Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #56440 > unrolled thread

OT: New Apple TV rumours

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 14:18 -0500
    Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 12:39 -0700
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 15:03 -0500
        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 13:42 -0700
          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 16:24 -0500
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Ted Lee <tmplee@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 15:32 -0600
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-02-12 21:51 +0000
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:22 -0700
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 17:31 -0500
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:47 -0700
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> - 2014-02-13 04:39 +0000
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-02-14 12:08 -0800
          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 16:40 -0500
            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:28 -0700
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 17:48 -0500
                Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 16:00 -0700
                  Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 18:29 -0500
                    Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 16:49 -0700
                      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-12 18:56 -0500
                        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 17:08 -0700
                          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-02-12 23:18 -0500
                            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Happynet Steering Society <b@o.ru> - 2014-02-13 17:04 -0500
                            Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 17:38 -0500
                          Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-02-13 17:38 -0500
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> - 2014-02-12 22:48 -0800
              Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-13 17:09 -0500
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-02-12 17:20 -0500
        Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-02-12 15:46 -0700
      Re: OT: New Apple TV rumours Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-02-13 15:27 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#56440 — OT: New Apple TV rumours

Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
shopping season.

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-12/apple-said-to-plan-new-set-top-box-amid-time-warner-cable-talks.html

Basically, it remains a set-top box, but the rumour is that Apple will
strike deals with cable companies to have it become THE set-top box.
Time Warner Cable is the rumoured launch cableco.

In the past, there were rumours Apple was talking with Rogers in Canada.

Working with cablecos may be more realistic, but it pretty much
garantees that this will not be a revolutionary product because it also
has the underlying implication that Apple will not compete against cable
and leaves Apple as a niche player in TV distribution, unlike Netflix
that is making major inroads.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#56445

In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> shopping season.

Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56446

In article <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > shopping season.
> 
> Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.

considering that there is a new machine id in the latest ios 7 betas,
it's *very* accurate.

<http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/10/apple-tv-in-ios7/>
  There is a reference to the AppleTV4,1 listed in the iOS 7 Apple TV
  framework that handles AirPlay. AppleTV4,1 does not correlate to an
  existing Apple TV device, thus pointing to new hardware.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56447

In article <120220141503520650%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > shopping season.
> > 
> > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> 
> considering that there is a new machine id in the latest ios 7 betas,
> it's *very* accurate.
> 
> <http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/10/apple-tv-in-ios7/>
>   There is a reference to the AppleTV4,1 listed in the iOS 7 Apple TV
>   framework that handles AirPlay. AppleTV4,1 does not correlate to an
>   existing Apple TV device, thus pointing to new hardware.

I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
supposed to come with the new device.  Maybe you should read the
article itself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56448

On 14-02-12 15:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
> wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
> supposed to come with the new device.

I qm disapointed about it because it signifies Apple throwing in the
towel in the revolution of TV. But it is also a more realistic way to go
about it today instead of waiting 10 years before being able to take on
the giants like Comcast who also own so much concent now (vertical
integration makes it much harder to restructure an industry)

Basically, it is a realisation that Apple's original plans to compete
against cable and traditional media as well as TV manufacturers was not
realistic without a HUGE investment to kill off the existing monopolies.

But Apple TV will haveto offer something more compelling than the
software that is built-in TVs today. Not going to buy an Apple TV to
watch Netflix when the Netflix ap embdedd in my Sharp TV is likely better.

However, for people who are not cord cutters and still rely on legacy
cable/linear TV, then combining the cable company's proprietary set top
box with Apple's proprietary TV box makes sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56449

On 2/12/14, 3:24 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> But Apple TV will haveto offer something more compelling than the
> software that is built-in TVs today. Not going to buy an Apple TV to
> watch Netflix when the Netflix ap embdedd in my Sharp TV is likely better.

What I would like is something that combines the current Apple TV, the 
cable co's set-top box, the TV itself and is operable by voice command 
and some nice app on an iPhone.  Yes, if you are persistent you can 
reprogram a programmable remote to almost do a jig but it's still rather 
clunky.

-- 
Ted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56451

On 2014-02-12, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-02-12 15:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
>> wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
>> supposed to come with the new device.
>
> I qm disapointed about it

Fairly typical of you to be disappointed in something few outside of
Apple know about...

> because it signifies Apple throwing in the towel in the revolution of
> TV.

Hardly.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56454

In article <52fbe681$0$17069$c3e8da3$40d4fd75@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
> > wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
> > supposed to come with the new device.
> 
> I qm disapointed about it because it signifies Apple throwing in the
> towel in the revolution of TV.

