Category Archives: Video

More Android-powered Smart Cameras Are On Their Way

Posted on by

Polaroid unveiled a smart camera powered by Android at CES last winter. I thought it was a great idea at the time and I hoped that the concept would become more mainstream. For this reason, I was glad to see two big players – Samsung with the Galaxy Camera and Nikon with the Coolpix S800c – follow suit in announcing Android-powered cameras recently.

I think making cameras with Android (or any “smart” OS) is a really good idea. Smartphones like the iPhone, Samsung Galaxy S III, and HTC One X have 8 megapixel cameras, and the Sony Xperia S upped the ante with a 13 megapixel camera, and they all come with really cool capture, editing, and sharing features. With such sophisticated cameras already in our pockets, many consumers no longer feel it is necessary to buy and carry around a digital point-and-shoot camera. So adding some of the features that we know and love about our smartphone cameras to our digital cameras is a smart response by the manufacturers.

I still much prefer the picture quality produced by my four year-old Canon PowerShot SD 1100is point-and-shoot camera to that of my Galaxy Nexus smartphone, especially in low light settings. That being said, there are some aspects of my Galaxy Nexus camera that make the decision of which camera to use closer than it should be given the difference in image quality. For example, I really like the zero shutter lag and the single-motion panoramic mode. I also like that I can post photos to Facebook or share them directly with friends almost instantly, and that my photos and videos are automatically backed-up and synced to my computers using Dropbox. In light of these features, it seems archaic to have to connect my Canon camera to my computer via USB and then save, organize, and edit my photos on my computer when there is a much simpler and quicker method. So a device that combines the image quality of my Canon camera with the features of my Galaxy Nexus camera is really intriguing.

I’m not sure what my next camera will be – I’m thinking DSLR, actually – but I would see Android as a big selling point in selecting a camera, whether it is point-and-shoot or someday a DSLR.

PSA: DO NOT buy expensive HDMI cables

Posted on by

This is not exactly news, but it’s a story worth telling…

Yesterday I went with a friend to Best Buy to help him pick out a TV for his new apartment. I was tagging along as an expert of sorts, if you think knowing that plasma sets have a wider viewing angle and darker blacks and LED sets are thinner and use less power makes me an expert. Anyway, after picking out a TV and Blu-ray Player, I told my friend not to spend a lot of money on HDMI cables because all HDMI cables with the same rating produce the same quality picture and sound. And by “same quality” I mean same exact quality, not “the difference is imperceptible to most people” or “the difference is not worth the price.” As HDMI carries a digital signal, it will either work or not work; and different cables, provided they all work, will not produce crisper audio or video. So we picked out a very inexpensive Dynex HDMI cable rated “High Speed with Ethernet” that was $10 for 4 feet. The salesman, who had been nice and knowledgeable up until this point, tried to upsell us to a “better” HDMI cable because “for a TV this size (50″) you will notice the difference in quality.” We went with the cheaper cable.

I was pretty sure of myself on this issue, but when I got home I double-checked my research.  I discovered that I was, in fact, correct: there is absolutely no difference in the picture or sound quality produced by cheap HDMI cables versus expensive HDMI cables, provided they both have the same rating (“High Speed” is best for 1080p video content). So a High Speed generic cable from Amazon or Monoprice produces the same result as a High Speed Monster cable. I researched several reputable websites, below, and every single one came to the same conclusion based both on science and on real-life performance. I was unable to find any websites that said otherwise. The only times where more expensive cables may be worth considering are long distance/in-wall installations and when the cables will be connected and disconnected often, both of which may require sturdier cables. But for a standard 4′, 6′, or 12′ cable, the consensus is pretty unanimous: cheap cables produce the exact same quality result as expensive cables. Here are some blurbs:

CNET: Why all HDMI cables are the same:

[The picture is] either exactly what it’s supposed to be, or it fails and looks like one of the images above [with white pixels known as "sparkles"]. In order for one HDMI cable to have “better picture quality” than another, it would imply that the final result between the source and display could somehow be different. It’s not possible. It’s either everything that was sent, or full of very visible errors (sparkles). The image cannot have more noise, or less resolution, worse color, or any other picture quality difference. The pixels can’t change. They can either be there (perfect, yay!) or not (nothing, errors, boo!).

