adamisen

The dogcow's name is Clarus.

>just go to the iTunes Store on your iPad, hit rent, and then have it notice there's an Apple TV on the network and ask to play it there

Set your iPad's output to AirPlay on your Apple TV and do that. AirPlay itself requires zero interaction with an on-TV interface.

And you can use the Remote app to directly access your iTunes libraries and select & play content without using the TV interface.

If the first public impression is that Glass is awkward and half-baked it will be very difficult for Google to generate mass market appeal. It happened with the Newton, famously mocked on The Simpsons.

Apple refined the hell out of the iPhone before making any public statements. That seems to have worked quite well. Better than the Newton launch did anyhow.

Eat up Martha, or how Google may learn a hard lesson of the 90s. You only get one shot at a first impression.

I like Ars, but today's Ars is less Anandtech and more Verge. Which is to say, they indulge in their fair share of link-baity gadget-blog-type posts. They're not beyond redemption by any means, but the sad truth is that Ars doesn't always do the kind of in-depth analysis that they once did.

Apple's early support for HTML5 audio/video tags is worlds better than the contemporary alternative. It seems plausible to me that without Apple's refusal to support Flash the audio and video tags would never have taken off.

Isn't the open video codec problem still unresolved?

Google Glass is new Google. It's a walled garden that requires a Google server to function. It's more of a greenhouse, really...

Nor HMDs. I want all three of these things to become mature, affordable products. I don't really want any of them from an advertising company.

I think the big question is whether normal is $300 or $30... or $3.

If Google is paying Apple $1B/yr to be the default search engine on iOS, it stands to reason that Samsung could negotiate similar per device rates. That seems like enough potential upside for this to be a no-brainer to me.

I know it's insane of me to suggest this, but Apple has pretty broad support for many open standards. Most iCloud services utilize open standards, they created WebKit, they broke Flash's grip on the web, they contribute to a lot of important hardware standards as well as software (mini display port and mDNS come to mind). They've been a force improving clang/llvm. Most of their file formats are XML based. Big contributors to the *DAV formats.

Apple isn't perfect and is not an exemplar of a libre philosophy. Their most strategic stuff is pretty much all closed. But they have embraced a lot more openness than people give them credit. With Google moving everything into their own APIs it might not be long before Apple is more open than Google.

Apparently Google's even made their own proprietary zigbee competitor for Android@home. Whyyyyyyyyy.

Jailbreaks exploit security holes, but you currently need physical access and the passcode off to jailbreak.

I believe the key is that it was removed by the author. Apps that are pulled for violating the App Store rules don't show up in Purchased, to my knowledge. I know I have a couple IPAs floating around just in case I need an emergency tether or something.

It makes a lot of sense to me now. The adapter is tied to iOS's supported video formats. If it will play on the device, it will play on the adapter. The downside being that mirrored content has to go through the not-awesome encoder (at least on the A5). Using the same optimized software stack and shared SoC logic probably eliminates a bunch of headaches and saves money.

If it really works like that it's kind of brilliant. Future devices will have better mirroring output due to better hardware encoders (I haven't scrutinized the mirrored output from an A6, it may already be a lot better than the output pictured in the post). It ought to work with every Lightning device. The only question is future video format support, but since it's limited to 1080P it's probably future proof enough.

After careful parsing of Apple's specs languag, I now believe that mirroring from sub 1080P devices (iPad mini, iPhone, iPod touch) is limited to 1600x900 but that 1080P video playback works (presumably without lame encode artifacts). It appears full size iPads will mirror 1080P.

It makes sense...

Hopefully it's in pursuit of a connector that's somewhat forward & backward compatible for the next decade. It would be nice to learn more about Lightning. In particular the 1600x900 limitation is irritating. It'd be reassuring if this is something that will be addressed with a firmware update (similarly with the artifacts, though I have somewhat less hope for improvements there).

I'm gung-ho for Lightning but if it turns out to be nothing more than a fancy way to make USB expensive and proprietary I'll be having another think. If it guarantees accessory compatibility for 6-10 years it's worth a couple compromises but I do expect 1080P output as advertised.