I heard there was a better AppleTV out that had better AirPlay and video mirroring. Let me be honest, I wasn't looking to play movies from my iPad or use the AppleTV apps for Netflix & YouTube. There is a lot of streaming content out there and I wanted to play it on my TV. I was disappointed.
First, AppleTV is best as a delivery mechanism for rented or purchased movies & TV shows that you pay Apple to watch. They are aces at generating money and this is no exception.
Content owners at HBO Go for example won't allow AirPlay to show their programming over AppleTV, only audio across. Gee, thanks.
Next I tried mirroring. This is where everything on the iPad is mirrored on the TV. That worked for more apps and content, but not in full screen. The picture was shortened in both directions.
And wireless bandwidth starts to become an issue. First the content is streamed from the internet to the iPad and then transmitted again to AppleTV. Result is some pauses and skips.
AppleTV is severely lacking the apps and channels that Roku has. More than anything, it lacks its own real browser. The problem is fixable with money; a Mac Mini would solve this problem. I'm just reluctant to spend $600. An alternative might be the Logitech Revue with GoogleTV.
In the meantime, AppleTV went back to the Apple Store, but I didn't walk out with the $100. I needed a BT keyboard and cover for my iPad. Fair trade.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Friday, April 20, 2012
iPad not Included. The End of Reasonableness.
I'm shopping for a protective case for my iPad. Almost every ad has a disclaimer at the end that "iPad not included". No shit! One of the cases is $49. Is anyone stupid enough to think a $500+ iPad comes with the case? Probably not. The disclaimer is for the violent complainers. You know who they are, people who bring the picture of the ad or web page to the store and demand an iPad because it was pictured with the case for illustrative purposes.
I'm less worried about the idiots who thought they could actually get a case and an iPad for $49, the Darwin Theory will weed them out. I'm more concerned about the collapse of reasonableness today. These complainers are not dumb, they're just trying to get something for nothing. They will yell and scream, demand to see a manager, and they will threaten to "lawyer up". They know the loudest complainer will get something.
If I see an ad for car mats, do I need a disclaimer that the car doesn't come with it? If you buy a bathing suit, does the model come with it? Sometimes you need a prop to make the product visually meaningful or appealing. But it ends there. And if you make the mistake of thinking something else was included and you are corrected, just shut up.
I can't easily categorize these people because they behave this way for unknown or endless reasons. They may have hit a rough patch in their life, are angry, ill, lonely, or maybe not getting it often enough. Maybe they do it for sport; if they complain often and loud enough, there is likely an apology and some concession gift that most companies will surrender to make the problem go away. And with social media and on-line reviews, everyone has the potential of being heard, regardless of how unreasonable their complaint is. And companies don't want that. So we must continue to suffer with the obvious not for the benefit of the idiots but to temper the assholes.
If I see an ad for car mats, do I need a disclaimer that the car doesn't come with it? If you buy a bathing suit, does the model come with it? Sometimes you need a prop to make the product visually meaningful or appealing. But it ends there. And if you make the mistake of thinking something else was included and you are corrected, just shut up.
I can't easily categorize these people because they behave this way for unknown or endless reasons. They may have hit a rough patch in their life, are angry, ill, lonely, or maybe not getting it often enough. Maybe they do it for sport; if they complain often and loud enough, there is likely an apology and some concession gift that most companies will surrender to make the problem go away. And with social media and on-line reviews, everyone has the potential of being heard, regardless of how unreasonable their complaint is. And companies don't want that. So we must continue to suffer with the obvious not for the benefit of the idiots but to temper the assholes.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
It's not It's, It's Its
Apostrophe s. It has two purposes. 1. Possessive. 2. Contraction.
In the Possessive form, it means "belongs to". Mike's fake glasses belong to Mike. As a Contraction, it adds "is" to the noun it follows. Jack's finished with classes; that's right, Jack is.
But one use that it is very often confused is "it's". In 100% of the use of "it's", it simply means "it is". If you can't say "it is", then it's not "it's", it's "its".