All the claims about differences in picture quality are remnants of the analog days, which were barely valid then and not at all valid now. There is no way for different cables to create a different color temperature, change the contrast ratio, or anything else picture quality-wise.

Consumer Reports: HDMI cables: Once again, don’t spend more than you need to:

We’ve long been advocates of not paying for pricey cables, which often do little more than pad the pockets of the manufacturers that make them and the retailers that sell them…

So to be clear, unless you plan to regularly disconnect and reconnect components, where it might make sense to buy pricier, sturdier cables with more rugged connectors—or you require very long HDMI cable runs, more than 30 feet—any high-speed-rated cable should suffice. And don’t let a package or retail associate tell you otherwise.

Popular Mechanics: Brand-Name HDMI Cables: Are They Worth It?:

The fact is, HDMI is digital, meaning you either get the feed or you don’t. High prices and gimmicks like gold-plating don’t affect 1s and 0s. Our advice: Purchase your wiring online for cheap, and use the saved money to upgrade to a larger flat screen.”

Crutchfield: The Ins and Outs of HDMI:

You won’t see dramatic differences in picture quality among HDMI cables. Unlike analog video transmission, which can display varying degrees of picture quality, digital video transmission typically delivers a clean, clear picture or no picture at all.

In short, all High Speed HDMI cables should produce identical pictures and sound, so don’t let creative marketing or the hope to avoid “cheap” components talk you into spending more than $10 on an HDMI cable.

 

And on a lighter note, if you want a good laugh check out this $1,095 3.3′ HDMI cable at Best Buy.  The Customer Reviews are worth a read.

Apple TV adds Hulu Plus to its lineup

Posted on by

Hulu Plus announced today that Hulu Plus programming is now available on Apple TV. When I turned on my Apple TV a few hours ago, it was there with no need to update my software.

I am not a Hulu Plus subscriber, but this is still good news to me because it makes me more optimistic that Apple TV will expand its content offerings as rumors suggest.

As I have said before, Apple TV works flawlessly but offers limited content. Having an iOS device and now an OS X Mountain Lion computer adds some possibilities by allowing streaming of content via Airplay, but as a freestanding unit, Apple TV’s only real content channels that the average consumer will be interested in are the iTunes Store, Netflix, and YouTube. Yes, it does offer other options, such as NHL, NBA, MLB and Wall Street Journal subscription channels, but I think the draw and practicality in those options is very limited and most people will subscribe to at most one of those channels. And add on that many Blu-ray players and HDTVs now come with Netflix and Youtube capabilities, and Apple TV really starts to look like an Apple/iTunes accessory and very cool gadget as opposed to a must-have device that serves as an intermediary between internet content and TV/home theater systems. So, in sum, Apple TV could really use more content.

Getting more content is easier said than done, though.

-For starters, a lot of the channels that I would like to see on Apple TV – Pandora, Slacker Radio, and channels from providers such as NBC and TBS – directly compete with Apple’s iTunes Store. Apple has opened up its iOS devices that also play iTunes content to these competing channels, but often on Apple TV, the best way to get the highest quality new content is through the iTunes Store, and Apple may be reluctant to give up that quasi-monopoly. But Apple has shown its willingness to do just that by allowing Netflix and Hulu Plus on Apple TV, so I think that Apple is moving in the direction of having its settop box allow for varied (read: both Apple and non-Apple) content.

-Apple would need to release its SDK (software development kit) to allow developers to make content channels for Apple TV. It is rumored that Apple will do that this Fall with the release of iOS 6, but that is speculation at this point.

-Finally, unlike iOS apps that have widely-varied user interfaces, content channels on Apple TV all use a uniform UI. Unless Apple relinquishes that high level of control over content channels, which I doubt it will, Apple would need give developers detailed specifications and ensure that the apps conform to those specifications – and possibly modify them – before they are added to the Apple TV lineup. This could be a time-consuming endeavor considering potentially hundreds of content-providers could develop channels for Apple TV. I have no doubt that Apple has the resources to do this, but the question is whether Apple will want to devote that time to allowing competition onto Apple TV.