It signifies nothing of the sort.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56456

On 2014.02.12, 16:24 , JF Mezei wrote:

>
> I qm disapointed about it because it signifies Apple throwing in the
> towel in the revolution of TV. But it is also a more realistic way to go

You leverage a lot of "information" from a short article that has no 
confirmed information from the actual players.

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56458

In article <WK2dnfXlw-e2a2bPnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2014.02.12, 16:24 , JF Mezei wrote:
> 
> >
> > I qm disapointed about it because it signifies Apple throwing in the
> > towel in the revolution of TV. But it is also a more realistic way to go
> 
> You leverage a lot of "information" from a short article that has no 
> confirmed information from the actual players.

That is typical for him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56477

JF Mezei wrote:
>
> Basically, it is a realisation that Apple's original plans to compete
> against cable and traditional media as well as TV manufacturers was not
> realistic without a HUGE investment to kill off the existing monopolies.
>
> But Apple TV will haveto offer something more compelling than the
> software that is built-in TVs today. Not going to buy an Apple TV to
> watch Netflix when the Netflix ap embdedd in my Sharp TV is likely better.

I dispute that. I am in Israel as some of you know and we have our equivalent companies HOT (cable) and
YES (DBS). There is a small UK type DVB-T service with 6 channels, 1 the local equivalent to the BBC,
2 commerical channels and some government ones. There is a TV tax to fund it.

It was supposed to be expanded to a second DVB-T channel adding 12 more channels at a small monthly cost.
So far no one has said anything.

Last week, out of nowhere, Rami Levi, the owner of a chain of discount grocery stores and a virtual cellular
network announced he was going into the entertainment business with a service similar to netflix, which
for copyright reasons is not avialable here. 

It seems that he has made a deal with a company called Vonetize, which has been quitely making distribution
contracts with programming providers and sells them to retail marketers, like Levi. 

While I am in no way implying that they have anything to do with Apple, I am sure there is lots of competition
in that market, and there is someone who sells such a service in the US. Apple may be buying that service,
or knowing what little I know about Steve Jobs, there was a clause in the contract that program providers signed
to get their material in the iTunes store that allows Apple to sell it as a service.

Of course, for all we know Apple has signed a contract to resell Netflix using their own brand and front end.

Geoff.


-- 
Geoffrey S. Mendelson,  N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56541

On 2014-02-12 21:24:16 +0000, JF Mezei said:

> But Apple TV will haveto offer something more compelling than the
> software that is built-in TVs today. Not going to buy an Apple TV to
> watch Netflix when the Netflix ap embdedd in my Sharp TV is likely better.

FWIW, the Netflix app in the AppleTV is *vastly* better than the ones 
I've seen in any TV and even better than the one in my TiVo.  Vastly 
better.

> However, for people who are not cord cutters and still rely on legacy
> cable/linear TV, then combining the cable company's proprietary set top
> box with Apple's proprietary TV box makes sense.

If that's the only way to get content, it's an easy call, especially if 
it is a means
by which the cable companies can start providing the content in better 
on-demand manner
and, hopefully, ultimately, get us rid of the idiotic CableCard 
business.  CableCards
are just ridiculous.

It would also be nice if some of the content providers would let us 
deal directly
with them.  HBO, for example, does not deal with the public.  You can 
only get HBO
via any of their services (i.e., "HBO To Go" on your iPad, on-demand) - 
if you have
a contract with a cable provider and get HBO through your cable company.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56450

In article <120220141342068517%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > > shopping season.
> > > 
> > > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> > > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> > 
> > considering that there is a new machine id in the latest ios 7 betas,
> > it's *very* accurate.
> > 
> > <http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/10/apple-tv-in-ios7/>
> >   There is a reference to the AppleTV4,1 listed in the iOS 7 Apple TV
> >   framework that handles AirPlay. AppleTV4,1 does not correlate to an
> >   existing Apple TV device, thus pointing to new hardware.
> 
> I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
> wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
> supposed to come with the new device.  Maybe you should read the
> article itself.

yet what you quoted makes no mention of any service and you try to
introduce doubt by saying they used a stock photo of an older model,
something which is very common in journalism.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56455

In article <120220141640006760%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <120220141342068517%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new
> > > > > Apple
> > > > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > > > shopping season.
> > > > 
> > > > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> > > > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> > > 
> > > considering that there is a new machine id in the latest ios 7 betas,
> > > it's *very* accurate.
> > > 
> > > <http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/10/apple-tv-in-ios7/>
> > >   There is a reference to the AppleTV4,1 listed in the iOS 7 Apple TV
> > >   framework that handles AirPlay. AppleTV4,1 does not correlate to an
> > >   existing Apple TV device, thus pointing to new hardware.
> > 
> > I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
> > wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
> > supposed to come with the new device.  Maybe you should read the
> > article itself.
> 
> yet what you quoted makes no mention of any service

Notice that I wrote "the article"?  Unlike you, I took the time and
effort to read the article, so I could write knowledgeably about it. 
It's not my fault that you are to lazy to do the same.