When you want to use the possessive form of it, that's when you use "its", as in, a skunk has a stripe on its tail. Even though this is a possessive form, "it's" is never possessive, it's only a contraction.
But I see it every day. People are committed to use "it's" as in the possessive meaning. I even saw "it's" used incorrectly in a movie today.
If you can't say "it is", then it's not it's, it's its.
In the Possessive form, it means "belongs to". Mike's fake glasses belong to Mike. As a Contraction, it adds "is" to the noun it follows. Jack's finished with classes; that's right, Jack is.
But one use that it is very often confused is "it's". In 100% of the use of "it's", it simply means "it is". If you can't say "it is", then it's not "it's", it's "its".
When you want to use the possessive form of it, that's when you use "its", as in, a skunk has a stripe on its tail. Even though this is a possessive form, "it's" is never possessive, it's only a contraction.
But I see it every day. People are committed to use "it's" as in the possessive meaning. I even saw "it's" used incorrectly in a movie today.
If you can't say "it is", then it's not it's, it's its.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Dialing Standards - 10 Digits and Done
Everyone once had a 7-digit phone number because when you called someone in the same town, you only had to dial the 7-digits (7D), not the Area Code (AC). But our sphere of calling grew beyond our local town and long distance (LD) calling became common. So our AC suddenly become a core part of our phone number, 10 digits total.
Then the rules started changing by locale. Some places you could just dial 7D to call your neighbor or dial 1 first. Sometimes you got that annoying recording "It is not necessary to dial 1 before calling this number". Well if you know I don't need it, ignore it. Some locales allowed you to use the AC, some disallowed, some were OK with either way.
Today I find that in most locales, you need to use the AC + 7D for all calls, even next door. The 1 before seems optional and in most cases is best left off. Although I have been to some rural areas that still require only 7D for local calls. I think we're coming out of the darkness of this phone dialing chaos and it is time for standardization.
Every phone has a AC + 7D. The preceding 1 is not needed. The phone carrier will bill you accordingly if your call is considered local or LD. Every call dialed should be a standard 10 digits: AC + 7D. Do we really need to suffer through archaic and inconsistent dialing rules in this day and age? 10 fingers, 10 toes, 10 digits in your phone number.
When you go international, the rules change again, but at least the prefix to dial international is "011". But even that needs standardization. Some country codes are 2 digit, some are 1. There's always that (0) in the phone number that you're not sure if you should dial. But standardizing the world phone system will probably take longer.
Lastly, we need a new word instead of Dial. Rotary phones are not coming back and the dial is a lost concept on today's population. Press and Touch are ok for inter-call instructions, "Press 0 for a representative", "Touch 1 for English". Maybe Call is simple enough, "Call 800-555-1212 for information".
Then the rules started changing by locale. Some places you could just dial 7D to call your neighbor or dial 1 first. Sometimes you got that annoying recording "It is not necessary to dial 1 before calling this number". Well if you know I don't need it, ignore it. Some locales allowed you to use the AC, some disallowed, some were OK with either way.
Today I find that in most locales, you need to use the AC + 7D for all calls, even next door. The 1 before seems optional and in most cases is best left off. Although I have been to some rural areas that still require only 7D for local calls. I think we're coming out of the darkness of this phone dialing chaos and it is time for standardization.
Every phone has a AC + 7D. The preceding 1 is not needed. The phone carrier will bill you accordingly if your call is considered local or LD. Every call dialed should be a standard 10 digits: AC + 7D. Do we really need to suffer through archaic and inconsistent dialing rules in this day and age? 10 fingers, 10 toes, 10 digits in your phone number.
When you go international, the rules change again, but at least the prefix to dial international is "011". But even that needs standardization. Some country codes are 2 digit, some are 1. There's always that (0) in the phone number that you're not sure if you should dial. But standardizing the world phone system will probably take longer.
Lastly, we need a new word instead of Dial. Rotary phones are not coming back and the dial is a lost concept on today's population. Press and Touch are ok for inter-call instructions, "Press 0 for a representative", "Touch 1 for English". Maybe Call is simple enough, "Call 800-555-1212 for information".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


