Just finished installing an tv into my revitalized home entertainment system (which includes a new LCD). The one hickup? The AppleTV requires a live connection to a running copy of iTunes, much in the way that an iPod requires a real version of iTunes. Now I knew this ahead of time - I had even described the AppleTV as a iPod for you TV, but I was surprised just how inconvenient this would turn out. I’ve got my iTunes library on an external hard drive networked via the Airport Extreme and in order for the AppleTV to work, I have to have a computer running on the network that points to the external drive and the iTunes library therein.
Fine. I can live with that. But until I get a larger hard drive, not every is downloaded to the AppleTV. It seems to me that since Apple owns all the pieces here, why can’t the AppleTV grab the iTunes library directly? Is it DRM restrictions? I can do this with any computer on the network, but not the AppleTV. What gives?
I love the AppleTV and the whole interface - I mean I spent over an hour trolling youTube and podcasts looking at new content, but it seems to me, this inability to grab a library without a running copy of iTunes, might be a hinderance to living room dominance.
Now, having said that, don’t even get me started about my stupid receiver…
Ok, so if you haven’t seen yet, apparently Apple announced a bunch of new stuff, mostly centered around the iPhone. The new iPhone, MobileMe (a pretty cool replacement for .Mac), and OS X 10.6 are all pretty cool. But what I think is most important about the announcement is the applications and software development for the iPhone.
The applications they demoed yesterday spanned everything from games to medical learning and in each case, while they aren’t something brand new, or never done before - although the MIMvista software looks amazing and I can’t see that on any other phone right now - they touch every market and seemingly every industry. I get excited thinking about how this development platform will materially change the way people interact with services both on the the internet and in real life. Medical apps are a great example, but what about architects using the app to view complex plans of multiple floors with overlapping electrical and plumbing plans? or specialized interfaces for salespeople using barcodes captured with the iphone camera? And what about control systems - A/V interfaces from the iPhone and control of lights, connected appliances and more?
I don’t have to discuss the changes this also portends for the gaming industry, right?
The opportunity to get people connected via the phone and the internet is a promise I’ve been talking about for a couple of years and while Jaiku, Dodgeball and others have tried, I don’t think they and their hardware partners have managed to excite the mass of users the same way the iPhone has reached people. Which gives the iPhone and the App Store an opportunity to really open up this world. Twitter, newcomer Plurk, Pownce, mobile versions of Facebook and others are giving users an opportunity to stay connected, make new connections and ultimately bridge distance and time in a way the phone or email have never been able to do. Couple those services with at-your-fingertip, dead-simple interface everywhere you go and now you really are as connected wherever and whenever you want.
I’m excited for the next six months of iPhone development and really fascinated by the promise of what these applications can bring. I don’t think I’m overstating it and maybe I’m just a little bit pie-in-the-sky about it (at least my wife doesn’t look at me too funny when I tell her these things) - but when I can review a CAT scan or MRI from my phone and measure the size of a tumor, without having to be at the hospital or in front of computer, I can’t help but think the iPhone and the App Store are kicking off some amazing changes in the way we connect with everything (and Apple has an awesome record at doing this, so I have some confidence here).
The possibilities sure seem endless right now and I for one can’t wait.
Seriously, the military doesn’t want to deploy a system that doesn’t kill people because of political issues surrounding torture. Instead, killing people is acceptable and not really torture - cause they die? It seems this is no different in the hands of the military then any other weapon they already have; and in reality could potentially save lives and make their jobs easier.
What am I missing here?
Best quote from the story :
“Lethal weapons have an easier time getting into our system,” acknowledges Colonel Hymes.
The Raw Story | 60 Minutes: Pentagon’s raygun demonstrated on mock protesters