I don't have a DNLA capable device so I need something like the Apple TV or even the Chromecast to allow me to stream from my devices to my TV.
Yep. Agreed. But by buying an Apple TV you are limiting yourself to only be able to stream to units that also have an Apple TV connected (or carry your own unit around). By choosing the DLNA option you are able to stream to/from any of the thousands of makes/models of hardware that are DLNA compatible which includes the majority (?) of new televisions.
Id also argue that you are not wirelessly streaming with your setup but thats a whole other argument
... As i have said though, both work and work fine. I would argue that anyone could convincingly state that the Apple approach is 'better' than the DLNA one. I cant see any benefits of the Apple approach at all.
It doesn't matter what way is better anyway. There are plenty of airplay apps in the Play store and no doubt there are plenty of DLNA apps in the appstore. So everyone can be happy whatever they have.
Yep. Agreed. But by buying an Apple TV you are limiting yourself to only be able to stream to units that also have an Apple TV connected (or carry your own unit around). By choosing the DLNA option you are able to stream to/from any of the thousands of makes/models of hardware that are DLNA compatible which includes the majority (?) of new televisions
So what?? The Apple TV does far more than mere streaming. It you just wanted streaming a cable would be far cheaper.
I don't have a single DLNA device so they are hardly ubiquitous! Just how low down the vast Android spectrum can you go before the phone won't drive it?
So what?? The Apple TV does far more than mere streaming. It you just wanted streaming a cable would be far cheaper.
I don't have a single DLNA device so they are hardly ubiquitous! Just how low down the vast Android spectrum can you go before the phone won't drive it?
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey :eek:
On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs.
Id be willing to bet that there are MANY times more DLNA devices out there than there are Apple TV units
Just taking the PS3 - it has sold 80 million units worldwide.
Compare that to 15 million Apple TV units (13 million in May). Just taking one DLNA device means I am 5 times more likely to find a compatible unit at a friends house
Really not quite sure what your last sentence means ???
As I have said, im not criticising Apple TV at all. I was simply unsure as to how someone could state that it is better than the alternative ??
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey :eek
Ok I have a desktop running Windows 7 and a laptop on Vista. Neither have admitted to doing DLNA!
On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs.)
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable.
AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA,:o
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey :eek:
On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs.
Id be willing to bet that there are MANY times more DLNA devices out there than there are Apple TV units
Just taking the PS3 - it has sold 80 million units worldwide.
Compare that to 15 million Apple TV units (13 million in May). Just taking one DLNA device means I am 5 times more likely to find a compatible unit at a friends house
Really not quite sure what your last sentence means ???
As I have said, im not criticising Apple TV at all. I was simply unsure as to how someone could state that it is better than the alternative ??
"440 million DLNA units out there" (at the time of the article) - just none in your house
I don't have any DLNA devices. We bought our TV in 2010 and it's not a smart TV. However I appreciate your statement about most people having DLNA capable TV's, as I want to upgrade our TV
Ok I have a desktop running Windows 7 and a laptop on Vista. Neither have admitted to doing DLNA!
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable.
AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA,:o
Ok I have a desktop running Windows 7 and a laptop on Vista. Neither have admitted to doing DLNA!
I DO have an Apple TV - which will, of course, be of most use to households with IOS devices or Macs. Mine (partly) replaced the £3 dongle which used to connect my iPad to the HDMI cable.
AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA,:o
Windows 7 definitely supports DLNA. My laptop (running Win7) just pops up as another device on the PS3 that can be used for streaming content.
It does, as the saying goes, just work. Similarly, the PS3 will happily stream content (only tried video and stills) from my old Symbian phones. Haven't bothered looking for any DLNA support for iOS, as my iPhone doesn't have anything worth streaming on it ....
Another point I care to make is I wonder how many of these cheap tablets will be in dustbins in a few years? they will be dated quickly, no software updates. However Ipad 1 holds it's value and people still want them.
I quite liked the first generation 7" galaxy tablet but can't imagine many people using these now. These £50 ones will be first be binned.