* * *

Apple TV works great and has that “cool” factor, but it could use additional content. Hulu Plus is a good start, and I’m hoping there are more new channels to come. Of course, all this streaming being done with Apple TV and other settop boxes, that in some cases can even allow consumers to cancel their cable TV service and only stream content, begs the question of whether internet service providers, who often are also cable providers, will start to put caps on data in order to encourage customers to keep their cable service. Cox already has caps, and Time Warner Cable is testing out optional tiered data plans for some Texas customers. But landline data-capping is an issue for another time, and for now I just want the best Apple TV possible.

Anyway, here is a list of some channels I’d like to see on Apple TV, largely based on what content providers have adopted the iPad as a content platform:

-CNN
-NBC
-TBS
-TNT
-ABC
-AMC
-Crackle
-Slacker
-Pandora
-Vevo
-WatchESPN (is a moot point for me since Cablevision/Optimum, my cable provider, doesn’t participate)
-Masters and US Open golf tournaments (each have great iPad apps that stream multiple live feeds during tournaments)
-Google Play Music (which is VERY wishful thinking)

VIZIO Co-Star next-generation Google TV set-top box is available for pre-order for $99

Posted on by

Several months ago I was in the market for a set-top streaming device that was to be a birthday gift. The choices then were Apple TV or wait for the next generation of Google TV units to come out, which wouldn’t be until this summer at the earliest. Technically, I also could have gone with the discontinued-yet-still-available-on-the-internet Logitech Revue, which is a Google TV device running outdated software, but it would’ve been obsolete out of the box and I couldn’t get past Logitech’s lazyness in not updating the Logitech Harmony for Revue remote app to support Android devices running Ice Cream Sandwich.

VIZIO has now entered the market with a Google TV set-top box called the VIZIO Co-Star and VIZIO began taking pre-orders on it for $99 yesterday. At the start of writing this entry, the Co-Star was listed as “out of stock,” but is now back to being available. Regardless of whether it is in stock currently, I think this device would’ve given me a real tough decision had it been out last winter when I made the plunge into Apple TV-land.

The Co-Star is a compact square device that measures 4.2″ across and 1.6″ high, and it comes with a two-sided remote – one side with typical controls and a trackpad and the other side with a QWERTY keyboard. There is also a remote control app that can be downloaded on Android phones and tablets. The device has an HDMI in and out jack, a USB port, and wifi, ethernet, DLNA and Bluetooth connectivity. It displays content with up to 1080p resolution with 3D, and up to 5.1 channels of audio pass through (meaning that to get surround sound, the unit will have to connect to a receiver that can decode the audio signal).

Google TV and the Co-Star is designed to be hooked up in-line with the cable or satellite box as opposed to as a separate component, and it allows the viewer to search internet content while watching TV and vice versa. It also comes with the Google Chrome browser with Adobe Flash support, and access to apps in the Play Store. Finally, there is also a search function that allows the viewer to search content on live TV, the internet, and apps, though one wonders whether Apple will feel this is an infringing unified search. I do not see anything about an Airplay-equivalent streaming feature for Android phones and tablets.

I must say I am intrigued by the Co-Star. I like the idea of being able to combine live TV with streaming services rather than use my set-top box in isolation, and I also like the ability to download apps from the Play Store. While I am glad I got Apple TV and I think it works pretty flawlessly, it is limited in content and without an iOS device there really isn’t that much to do with it besides iTunes, Netflix, and YouTube. I would like to see Apple open up the App Store to Apple TV and let users download basic apps like Pandora and Vevo so we wouldn’t have to rely on streaming audio and video content via AirPlay from iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch, and I don’t think doing so would harm the sales of iOS devices either. Aple has been rumored to be adding this functionality for months, but so far it hasn’t happened. By allowing apps to be downloaded with the Co-Star, Google gives users so many more content options, including shows, movies, music, news programs and games.

