[opendtv] Re: Apple, TV Networks Clash Over Size and Makeup of Web TV Bundle | Re/code

  • From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 03:00:26 +0000

Craig Birkmaier wrote:

And who is it that does not want THE Mac OS from running on PCs?
Or, do you think there's a PC police preventing that from
happening?

Nothing is preventing that from happening - there are Mac virtual
machines that run under Windows.

Virtual machines are out, as far as using that as a normal solution. They kill
performance. As far as I can tell, unless something has changed, Apple DOES NOT
license its OS X for use on non-Apple PCs, although it's possible to hack a
solution.

http://www.howtogeek.com/178031/why-is-it-still-so-difficult-to-install-os-x-on-pcs/

"Apple systems check for a specific chip and refuse to run or install without
it. This is called the system management controller, and in effect is a
glorified fan controller amongst other things."

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/how-to-install-mac-os-x-on-a-pc-without-using-a-mac/

"Great progress has been made in hacking PCs to run OS X, and it is now
possible to install Mac OS X without a Mac. Thanks to some great tools put
together by some brilliant hackers, it is also much easier and does not involve
nearly as much time and effort as was once required."

The simple fact is, Craig, that Microsoft is not preventing anyone from
installing Windows on any brand of PC, nor are any of the Linux flavors, but
Apple does attempt to do this with their OS. So you are getting this backwards
(surprise?). And none of this has nothing to do with any de-facto Windows
monopoly. Apple does not want people running their OS on non-Apple hardware. If
you try to do so, it's one you. If the drivers don't work, too bad for you.
It's that simple.

DTV broadcasts were few and far between until the FCC market
mandates forced broadcasters to build their new transmission
facilities. Analog broadcasts did not end until 2009.

That's totally disingenuous. Analog shutoff was predicated from the beginning,
and was earlier expected to happen by the end of 2006. Pretending that analog
NTSC was the answer for an alternative to MVPDs is ridiculous. NTSC was on its
way out, Craig.

No Bert. The FCC kept them off the market by mandating that an
ATSC tuner be included in every new TV.

Again, totally disingenuous. Are you trying to convince anyone that from 1998
to 2005, the clairvoyant CE vendors were counting on an FCC tuner mandate, and
keeping STBs off the market? The universal tuner mandate, for all TV appliances
didn't kick in until March 1, 2007. There were plenty of years there, where the
only option was a 3rd gen STB, if you could find one in stock. Samsung was the
only one to introduce a 5th gen, in 2007, while 5th gen receivers were
available for production in 2003. I was still having to buy a Digital Stream
3rd gen STB in early 2007, Craig.

Yes Apple TV is limited... By design.

Thank you. The "design" being, for TV content, keep people's options limited to
a small number of pay sites only. Let's promote collusion.

Apple has introduced some ports that are not typically found
on PCs over the years.

Always to promote a closed ecosystem, even while pretending that they were
inventing some "new standard" for all to use.

Sorry. Goggle was not taking any more control of that content
than Microsoft or the manufacturer of your PC.

That's false. My PC does not limit me to one search engine. That was the beef.
GoogleTV was instead getting set to become the single, predominant smart TV
solution, thanks mostly to the CE vendors who were hyping this up. It would
become *the* UI for TV content. Google would have decided which sites would
come up first, how they were displayed on your screen menus, and all of this.
Well, clearly, already back then, the congloms had their own portals, were
controlling their own UIs, and justifiably did not want a third party to
dominate what Internet TV users would experience. So, they flexed their
muscles. It was obvious that this Google hype would have made them nervous,
Craig.

Sorry, but there is a standard. It's called DOCSIS,

No, Craig. The WAN can use ATM over fiber (e.g. APON and BPON), ATM over
twisted pair (e.g. DSL), Ethernet over fiber (EPON), whatever FiOS uses (uses
WDM for different services over the fiber), DOCSIS over coax, or any number of
schemes. So it's entirely to be expected that one's interface to the WAN would
be over a modem, and not impact the concept of net neutrality. But then
downstream of that, a neutral Internet service does imply the use of standards
that the appliances support natively, yes.

That is different than a device not supporting a non-standard
protocol. iOS devices could not support the non-standard Flash
protocols and codecs.

That too has nothing to do with net neutrality. It's just something to promote
a walled in ecosystem, and to help promote collusion with the streaming sites.

This is just a company trying (and failing) to get the
marketplace to work Bert.

No, Craig. The marketplace is already working. This is the same as if, in the
early days of radio, RCA insisted that only RCA radio stations would be able to
be used by RCA radios. And then proceeded to pick and choose the radio shows
they would transmit from those radio stations. That's not a desirable model for
consumers, no matter whether your replace "RCA" in my example with "Apple."

Can you watch Netflix on your PC...

OBVIOUSLY. I do not need to have Netflix come and install their cable, or
provide me with a converter box. Netflix is simply using the neutral Internet.
On the other hand, I cannot get TVE service, without first subscribing to a
facilities-based provider, having that provider connect me to their
infrastructure, and only giving me the TVE content options that are tied in
with their walled-in bundles. Netflix is merely one of thousands of web sites I
can browse.

Next, I show you that more than 80% of network capacity
today is being wasted on one-way broadcast streams that
are mostly unused.

Not true.

Absolutely true. The broadcast streams gobble up at the very least 80% of your
infrastructure's capacity, if not more than that, and within any given PON, the
likelihood is that only a handful of 6 MHz broadcast channels are actually
being used. So you've manufactured a shortage of IP bandwidth, which then leads
to you insist that we're decades from being able to send Internet TV to the
masses.

Bert



----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at
FreeLists.org

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: