being able to catch up in five years.

        anybody got numbers on the bandwidth needed for one or two HD streams in H.264?
      • "Normal" will eventually plateau at the point where either quality is indistinguishable from real life or where quality is high enough that no one cares anymore. The normal quality of recorded music plateau'd (peaked, actually) in the 1980's, so it's plausible that TV and movies will peak as well. That said, streaming is a download-once-watch-once solution, and is only really suitable for things like live news and sporting events. (Since HDTV is, in fact, a digital stream, it is possible to stream such even

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tiro ( 19535 )
        Yet they are able to broadcast HDTV over the airwaves.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )

      Well that would be easy to fix. Just require a Macintosh. You schedule what you want to see and the Mac downloads it. Then when you go to watch it off your iTV it gets streamed from the Mac in your house. Or a little hard drive in the iTV would work too.

      It's a reasonable solution, and they can let you watch it directly over the net as soon as your connection is fast enough.

    • It'll be streamed from a PC/Mac with iTunes (bought from the store, hopefully it'll support ripped DVDs and other videos) over LAN to the box. Plenty of bandwidth there.
    • not sure what MYthTV uses, but MCE has about the same data requirements because it encodes in mpeg2- so it doesn't have to convert before burning to DVD- mpeg2 is the DVD compression of choice.

      Other codecs offer much better compression and can even keep close in quality- divx, wmv, .h264
      they offer much better size and bandwidth issues than the outdated mpeg2

      Youtube is flash driven- isn't it motion jpeg for video and mp3 for audio?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by kherr ( 602366 )
      A friend was marveling over the weekend about how unbelievably fast the downloads from the iTunes Store were. He said he was getting TV shows at a much higher rate than data (not just video) from most other servers. And you can start watching while the download is taking place (streaming). So Apple's already got a lot of the pieces in place, at both the server and the client. I wonder if they're using the Google shipping containers [pbs.org] Cringely talked about...

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by xoyoyo ( 949672 )
      I think you've fallen for the bit/byte conversion there.

      1.4Gb of data equals 400kbytes a second, or 3200kbits a second. Your calculations are right though. The 3-4Mbits speed is the sweet spot for MPEGII: judging by the crap on the screen I'd say Sky runs some of its channels way below that, but yes you'll need a fast connection to make broadcast streaming work, for very low values of broadcast.

      As to iTunes movies being 640x480 - Apple has only rolled the service out in the US so far and 640x480 is NTSC. I
    • Anyone else think that streaming TV is just not ready yet? I'd say we need another couple of years at least... Not really. Let's face it, digital cable is basically streamed to your home. It's just the manner in how it's handled. What hurts most streaming video (aside from the quality of image and all that discussion - irrelevant as Digital cable quality CAN be done easily) is that bandwidth for it is not dedicated. You hook up your digital cable to your DVR from the Cable company and that entire system
    • An obvious response to your post is to say "download instead of stream." So say you try to download a HD stream on a 5 Mbit link (cable speed)...25 GBytes at 5 Mbit/sec works out to a 136 hour download - almost a full week day and night. 680 hours if you're on DSL.

      Run fiber instead of copper and you get 100 Mbit/sec or a tad under 7 hour downloads. So for those lucky folks who have fiber, downloading HD is feasible today if you're willing to download overnight or while you're at work. The rest of us will h
      • 25GB = 200Gb = 40k sec @ 5Mb = 11 hours - not 136. At 100Mbit, it's only half an hour. You need to shove data around more to at least get a ballpark sense of timing.

        Apple's 1080p trailers are about 10Mbit. Streaming 1080p is out of almost all consumers reach but 720p comes right in around 5-6Mbps. Streaming isn't realistic, but the delay to start a program would be tolerable.

        My 3Mbit connection (with a bit of traffic on it) gives me a delay of about 50% for 720p content. A 26 minute program would require me
    • Bah. I meant 4000 kbit/second.

    • The problem is that my dad, for example, expects the TV to work, when he turns it on, all the time. If he turns on his TV and gets some "buffering" messages up, he's going to take the thing back to the shop and tell the guy that sold it to him that "it doesn't work properly"...

      i don't think this is going to replace TV, your dad will still have that to watch if he doesn't have things queued up on iTV. besides, devices like TiVo are acclimating people to watching previously arranged things at a later date

    • My MythTV box in the UK consumes about 1.4 GB of data per hour of programme.

      Using an MPEG4 variant can easily halve that bandwidth requirement at nearly the same quality. You can get quality comparable to VHS much much lower--300-500kbits is not unreasonable, but might look crummy on a larger screen (then again, so would VHS).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Sentry21 ( 8183 )
      You say you need 'at least 4 Mbit' - but is that hard to find? I suppose it might be in some locations, but here in Montreal, I have 10 megabit internet from my cable provider, I could have chosen 20, and a local DSL ISP is about to roll out 24 Mbit ADSL2+ for only about $40/mo.