To me, an area where downloading apps would really come in handy is music. Right now I maintain my music library in both Google Music and iTunes. To get Apple TV to play my music, I either have to stream from my iPad or computer’s iTunes library, or pay $25 a year for iTunes Match; there is unfortunately no ability to interface with my 160 GB iPod Classic via USB and play from its library, and also no ability to store music on the Apple TV itself. So streaming music from Google Music using the Co-Star without having to use any other devices would be great. And again, being able to stream music from other sources such as Pandora or Slacker Radio without having to involve another device is also a really nice feature.

As with all other new devices, the success of the Co-Star will be determined by how smoothly it works. So far all we know is that there is demand for a Google TV set-top box – even sight unseen – in the $100 price-range. I look forward to reading reviews – VIZIO links to four positive reviews on its product page but it looks like the reviewers had no or limited hands-on time with the device, so I will keep an eye out for more thorough reviews.

Also worth noting, especially since I somehow missed the product announcement, is that Sony released a Google TV set-top box for $199 a few weeks ago. I’m out of steam to get into details, but it looks pretty good, but the pricetag is a little high considering the competition.

Here’s VIZIO’s commercial for the Co-Star:

Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee

Posted on by

Apologies for my absence these past few weeks – I had weddings on two consecutive weekends that I had to travel for, and then the British Open occupied a good chunk of my free time the past few days.

Anyway, I’ve been meaning to give a shout out to Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee, which is a new internet show by Jerry Seinfeld that is “backed by” Sony-owned Crackle (note: I have been unable to find out exactly what Crackle’s investment in the show is). The first episode, with guest Larry David, premiered last Thursday night. Basically the show covered Jerry driving Larry to a coffee shop and them getting coffee. The conversation included topics like whether it was appropriate for it to bother Jerry (or Larry’s ex-wife) for Larry to drink tea instead of coffee at the coffee shop and why anything someone says while smoking a cigar seems intelligent. For such a big Seinfeld and Curb Your Enthusiasm fan, I thought the episode was really funny. The show will be completely dependent on its guests, though, so only time will tell how any episodes Jerry has in him.

As for how to watch it, I was able to access the episode in Safari on my iPad and then use AirPlay to get it on my TV. The HD quality and playback was the same as watching a show on cable, though it did take a little more setup. Originally, I could only find the episode on its own website, but it has since become available on the Crackle App on iOS and Android, as well as on some Sony products, Google TV, Verizon Fios, TiVO, Roku, Playstation 3, XBox 360, YouTube, and Hulu (note that some of these platforms carry only limited Crackle content). While Boxee does not appear to have a Crackle app, I would think it could stream the show from the show’s website, though I have no way of verifying that. In short, there are many ways to watch this show, and most people, with a little effort, can find a way to see it.

The more important part of this story, though, at least as far as this blog is concerned, is that Jerry Seinfeld is a pretty big name to be doing a show on the internet, and I think that is a good sign for the growing internet-TV medium. Last fall I wrote about YouTube’s reported $100 million investment in original content, and Yahoo! and Amazon have since announced plans for original programming. Unknown to me, Crackle has been producing original content for several years.

As is evident from the above list, there are many platforms that carry Crackle and its original content, and the number of platforms that carry some kind of streaming content is growing. A quick look at Best Buy shows that many TVs and Blu-ray Players have internet capabilities (though apparently the internet capabilities often aren’t used). I feel like I’m running into more and more people who have Apple TV, and I think that Google TV has a lot of potential and once some good hardware comes out with it, we will see more people buy into that as well. As more and more people buy smartphones and tablets, I think there will be an increased demand for set-top boxes that seamlessly interact with these other devices. So the framework is there for people to watch internet programming. Of course, there is also always the option of watching shows on a computer screen rather than a TV screen, but I think content needs to make it to the TV screen to get really good viewership.

The problem, though, is that the process of watching shows and the availability of shows can really vary by device or platform, and that can serve as a barrier to entry by people, especially those who aren’t technologically inclined. Turning on the TV and navigating to a certain channel is a natural process for most people, while finding and watching content on the internet may not be. That’s why mediocre shows on TV still get millions of viewers – because people like to sit down and watch whatever is on TV. I think as the user-interfaces of streaming devices improve and as more content creates a buzz the way Comedians In Cars Getting Coffee has, more people will experiment with watching content via the internet.

