Dino_the_Dino

It’s not totally untrue. I’ve used both, it’s my opinion and one I think shared of the average consumer. Full HD video we couldn’t tell the difference at all (played some trailers from apple in 1080p). Games maybe if they are upgraded to Retina graphics. Text is where the new display really shines and is quite noticeable. Upgrading you’d be automatically perceiving a better experience, but going in cold, never using or owning an iPad, most consumers won’t notice the difference until it’s specifically pointed out to them in certain case scenarios.

You even said it yourself, it’s not noticeable across the board, like on the home screen, just in specific apps and scenarios.

It’s a case by case situation. If you are up close looking at text I think it’s noticeable, but otherwise you really have to inspect and know what to look for to tell. Just check that guys video a couple posts up.

I got a couple friends who all just got new iPads and went and bought the old one because looking side by side they really couldn’t tell the difference to an extent that mattered.

Yeah I actually think the Flipboard phone app is not that great. It shines in the tablet format.

Thanks for clearing it up. Something was just clouding my thought process on that one. I think the viewer tracking is a weak argument at this point, especially with the article talking to ways of tracking that they just haven’t even bothered to invest in.

I do agree that this isn’t really a step forward, but I certainly believe it would be a step backwards if the networks are able to shut this service down. Honestly I think the biggest hurdle will be live sports. We are getting to a point where you can just buy shows (though expensive) as season passes.

If I’m replaying the OTA broadcast, that’s not technically my signal, just the signal I’m picking up with my hardware. It’s the same signal Aereo wants to rebroadcast, and the same one we are all entitled to receive for free. I’m starting to think they are the same with the difference of owning the hardware vs. leasing it, which might be the gray area they need to figure out in court.

Fair point. I don’t know enough about Slingbox, but since I’m using their hardware, going through their site and their service I imagine they would be under the same sort of scrutiny and technically they will limit the quality of my stream without paying for their higher end hardware.

I don’t know, it just seems like they are grasping at a lot of air. If something illegal is at play according to the court than so be it, but I hope the networks aren’t able to just buy another victory.

Well to me it seems the difference is “who owns the hardware” and not how I watch my TV. If all I am doing is paying for a hardware lease, how is this any different than leasing a product from any other company or paying interest on a financed TV purchase?

I get they are making money, but if they can prove that’s only from hardware/software/infastructure, than I have a hard time seeing how one can exist while others cannot.

If the only difference is the antenna/hardware, you could buy the antenna for slingbox instead of leasing the whole thing from Aereo. Would cost more short term, but over the long term, not so much.

Maybe I’m mistaken here, and I seem to be the only one saying this so it’s possible, but I don’t really see how much different this is compared to setting up a Slingbox. The only obvious difference would be the DVR functionality built in and the fact that you aren’t owning the capable hardware, but instead paying for it with a monthly subscription.

Also, I’m pretty sure you can hook up an antenna to a Slingbox (if you don’t have a signal coming into your home/apt which at this point I assume lots of people do) and rebroadcast the signal to yourself, and makes me wonder why you’d pay for this outside of the DVR functionality.

Pretty sure the big difference is this would be live TV and one with a DVR. So you could now bypass Hulu, torrents, etc. and DVR the content if you wanted to watch it later (bypassing the network delays for online viewing) and/or watch it live, something they don’t offer currently.

And they distribute it OTA and for free, under regulations from the government to do so. Now whether or not Aereo is “reselling” would come into play, but I imagine they’ll argue it’s hardware only type thing.

I’m curious as to the big issues hear that somehow have missed Slingbox and/or like someone mentioned above how this is any different than cable companies rebroadcasting this over their networks. It sounds like they are just trying to delay the inevitable.

Well slingbox manages to do this without issues or a subscription. All I have to do is plug it into my cable outlet and my internet. I’m not so sure why this is so different unless I’m missing a big core concept other than the fact that instead of you owning the hardware, you are “leasing” it from Aereo for a monthly cost. The cable is free OTA, and I have to have access to the internet which is paid for by myself or free.

Not disagreeing on the display quality, just stating that it’s even less noticeable on the GS3 because of it’s higher resolution. Both good screens.

If you think Samsung is a company that’s not pushing the mobile industry forward in a technical sense, I think you are crazy. This screen is still CRAZY good, like the Galaxy Nexus screen. It’s marginally worse on a tech sheet than the One X display. They aren’t settling on “good enough”, they are pushing for what they think is best for the consumer.

You think that they should go with a non-pentile display and forgo the lifespan-superior pentile display. Others may disagree. Either way we have begun to treat pentile like it’s crap, which it most certainly is not.

Big difference, you’re One S isn’t 720p. At high pixel density it’s not noticeable.

So it’ll bother those who stare at their screens with microscopes or those who are “bothered” by the fact that the screen is on some negligible lever inferior.

They also clearly just stated it’s superior in lifespan. So it’s not entirely inferior, just in one spec column.

I think that he’s just pointing out the fact that outside the tech blog world, it’s a non-issue. I can’t see pixels on my Galaxy Nexus, and never really notice any color issues. It just looks like a great display. At lower pixel density it’s more of a noticeable issue, like the RAZR.

Well the thing is you aren’t getting desktop windows, you are just getting access to Office which has to run in desktop mode in Windows RT. No other software (except IE) will work in that environment, which to me seems like a a scenario they will phase out completely once they get Metro full office.

It’s not much of a problem, but it’s a broken experience for consumers. MS seems to be ok with that. Though apparently some guy around here was saying this is more about getting access to classic windows 32 APIs (which is what IE uses in RT), without it any other browser will be sub par.

Don’t you think they could make a Metro version that worked in the same way? Seems like they will and this is to just hold people over.

Aren’t there ARM laptops/net books out there? Pretty sure there are and they aren’t tablets and MS intends to be able to run WindowsRT on them.

I just feel like that’s such a niche situation that could be solved in a proper Metro app. This seems like a temporary solution considering there’s only Office and IE and nothing else.

Well you certainly can’t take your ATV and home theater system with you. Most of my friends with these types of products use them at home, at work, and out around for the day. Especially something like the Jambox which is so small and easy to carry around.