      This might not be instant-on accessible to everyone, but if it's instant-on to some people and buffer-on to other people, then I'm fine with that.

      Your father might not understand why his TV shows have to 'buffer', but then again, is

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by GeffDE ( 712146 )

      So basically I'd need at least a 4Mbit ADSL/Cable connection

      Or, I mean, maybe you could use it as its intended, i.e. on a network, streaming video from a computer/device on the network. I don't think this is 1985 anymore. 10BaseT ethernet has gone the way of the horsed carriage to make room for the horseless carriage that is 11 or 54 Mbps wireless technology. You have plenty of bandwidth, if you use the iTV as it is intended to be used.

      And perhaps you have never experienced, but with the digital c

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by GWBasic ( 900357 )

      My cable company allows me to stream movies in high definition using their cable box. To support streaming high definition movies over IP, all they need to do is re-allocate their bandwidth.

      Besides, I think we'll initially see a DVR-style service for high-bitrate media. You'll subscribe to shows, and they'll be downloaded and ready to play when you sit down. (This is how iTunes works for television series.)

  • Speculation of course (Score:2, Informative)

    by robinf1 ( 865827 )
    While this item is pure speculation it is at least interesting. I'm unclear why Apple needs Google to stream video though. I don't see the win-win scenario for either. A more interesting idea is presented by Bob Cringley (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060914 .html [pbs.org]). And yes an Apple TV with iTV built in is a great idea and will happen.

  • Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by diesel66 ( 254283 )
    From TFA:
    "It's not hard to imagine a Gapple iTV that that would not only allow you to consume media files on your home theater system, but also stream television content and display relevant advertisements from Google..."

    Let's see, iTV plays movies, TV shows and music I buy from the iTunes music store, why do I need Google? To show me targeted ads? No thanks.

    "...especially since this device requires a network to do anything useful."

    Yeeeaaahhh.... I have broadband just like all the other people the iTV wil

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) *
      Let's see, iTV plays movies, TV shows and music I buy from the iTunes music store, why do I need Google?

      So you can search the web trying figure out exactly how one goes about "consuming" a media file?

      KFG
      • I couldn't finish TFA because that verbiage is so awful: "not only allow you to consume media files on your home theater system, but also stream television content and display relevant advertisements from Google". For a more cluetrain-ish idea of what can be done with media, see getdemocracy. I am so sick of the "content industry" treating users like hamsters that run around the wheel and occasionally suck on the bottle of content they lovingly provide... Sorry, I'm in a bad mood now.

  • So is this... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Morrigu ( 29432 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @12:07PM (#16130724) Homepage Journal
    meaningful or YAGAAR (Yet Another Google-Apple Alliance Rumor)?
  • Apple isn't teaming up with Phillip MOrris or US Tobacco to make iSmoke or anything like that. And Karl Rove still loves his Apple Powerbook. Just saying that's all.

  • I don't see why the cable companies would allow this. It just would be too easy for them to give inconsistent access to this. This would allow the telcos to finally strike back at the cable companies. I could see Bellsouth packaging thier DSL extreme with ITV.

    • Net Neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ModernGeek ( 601932 )
      With net neutrality, cable companies pretty much HAVE to allow it. The reason they don't want net neutrality is so that they can tax the providers using their services (i.e: Bell South can tax Vonage, Comcast can tax Apple, etc). It is a threat, and the threat is real. Vote YES to net neutrality.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Edoko ( 267461 )
      Teaming up with telecos that have been hurt by VoIP telephone services offered by cable, and that are investing heavily to provide fiber to the home or fiber to the curb would be a good strategy, since they do not generally have the expertise to deliver video services, and many appear to be attempting to "copy" the cable TV model (box, fixed channels, etc). Unfortunately, Verizon is working on MPEG-2 technology using Microsofts standard. This is poor quality, poor compression. Also, my understanding is that
  • Another slashdot story about a team-up that is not beyond the realm of feasible possibility.

    Hooray.