Google Unveils Android Jelly Bean, Nexus 7 and Nexus Q, Google+ and Google Play Improvements, and Google Earth 3D Goes Live

Posted on by

Google had a busy day today at its I/O 2012 event and unveiled several new software and hardware offerings.


Android Jelly Bean:
Google unveiled the next version of Android, dubbed “Jelly Bean.” Jelly Bean is more of an incremental update than what we saw with Ice Cream Sandwich, and is aimed at giving a smoother user experience. New Features include improved notifications, better keyboard/predictive text and voice typing, and redesigned search and improved Voice Search. Also, Jelly Bean includes Google Now, which uses “cards” “that get[] you just the right information at just the right time,” whatever that means:

Android Jelly Bean will be released in Mid-July, and will be pushed via OTA updates to Galaxy Nexus (thankfully!), Motorola Xoom, and Nexus S.


Google Unveils the Nexus 7 Tablet:
The Nexus 7 is the first Nexus tablet – a tablet designed with Google’s input – and is built by ASUS. It features a 7″ 1280×800 display, a quad-core Tegra 3 processor, 1 GB RAM, WiFi, BlueTooth, NFC, GPS, micro USB, a 1.2 MP front-facing camera, a 4325 mAh battery with a stated 10 hour life while web browsing and 8 hour life while watching HD movies, and it weighs 340 grams. The device will ship with Jelly Bean, and will be the first device to ship with Google Chrome as the stock browser. It will retail for $199 for the 8 GB model and $249 for the 16 GB model, and there is a limited time offer to receive a $25 Google Play credit with the purchase of a Nexus 7. The device is expected to ship in mid-July.

Judging by the commercial below, the Nexus 7 will tie in with the Google Play Store’s apps, games, music, movies, TV shows, books, and magazines, as well as Google Maps, GMail, Google+, and YouTube. It will be able to do other things, too, but the marketting suggests that it is intended to be a media consumption device to compete with the Kindle Fire.

I think the Nexus 7 looks really good, and the price definitely makes it an appetizing choice for someone looking to buy a tablet. I do wonder, though, with the increase in display size of top-tier Android phones, which range from 4.5″ to 5.5″, whether there will be some consumers who feel that the Nexus 7 is not enough of an increase in size over their smartphones to warrant buying it and carrying it around. I still think even with my 4.65″ Galaxy Nexus, the Nexus 7 would be a nice improvement for reading and watching movies while travelling long distances, and for $199 I’d consider it.


Google Unveils the Nexus Q:
The Nexus Q is a media-streaming device that can connect to a TV, receiver, and/or directly to speakers, and stream content from Google Play Music, Movies, and TV, and YouTube. It is a black sphere with a 4.6″ diameter, with 32 LED lights that move to the music, ethernet, WiFi, micro-HDMI, and amplified stereo speaker outputs (with a 12.5 watt output per channel). It can be controlled by Android phones and tablets (I don’t think there is a free-standing remote for it), and the top half of the dome can be turned to adjust the volume or tapped to mute the volume. The Nexus Q has the ability to let party guests request songs from their own library, and Nexus Qs can also be linked together to provide sound in multiple rooms. The device will retail for $299 and is expected to ship in mid-July. Here’s the commercial:

$299 seems steep to me for this kind of device, especially one that relies solely on Google Play content, which although improving is still limited. Its music capabilities seem to be what Google is marketing, but I really do think if Google added a few more video content channels and/or an AirPlay-like streaming from apps on Android devices, the price tag would be easier to swallow. It is relatively simple to hook a computer, iPod, or phone up to a stereo system, and I don’t think the added music functionality is worth the price. As for movies and television, the iTunes Store, which can be accessed from the $99 Apple TV, has a far better selection than the Google Play Store. If Google could let people watch content from apps on their phones, or maybe even browse the web using their phones and the Nexus Q, then the Nexus Q would be much more enticing to Android users. All that being said, that little sphere would look pretty cool on my entertainment center, but unless I come into a lot of money, I don’t think it is worth the price.

Google Play Store will now carry magazines, television shows, and allow for movie purchases (as opposed to just rentals):
That is self-explanatory, and it is obvious from the Nexus 7 and the Nexus Q that Google is trying to step up their content offerings.