When I say cheap tablets I don't mean the top range ones like the Motorola and Galaxy 10" one. The difference is manufacturers ad a good lead on Apple before the Iphone came along however in the tablet market it's the others who have played catch up and played it badly. It was always predicable there would be more "tablets" around but I don't know many people who would seriously consider a main tablet other than Apple. I know people with the Kindle Fire as a second tablet but not as a first one.
For that reason I am confident Apple will set the bar and dominate in the same way the Ipod has. Nobody tends to buy other MP3 players these days.
If only people could see this about the phone market. Infact they have Nokia and Blackberry are on the way out. Everybody who doesn't want Iphone maybe goes HTC and Samsung. However I don't get why they buy into the large screens and the echo system of Android is crap. Android was only created as an app platform to challenge Apple. It's software limits phones in so many ways I'd go back to the days where you had Samsung smart phones running there own OS. I know it's personal taste but people should buy into the Iphone more it's a much better device all round camera, software and build quality than anything else on the market. If Iphone 5S was free on a contract today I think it would the worlds biggest smartphone marketshare.
If only people could see this about the phone market. Infact they have Nokia and Blackberry are on the way out. Everybody who doesn't want Iphone maybe goes HTC and Samsung. However I don't get why they buy into the large screens and the echo system of Android is crap. Android was only created as an app platform to challenge Apple. It's software limits phones in so many ways I'd go back to the days where you had Samsung smart phones running there own OS. I know it's personal taste but people should buy into the Iphone more it's a much better device all round camera, software and build quality than anything else on the market. If Iphone 5S was free on a contract today I think it would the worlds biggest smartphone marketshare.
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more.
As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish.
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more.
Advanced, and over advanced lots of rubbish you don't need like anti virus and wallets, ereaders, mail clients, word processors trying to be a desktop on a phone. This is why it's a sluggish and slow operating system.
And we are not talking Google here they released Android for there own use. Somebody somewhere decided to go with Android to take on Apple. From memory it was Samsung and I am sure the first Android was HTC for Google?
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more.
As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish.
Microsoft had tablet computers before iPad with project origami. It was a failure like the surface RT is a failure as they don't understand the use case of a tablet.
You can't deny that the iPad was the first successful iteration of the tablet computer that we know and love today. It was a game changer in the industry. The Android tablets were way behind for quite a while. Microsoft could have taken that spot if they had been quicker on the ball.
Android has caught iPad up now and exceeded it in some aspects, especially in the 7inch sector.
But it is a good thing that we have the choice.
As much as you hate Apple, Android has more in common with iOS than you probably care to admit and it's good for the consumer that there is no one dominating eco system right now.
Competition is good but you seem to fail to understand this.
Microsoft had tablet computers before iPad with project origami. It was a failure like the surface RT is a failure as they don't understand the use case of a tablet.
You can't deny that the iPad was the first successful iteration of the tablet computer that we know and love today. It was a game changer in the industry. The Android tablets were way behind for quite a while. Microsoft could have taken that spot if they had been quicker on the ball.
Android has caught iPad up now and exceeded it in some aspects, especially in the 7inch sector.
But it is a good thing that we have the choice.
As much as you hate Apple, Android has more in common with iOS than you probably care to admit and it's good for the consumer that there is no one dominating eco system right now.
Competition is good but you seem to fail to understand this.
I remember that tablet and it was a failure. Seemed like no purpose.
When the rest of the industry went with netbooks Apple came along with Ipad. Who was right? Netbooks are finished. Microsoft seem to think putting a keyboard on a tablet is the ideal niche now.
Did nobody tell them how good the Ipad keyboard is and you don't need a stick on keyboard?
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more.
As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish.
There's a slightly different take on that story doing the rounds. It goes that Android started out life as a keyboard based Blackberry-like OS. It's only when the iPhone came to light (or rather being on Apple's board of directors, Eric Schmidt became privy to) that suddenly it changed direction and became a touchscreen based iPhone-like OS, debuting on an actual phone just over a year later.