> and you try to introduce doubt by saying they used a stock photo of
> an older model, something which is very common in journalism.

As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
error.  That model of Apple TV has been a discontinued model for almost
four years, and there are stock photos of the current model available. 
Because the writer didn't do even the basic research to include a photo
of the current model makes me doubt that he did much of any research at
all.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56459

In article <120220141528321666%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > > > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new
> > > > > > Apple
> > > > > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > > > > shopping season.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which
> > > > > was
> > > > > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> > > > 
> > > > considering that there is a new machine id in the latest ios 7 betas,
> > > > it's *very* accurate.
> > > > 
> > > > <http://www.macrumors.com/2014/02/10/apple-tv-in-ios7/>
> > > >   There is a reference to the AppleTV4,1 listed in the iOS 7 Apple TV
> > > >   framework that handles AirPlay. AppleTV4,1 does not correlate to an
> > > >   existing Apple TV device, thus pointing to new hardware.
> > > 
> > > I'm not disputing that there's going to be a new Apple TV, I'm
> > > wondering about the claim in the article about the service that's
> > > supposed to come with the new device.  Maybe you should read the
> > > article itself.
> > 
> > yet what you quoted makes no mention of any service
> 
> Notice that I wrote "the article"?  Unlike you, I took the time and
> effort to read the article, so I could write knowledgeably about it. 
> It's not my fault that you are to lazy to do the same.

i'm going by what you wrote. 

you said you wonder how accurate the article is based on their use of a
stock photo.

using a stock photo is common. they're journalists, not detectives.
using a photo of an older model doesn't change the story. they needed a
photo of an apple tv and they used one. maybe they didn't have a photo
of a recent model, so they used what they could find. 

> > and you try to introduce doubt by saying they used a stock photo of
> > an older model, something which is very common in journalism.
> 
> As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
> error. 

first of all, it's not a blatant error, but if you feel that way, you
should stop reading all journalism because using stock photos is *very*
common.

> That model of Apple TV has been a discontinued model for almost
> four years, and there are stock photos of the current model available. 
> Because the writer didn't do even the basic research to include a photo
> of the current model makes me doubt that he did much of any research at
> all.

what for? it doesn't change the story. maybe that's the best photo he
had. who cares. 

if that's all you can find wrong with it, then they're doing *quite*
well. 

furthermore, most people reading it won't know the difference anyway.
spending time getting a photo of the exact model would be a waste of
their time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56460

In article <120220141748222890%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > Notice that I wrote "the article"?  Unlike you, I took the time and
> > effort to read the article, so I could write knowledgeably about it. 
> > It's not my fault that you are to lazy to do the same.
> 
> i'm going by what you wrote. 

I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.

> using a stock photo is common. they're journalists, not detectives.
> using a photo of an older model doesn't change the story. they needed a
> photo of an apple tv and they used one. maybe they didn't have a photo
> of a recent model, so they used what they could find. 

If they didn't have a photo of the current model, they're idiots. 
Furthermore, they apparently found out that they didn't have the
current model because they changed the photo to the current model, and
even made sure in the caption to say that it's the current model.

> > > and you try to introduce doubt by saying they used a stock photo of
> > > an older model, something which is very common in journalism.
> > 
> > As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
> > error. 
> 
> first of all, it's not a blatant error, but if you feel that way, you
> should stop reading all journalism because using stock photos is *very*
> common.

It's not that they used a stock photo; it's that they used an incorrect
stock photo.  Even you should be able to understand that distinction.

> furthermore, most people reading it won't know the difference anyway.
> spending time getting a photo of the exact model would be a waste of
> their time.

Yet they took the time to change the photo to the correct model, and to
edit the caption to make sure they said it's the current model.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56462

In article <120220141600095481%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > Notice that I wrote "the article"?  Unlike you, I took the time and
> > > effort to read the article, so I could write knowledgeably about it. 
> > > It's not my fault that you are to lazy to do the same.
> > 
> > i'm going by what you wrote. 
> 
> I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
> quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.

nope. i was going by what *you* wrote.

*you* said you wondered how accurate it could be based on the photo
they included. those are *your* words, which you conveniently snipped.