Google Improves Google+:
Google also announced several improvements to Google+. First, there will be a new Google+ app designed for tablets that is attractive and user-friendly, and also a redesigned Google+ app for Android phones. The apps are available for Android devices now and for iPads in the future.

Google also announced new Events functions, including “beautiful invites,” Google Calendar syncing, a “Party Mode” that instantly uploads photos taken during an event to the Event page, and a way for guests to upload photos after the event to the Event page as well.

I like Google+ and think it has a lot of potential. Unfortunately, no matter how great its features are, it will live and die based on the number of people who use it. Right now, less than 10% of my Facebook friends use Google+, and I think those who do “use Google+” only have a profile page and don’t actually visit the site or post updates. So no matter how great the features are – and some Google+ features are awesome – I won’t use Google+ for social networking unless there are people there with whom to network. I’m hoping people start switching to Google+, but I feel most of my friends won’t make the jump as long as they are relatively happy with Facebook.

Google Earth for Android Goes 3D:
The 3D Google Earth functionality went live today in the Google Play Store. The 3D maps cover 14 cities so far, and look pretty good. Surprisingly, New York City, my hometown, is not featured in 3D yet.

I bought Apple TV

Posted on by

I’ve had my eye on Apple TV since seeing the album art screensaver years ago at a friend’s party. But as I often do, I got caught up in a waiting game and ended up getting nothing for all this time. First, I wanted to wait until Apple TV got 1080p support. But more importantly, I was – and still am – sort of torn between the Google/Android and Apple ecosystems, liking certain aspects of each and enjoying both on my Galaxy Nexus and iPad, respectively. And that’s the thing with the gadget market now – we’re not just buying a nice smartphone, tablet, streaming device, etc., we’re buying the ecosystem that comes with it. Google and Apple each make it really easy to sync music, movies, apps, photos, documents, and bookmarks across multiple devices on the same platform, but really difficult to do so when different platforms are involved. So it is really easiest to stay consistent with regard to platforms.

After liking my Galaxy Nexus and Google Play Music so much, I wanted to wait for the next batch of Google TV settop boxes to come out to at least see how they stack up to Apple TV. But due to the lack of real info on release date (probably this summer at the earliest) or price, and also due to having a February birthday and my father asking me several times what I wanted, I decided to cave in and buy Apple TV so I could enjoy it now rather than waiting indefinitely as is my M.O. And I am not surprised that I really like it.

Setup:
Setup for Apple TV (ATV) is really simple and easy and really only requires two connections – HDMI and power. Initially, I used wi-fi for the first few days but then decided to hardwire it to my router to be safe.

One oddity: I have ATV routed via HDMI through my home theater receiver, which then connects to a 768p plasma TV. So in the settings I changed the TV resolution from “auto” (which ATV set to 720p) to “1024×768 – 60 Hz” to match my TV resolution. The picture came through fine, but I lost audio. No big deal, but I found it odd that the display resolution can affect audio.


Remote:
The remote is functional and attractive (and tiny). It does what I need it to do, but if I didn’t have an iPad to use as a remote I would find it a pain to input text (like when searching YouTube) with just multi-directional and select buttons. The iPad remote works well.


User interface:
The user interface consist of tiled icons that provide access to different content. It is attractive and easy to use, but not customizable.


iTunes Store content:
The iTunes Store is broken down into different icons for movies, television, podcasts, trailers, etc. The layout within each is very attractive and intuitive. Based on my experience, previews and trailers are HD but in stereo only, while a movie I rented from iTunes was in HD and had 5.1 Dolby Digital audio. It looked and sounded great, and while Amazon on Demand on my Blu-ray player dropped down in quality at times based on connection, I never had that issue with ATV.

Also, the iTunes Store has a really great selection – probably the best on the market, and is very well-suited for a settop box.


Computer connectivity:
Another way to get content on ATV is to stream it from iTunes on a Mac or PC. This works seamlessly for audio and video, including 1080p video, based on my experience. There’s also a way to share photos through iTunes, and there is really nice slideshow functionality, although I wish ATV recognized folder heirarchy (as is it displays all photos from folders and subfolder in the same giant folder).