There's a slightly different take on that story doing the rounds. It goes that Android started out life as a keyboard based Blackberry-like OS. It's only when the iPhone came to light (or rather being on Apple's board of directors, Eric Schmidt became privy to) that suddenly it changed direction and became a touchscreen based iPhone-like OS, debuting on an actual phone just over a year later.
That story doesn't add up as Google demoed a touch-based version of the OS in 2007, just 3 months after the iPhone was announced. As talented and resourceful as Google is, I find it far-fetched that the OS would undergo a supposed drastic rewrite in such a small time frame.
It is true that Android started out as a competitor to the Sidekick, but if you watch the original Google demo, many of the key features of Android including the way it handles notifications were already in place. The OS itself had been touch focused for some time.
The G1 came a year later because in between, Google formed the Open Handset Alliance and began getting OEMs on board before they came to work with HTC. Plus Android was still quite primitive at that stage. It's interesting how far it has come in such a short space of time though.
The Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10 inch screen was a major disappointment for me I could not read the paper without zooming in. The screen on the iPad is perfect for reading the newspaper or magazine. I don't think the Samsung Galaxy Tab 3 10 inch screen is any better hopefully Samsung will bring out tablets with a better screen next year.
I expect the screen on the Nexus 10 2 will be a good resolution I am interested in seeing what it is like.
That story doesn't add up as Google demoed a touch-based version of the OS in 2007, just 3 months after the iPhone was announced. As talented and resourceful as Google is, I find it far-fetched that the OS would undergo a supposed drastic rewrite in such a small time frame.
It is true that Android started out as a competitor to the Sidekick, but if you watch the original Google demo, many of the key features of Android including the way it handles notifications were already in place. The OS itself had been touch focused for some time.
The G1 came a year later because in between, Google formed the Open Handset Alliance and began getting OEMs on board before they came to work with HTC. Plus Android was still quite primitive at that stage. It's interesting how far it has come in such a short space of time though.
But as said, Eric Schmidt would have been aware of what Apple had in development long before it was revealed to the world. Plenty of time to report back to Google and get working on their own touch OS. It's 1984 all over again.
I remember that tablet and it was a failure. Seemed like no purpose.
When the rest of the industry went with netbooks Apple came along with Ipad. Who was right? Netbooks are finished. Microsoft seem to think putting a keyboard on a tablet is the ideal niche now.
Did nobody tell them how good the Ipad keyboard is and you don't need a stick on keyboard?
The iPad keyboard is good? If its improved over what I have on my iPhone 4S, then maybe it is okay. But if its the same basic keyboard, but bigger, then no - it isn't anything like as good as what google have on Android (this is from typing regularly on both my 4S and Nexus 7).
Netbooks are just small laptops, which surprisingly are still doing ok.
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Zack, please, the first Android phone, to buy, in the shops was the G1 aka HTC Dream, first available 22 October 2008.
iPhone available to buy June 29 2007. Source: Wikipedia.
That's a full 15 months earlier. 15 months. By the time Google had got their act together, Apple had already released the 2nd iteration of iPhone, the 3G.
Android (for touch) was totally a reaction to the iPhone and it took Google all that time to re-engineer Android for touch and come up with what was at best a mediocre device notable only for being the first smartphone to offer Android. And that chin.
As it was, I had to wait for my then feature phone contract to expire before getting what was then the new(ish) HTC G2. By that time, of course, other manufacturers were coming on board with their takes on what constituted a great Android phone. And that G2 ended up being buggy rubbish BTW.
Zack, please, the first Android phone, to buy, in the shops was the G1 aka HTC Dream, first available 22 October 2008.
iPhone available to buy June 29 2007. Source: Wikipedia.
That's a full 15 months earlier. 15 months. By the time Google had got their act together, Apple had already released the 2nd iteration of iPhone, the 3G.
Android (for touch) was totally a reaction to the iPhone and it took Google all that time to re-engineer Android for touch and come up with what was at best a mediocre device notable only for being the first smartphone to offer Android. And that chin.