    -stormin

  • Dumb, dumb, dumb rumor... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by donnacha ( 161610 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @12:23PM (#16130861) Homepage
    This is a particularly dumb example of classic "slap-2-big-names-together" rumor production. All Apple really has going for it in it's negotiations with the studios is that they, Apple, are the experts when it comes to online distribution. Why in the name of God would they blow that by being seen to defer to Google?
    • The possibility of Google and Apple is not something that should be easily discounted. Think of the markets that Apple reaches right now. Google reaches EVERYONE, which is what Apple is trying to do in the form of the iPod, video iPod, Mac mini, etc. People who think Apple is the worst product on the face of the Earth as a computer manufacturer or that its OS isn't up to par may consider buying an iPod or video iPod. I have friends that hate Apple with a passion who have broken down and bought an iPod s

  • From what i hear and see in Job Postings,
    M$ is working on something similar..

    http://www.microsoft.com/tv/IPTVImpact.html [microsoft.com]

    Just my 2 cents.

  • I wonder if they'd be able to leverage the partnership Google has with Current TV. I find myself actually watching Current a suprising amount. Some of the stuff is quite interesting and it could definately stand wider distribution/attention.
  • I'm not sure if the name ITV is already trademarked, as there's a long established TV station in the UK called ITV [itv.com], which stands for Independent TeleVision.
    • Yeah they can't use that name probably (definately not in the UK). Although ITV isn't a single entity (it's a group of regional companies providing the commercial side of terrestrial TV) they do trade in that name when selling programmes to places like the US - so it's an internationally known name... and being video related is close enough to cause confusion.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by n2art2 ( 945661 )
      In the Keynote, Jobs stated that iTV was just the code name, and that before distribution, another name would take it's place. It's a code name. It's a name that will generate buzz, and that is, afterall, why they showed the box at the media event to begin with.
  • or maybe Goople?
  • ...But who cares? The thing I want to know most about this alliance is Steve Ballmer's response.

    Now that would be entertaining.
  • This might be true, but it sounds like more fake Apple rumors. Keeping in mind the fact that 90% of Apple rumors are completely unbased, look at the holes in this rumor.

    First, Google Video is great, but its video quality is nothing special. The video is very highly compressed and encoded in to a Macromedia Flash container. The result is a very very lossy conversion prosses. Herein lies the problem. Google video's quality is perfect for free PC content, but for TV?? The trend lately is heavily towards H
    • > I for one would NEVER play anything on my television that was below antenae quality (if that).

      If you, like millions of others, pay for digital cable television then you're wrong. You would pay for something far less than antennae quality video. All cable networks compress (with old poor quality codecs) all "Digital Cable" video. Commonly it's MPEG2 compressed with hardware. These systems are expensive, never upgraded, and produce some of the worst compression artifacting available. Try playing any high
  • I'll safely call this rumor until further notice. The addition of Eric Schmidt to the Apple board is strategic, but not necessarily linked to iTV. After all, iTV has probably been in development for a year or more, Schmidt's only been on the board a few weeks. Perhaps his appointment was quid pro quo for an ongoing (and heretofore secret) development alliance between the two companies, but I don't think so.
  • I'll believe it when...

    I read about it on the Fake Steve Jobs Blog. [blogspot.com]

  • A Small Spat (Score:3, Funny)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday September 18, 2006 @01:36PM (#16131552)
    But will it be iTV or gTV at that point?

    Or just split the difference and call it hTV

  • I am from the future Google is not supposed to ally with either Apple or microsoft. Google will be a standalone thing in the future making its own OS and becoming sooo successful that it will buy apple n microsoft to establish a monopoly!! Google CEOs will have enough money to buy several contries. Dont worry guys... alliance is impossible... unless google is like stalin, allying with competitors and then getting rid of them... it'll be kool to see google do that.
  • The true question is if the Earth is a large enough mass to contain the resulting Fanboy pride. Two perfect entities, merging together into something better than perfection? The mind cannot retain its sanity in the fact of such truth, anymore than it can gaze upon the face of God.

    Whole religions were started for less my mortal brethren.
  • Dear Apple and Google,

    Everyone loves you and thinks you'd be a good match for each other. So please get together, if for no other reason than quelling these "will-they-or-won't-they" rumors that keep cropping up.

    Stay safe,
    VJ

  • If Google is happy to team up with the Chinese government, than the least they could do is get in bed with the big DRM pushers.

    "We aim to organise the world's information... and then ruthlessly suppress it."
  • I think ITV [itv.com] might have some reason to complain about that product name
  • I thought Apple had dumped unpteen jillion dollars in akamai [macobserver.com] back in 1999, and akamai was going to be doing all the back end for Apple.

    What does Google got that Akamai ain't got, other than courage?

    HH

    What makes the hottentot hot?

  • In Hong Kong, we already have streaming broadband pay TV [nowbroadbandtv.com] provided over a standard 6-8Mbit DSL connection. Apparently they will be upgrading to HD in the near future. I am not sure if this will coincide with a network upgrade to ADSL2 or something. This has nothing to do with the iTV, but it shows that streaming tv over broadband networks does work. -------- www.ephix.net

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close