Album art screensaver:
One thing I was really interested in and had trouble setting up was getting the album art from my iTunes library to be used in the screensaver. Based on my research on the issue, many people think that Apple discontinued this feature. Whether it was once temporarily discontinued or not, I was able to find it with some effort. The default screen saver pattern is “random” and with that option set there is no album art option. But when I changed the pattern to “floating” I discovered that there was, in fact, an album art option and it let me select which iTunes library to pull from. And I was pleasantly surprised to find that the screen saver still ran even when the computer from which the album art was pulled was off, so I guess the unpublished 8 GB of flash memory is holding my album art.


Other content channels:
The YouTube channel works well. There’s also Vimeo and Flickr, neither of which I have used yet. I would love to get the NHL Network channel but it is pretty expensive (through no fault of Apple). The free NHL content – standings, schedules, and highlights, are still pretty cool though. I may give Netflix another shot after discontinuing it because I didn’t have time to watch enough movies to make it worthwhile.

[UPDATE: I decided to give Netflix a try and the interface looks really good, and the appearance and interface is consistent with the iTunes Store too, which is a nice touch. So far Netflix has been working well. The HD looks good, but not quite as good as Blu-ray, and I will wait till I watch more iTunes content and Netflix content before I compare their quality. There is a good amount of HD content. Some Netflix movies/shows have Dolby Digital audio, but that is really hit or miss, unfortunately.]


AirPlay:
Of all features of ATV, this is where it is most important to have an iOS device. AirPlay allows media to be streamed from an iOS device (or from iTunes) to ATV. It works really well and opens up the door to much more content on ATV, as I can now stream full TV shows, news reports, etc., from apps on my iPad. There is also AirPlay Mirroring, which allows the exact screen from the iOS device – even when there is no media being played on it – to be “mirrored” on ATV. I was disappointed in myself for not reading the footnote on Apple’s website that says that AirPlay Mirroring is only available on the iPad 2 or later and the iPhone 4S. But AirPlay still works on my original iPad, and that is good enough for me.

Negatives:
First and foremost, I wish that ATV could pull music from my iPod Classic via the dock connector. I understand that Apple is trying to push iCloud and iTunes Match, but it still sells iPod Classic and should make an effort to integrate it with other Apple products, like ATV.

I also wish that ATV had more sizable and accessible memory so that I could store some music on it rather than relying on having a computer with iTunes running or using the subscription-based iTunes Match. Again, I understand that Apple is pushing the cloud, and that the lack of memory allows for lower prices, but maybe 16GB of user-accessible storage wouldn’t hurt.

The lack of analog output is a negative too. I know that the digital audio carried by HDMI and optical is far superior to analog, but not everyone has a sound system that allows for digital audio input, and people should not have to rely on their HDTV to convert the audio from digital to analog. For me, my Pioneer receiver plays HDMI audio without a problem. But it has also “zone 2″ function that allows audio to be sent via analog cables to a second receiver in another section of my apartment, and it cannot convert digital audio to analog for zone 2. This issue probably affects a very small percentage of people, but it is still frustrating.

I’d like to see a built-in browser and some more apps that deliver free/ad-supported content. And the ability to re-arrange the content icons. Wishful thinking, I know.

Conclusion:
I really like ATV and it is definitely worth the relatively low $99 pricetag. Its user interface is really easy to use and ATV is great for watching YouTube, NetFlix, and renting movies and TV shows. But really, it is more fair to look at ATV as sort of a connector between Apple and TV rather than a standalone device, and ATV is exponentially more useful because I am already in the Apple ecosystem by using iTunes and iPad. This is certainly by design, and provides an incentive to stay in the Apple ecosystem.

I will keep my iTunes and Google Play Music libraries current and continue to use my iPad and Galaxy Nexus (which I would anyway) in order to get the best of both the Apple and Google ecosystems.