As it was, I had to wait for my then feature phone contract to expire before getting what was then the new(ish) HTC G2. By that time, of course, other manufacturers were coming on board with their takes on what constituted a great Android phone. And that G2 ended up being buggy rubbish BTW.
Google debuted Android in November 2007, with a prototype 3G touch device (before the iPhone 3G was released ), so no, they did not "re-engineer" Android at all. Here's the original video, posted in November 2007, it had been in development for quite some time by then.
The TMobile G1 came a year later because Google had to get people on board with Android before anything could happen. They formed the Open Handset Alliance in November 2007 following Android's debut and worked closely with HTC to create the first Android device. Android as a touch operating system was already in existence the same year Apple debuted the iPhone, so they absolutely did not take 15 months to "catch up" as it were.
The two OSs were very much being worked on in parallel. The interesting thing is how far Android has come in such a short time. After the success of the Motorola Droid and later the Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Desire, it only took Android around a year to begin surpassing iOS.
Comments
I don't have a DNLA capable device so I need something like the Apple TV or even the Chromecast to allow me to stream from my devices to my TV.
Yep. Agreed. But by buying an Apple TV you are limiting yourself to only be able to stream to units that also have an Apple TV connected (or carry your own unit around). By choosing the DLNA option you are able to stream to/from any of the thousands of makes/models of hardware that are DLNA compatible which includes the majority (?) of new televisions.
Id also argue that you are not wirelessly streaming with your setup but thats a whole other argument
... As i have said though, both work and work fine. I would argue that anyone could convincingly state that the Apple approach is 'better' than the DLNA one. I cant see any benefits of the Apple approach at all.
The 2.5X higher than iPhone resolution super retina Android smartphones thus need Tegra 4.(should they not have called it the Tegra 4+1 ?).
SO if you stick the new Apple A7 in the 3GS with its old screen it will really rocket.
I don't have a single DLNA device so they are hardly ubiquitous! Just how low down the vast Android spectrum can you go before the phone won't drive it?
so you dont have a windows PC ? A smart TV (of various makes) ? A PS3 ? An XBox ? A NAS Drive ? Blimey :eek:
On the flip side I genuinely know nobody with Apple TV but everyone in my family (including my 93 year old grandma) have smart TVs.
Id be willing to bet that there are MANY times more DLNA devices out there than there are Apple TV units
Just taking the PS3 - it has sold 80 million units worldwide.
Compare that to 15 million Apple TV units (13 million in May). Just taking one DLNA device means I am 5 times more likely to find a compatible unit at a friends house
Really not quite sure what your last sentence means ???
As I have said, im not criticising Apple TV at all. I was simply unsure as to how someone could state that it is better than the alternative ??
EDIT: A useful link - DLNA
"440 million DLNA units out there" (at the time of the article) - just none in your house
AirPlay works astonishingly well - I shall wait to see on DLNA,:o
I don't have any DLNA devices. We bought our TV in 2010 and it's not a smart TV. However I appreciate your statement about most people having DLNA capable TV's, as I want to upgrade our TV
I have an Apple TV too.
Windows 7 definitely supports DLNA. My laptop (running Win7) just pops up as another device on the PS3 that can be used for streaming content.
It does, as the saying goes, just work. Similarly, the PS3 will happily stream content (only tried video and stills) from my old Symbian phones. Haven't bothered looking for any DLNA support for iOS, as my iPhone doesn't have anything worth streaming on it ....
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=airplay%20android&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fplay.google.com%2Fstore%2Fapps%2Fdetails%3Fid%3Dcom.zappotvapple%26hl%3Den&ei=N5xpUtayN8Kf0QWbo4GoDA&usg=AFQjCNG28rMH72gkpic2uIgRlkUT8RYM8Q&sig2=MszTqJG2r8pknerWZ6lWvQ&bvm=bv.55123115,d.d2k
I quite liked the first generation 7" galaxy tablet but can't imagine many people using these now. These £50 ones will be first be binned.