> > using a stock photo is common. they're journalists, not detectives.
> > using a photo of an older model doesn't change the story. they needed a
> > photo of an apple tv and they used one. maybe they didn't have a photo
> > of a recent model, so they used what they could find. 
> 
> If they didn't have a photo of the current model, they're idiots. 

are they supposed to maintain a library of every single product every
company has ever released, all accurately indexed, just to satisfy a
few people who scrutinize every pixel looking for mistakes?

> Furthermore, they apparently found out that they didn't have the
> current model because they changed the photo to the current model, and
> even made sure in the caption to say that it's the current model.

so what? it doesn't change the story. what matters is what they said
apple might be doing. 

maybe that's the only image they could get when they published the
article and was waiting on another image to be updated. 

either way, it's not a big deal. 

> > > > and you try to introduce doubt by saying they used a stock photo of
> > > > an older model, something which is very common in journalism.
> > > 
> > > As a trained investigator, I doubt anything that contains a blatant
> > > error. 
> > 
> > first of all, it's not a blatant error, but if you feel that way, you
> > should stop reading all journalism because using stock photos is *very*
> > common.
> 
> It's not that they used a stock photo; it's that they used an incorrect
> stock photo.  Even you should be able to understand that distinction.

nobody but you cares. if you think their target readership cares, then
you're very mistaken. 

and unlike you, i look at the content of the article, not irrelevant
details that don't actually matter. 

> > furthermore, most people reading it won't know the difference anyway.
> > spending time getting a photo of the exact model would be a waste of
> > their time.
> 
> Yet they took the time to change the photo to the correct model, and to
> edit the caption to make sure they said it's the current model.

so what? the photo doesn't change the contents of the story because the
story is not about the photo.

it's about what apple might or might not do. the photo is just an extra
and does not change anything material about the story. you're making it
into something far more than it is. 

now, if they had a photo of a completely different product instead of
an apple tv, such as an ipod, *then* it would be a problem. but they
didn't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56463

In article <120220141829582649%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
> > quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.
> 
> nope. i was going by what *you* wrote.
> 
> *you* said you wondered how accurate it could be based on the photo
> they included. those are *your* words, which you conveniently snipped.

I wrote "the article", and you said that you didn't see anything in
what I quoted about service.  If you're going to continue to lie,
please don't make it so easy to point out the lie; it's like shooting
fish in a barrel.

I'm done with you (at least for now); your blatant dishonesty disgusts
me.  No doubt you will now declare "victory".  Pfui!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56464

In article <120220141649222670%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> > > I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
> > > quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.
> > 
> > nope. i was going by what *you* wrote.
> > 
> > *you* said you wondered how accurate it could be based on the photo
> > they included. those are *your* words, which you conveniently snipped.
> 
> I wrote "the article", and you said that you didn't see anything in
> what I quoted about service.  If you're going to continue to lie,
> please don't make it so easy to point out the lie; it's like shooting
> fish in a barrel.

here's what you wrote, where you question the validity of bloomberg's
report based on a photo, exactly as i said you did.

In article <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > shopping season.
> 
> Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.


you *later* brought up the service. you said *nothing* about the
service in the original post.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#56466

In article <120220141856489225%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <120220141649222670%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > > > I wrote "the article", you were going by what JF wrote, and that I
> > > > quoted; you didn't bother reading the article.
> > > 
> > > nope. i was going by what *you* wrote.
> > > 
> > > *you* said you wondered how accurate it could be based on the photo
> > > they included. those are *your* words, which you conveniently snipped.
> > 
> > I wrote "the article", and you said that you didn't see anything in
> > what I quoted about service.  If you're going to continue to lie,
> > please don't make it so easy to point out the lie; it's like shooting
> > fish in a barrel.
> 
> here's what you wrote, where you question the validity of bloomberg's
> report based on a photo, exactly as i said you did.
> 
> In article <120220141239031491%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
> <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
> > In article <52fbc90f$0$61421$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > 
> > > Bloomberg has once again started a rumour of Apple unveiling a new Apple
> > > TV device. Announcement expected in April, available for Christmas
> > > shopping season.
> > 
> > Considering that the photo is of the first generation AppleTV which was
> > discontinued in September 2010, I wonder how accurate the article is.
> 
> 
> you *later* brought up the service. you said *nothing* about the
> service in the original post.

One last thing, and then I'm really done.  If you had bothered to read
the article, you would have known what I was referring to, but you were
so eager to jump in and argue that you didn't bother to do that.  You
can try to weasel your way around that all you want, but you can't
change the facts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web