Netflix wisely abandons Qwikster split

Posted on by

Netflix has had an interesting few months. This past summer, Netflix caused an uproar when it announced its plan to raise prices. Under the new pricing structure, it is $8 a month for unlimited streaming, and starting at another $8 a month for the traditional DVD-by-mail service. This would essentially force customers, who were used to paying $10 per month for unlimited streaming and one DVD-by-mail at a time to choose between streaming or DVD, or fork over another $6 per month to have both. Or cancel their Netflix service. Last month, Netflix’ CEO released a statement to customers apologizing for not explaining the reasons behind the rate increase. He also said that the Netflix DVD-by-mail service will be known as “Qwikster” and that the streaming service will be continued under the “Netflix” name.

Today, Netflix announced that its DVD-by-mail service will continue under the “Netflix” name. I think this is a smart move – Netflix is such a well-known name that is synonymous with DVD rentals by mail to consumers (in trademark terms, I would say it is both famous and has acquired secondary meaning, which are both good things for a trademark to have). So I think it doesn’t make sense to give up a brand name that has become a household term in favor of a new name that no one has heard of. Also, it is smart to streamline the rental and streaming services on one website for ease of use and also to increase traffic to the Netflix website.

I will say this though: If I were Reed Hastings, Netflix’ CEO, I would really limit the amount consumer complaints factor into my business decisions. It is nice that Netflix takes customer satisfaction into account, but the bottom line for it is subscriber numbers, not public opinion on blogs and social networks. If Netflix raises prices and customers express their dissatisfaction by cancelling their subscription, then it should evaluate whether it is better to have fewer customers at higher subscription fees or more customers at lower subscription fees and act accordingly. I don’t see any other companies raise prices and then issue an apology after customers complain, and Netflix shouldn’t either. Regardless of customer feedback, I think it was a good business decision to keep the unified “Netflix” service, but Netflix needs to stand by a good business decision even if it is met with customer dissatisfaction.

The Vizio tablet remote function

Posted on by

Hot on the heels of my post about the Vizio tablet, I just wanted to point out one aspect of the Vizio tablet that has me a little jealous – the remote feature. According to the press release, “the new Tablet is able to control nearly every element of a user’s home theater with a universal remote app.” This is a feature that even the market-leading iPad lacks, and it is something I wish I had. While I don’t think it would eliminate the need for the mess of remotes I have – TV, cable box, blu-ray, and receiver – it would maybe let them stay on the lower shelf of my coffee table a little more. I know that there are universal remotes on the market, but I would really want a touchscreen remote and those start at over $150. The ability to use my tablet as a remote would be really a nice perk to a tablet, and would really come in handy when I am feeling too lazy to reach for the remote.

The New York Post asks “Is 3D TV hazardous to your health?” and concludes it is, if you’re drunk.

Posted on by

Someone at the New York Post must be reading this blog, because today they stole my question from a month ago!  I’m kidding, obviously.  Nonetheless, it shows that more and more people are looking into health concerns of 3D TV, and rightly so.

If you’ll recall (or follow the link above), I did some research on health issues behind 3D TV and concluded that for adults, there were no long-term effects of watching 3D TV, and that any health issues would be limited to temporary headaches and eye fatigue.

Today, the New York Post investigated the health issues of 3D TV here. In its article, the Post quoted Samsung’s warning with regard to 3D TV. The Post concluded that 3D TV is not bad for your eyes unless you have a pre-existing eye condition, or are drunk while watching 3D content. So, the first part is what we, or I, already concluded.  The latter part does add a new wrinkle, particularly since sports are beginning to be shown in 3D, and people often like to drink while watching sports. Essentially, after watching 3D content while intoxicated, the viewer will have strained their eye muscles to the point where they are more disoriented than they normally would be due to the alcohol alone. So now we can add “watching 3D TV” to the long list of things which should be avoided while drinking. Or, stated another way, drinking should be avoided while watching 3D TV.

How much will this impact the future of 3D TV? Probably not much at all. I think unless the effects are more severe than I’m imagining, these kind of warnings will do very little to dissuade someone from having a few beers while watching football in 3D. Heck, it’s 2010 and despite all the warnings, evidence and statistics which indicate that it is extremely dangerous, we can’t even convince people not to drink and drive!   I think they’ll still drink and view [3D] too.  And should the effects be so severe that no one wants to mix the two, 3D will still catch on, at least with home theater enthusiasts, who place viewing experience above all else.  Thoughts?