When I say cheap tablets I don't mean the top range ones like the Motorola and Galaxy 10" one. The difference is manufacturers ad a good lead on Apple before the Iphone came along however in the tablet market it's the others who have played catch up and played it badly. It was always predicable there would be more "tablets" around but I don't know many people who would seriously consider a main tablet other than Apple. I know people with the Kindle Fire as a second tablet but not as a first one.
For that reason I am confident Apple will set the bar and dominate in the same way the Ipod has. Nobody tends to buy other MP3 players these days.
If only people could see this about the phone market. Infact they have Nokia and Blackberry are on the way out. Everybody who doesn't want Iphone maybe goes HTC and Samsung. However I don't get why they buy into the large screens and the echo system of Android is crap. Android was only created as an app platform to challenge Apple. It's software limits phones in so many ways I'd go back to the days where you had Samsung smart phones running there own OS. I know it's personal taste but people should buy into the Iphone more it's a much better device all round camera, software and build quality than anything else on the market. If Iphone 5S was free on a contract today I think it would the worlds biggest smartphone marketshare.
What a complete load of rubbish. Android began development in 2005 and Google gave the first demo in 2007, the same year that Apple debuted the iPhone. It can't have been a reactionary measure, as both operating systems had been in development for a while prior to release.
Android is a more advanced operating system than iOS. It's also worth noting that Android is the most popular OS on tablets and has the largest marketshare. There is also nothing wrong with its ecosystem. It offers pretty much everything that Apple does, plus more.
As for the rest of your post, that's just your personal opinion and nobody is denying you that, but don't post them as facts. There is a reason why Android is the #1 OS on both smartphones and tablets and I don't think it's because it's rubbish.
Advanced, and over advanced lots of rubbish you don't need like anti virus and wallets, ereaders, mail clients, word processors trying to be a desktop on a phone. This is why it's a sluggish and slow operating system.
And we are not talking Google here they released Android for there own use. Somebody somewhere decided to go with Android to take on Apple. From memory it was Samsung and I am sure the first Android was HTC for Google?
Microsoft had tablet computers before iPad with project origami. It was a failure like the surface RT is a failure as they don't understand the use case of a tablet.
You can't deny that the iPad was the first successful iteration of the tablet computer that we know and love today. It was a game changer in the industry. The Android tablets were way behind for quite a while. Microsoft could have taken that spot if they had been quicker on the ball.
Android has caught iPad up now and exceeded it in some aspects, especially in the 7inch sector.
But it is a good thing that we have the choice.
As much as you hate Apple, Android has more in common with iOS than you probably care to admit and it's good for the consumer that there is no one dominating eco system right now.
Competition is good but you seem to fail to understand this.
I remember that tablet and it was a failure. Seemed like no purpose.
When the rest of the industry went with netbooks Apple came along with Ipad. Who was right? Netbooks are finished. Microsoft seem to think putting a keyboard on a tablet is the ideal niche now.
Did nobody tell them how good the Ipad keyboard is and you don't need a stick on keyboard?
There's a slightly different take on that story doing the rounds. It goes that Android started out life as a keyboard based Blackberry-like OS. It's only when the iPhone came to light (or rather being on Apple's board of directors, Eric Schmidt became privy to) that suddenly it changed direction and became a touchscreen based iPhone-like OS, debuting on an actual phone just over a year later.
Don't tell me it can run on the ipad 1st gen?
That story doesn't add up as Google demoed a touch-based version of the OS in 2007, just 3 months after the iPhone was announced. As talented and resourceful as Google is, I find it far-fetched that the OS would undergo a supposed drastic rewrite in such a small time frame.
It is true that Android started out as a competitor to the Sidekick, but if you watch the original Google demo, many of the key features of Android including the way it handles notifications were already in place. The OS itself had been touch focused for some time.
The G1 came a year later because in between, Google formed the Open Handset Alliance and began getting OEMs on board before they came to work with HTC. Plus Android was still quite primitive at that stage. It's interesting how far it has come in such a short space of time though.
I expect the screen on the Nexus 10 2 will be a good resolution I am interested in seeing what it is like.
But as said, Eric Schmidt would have been aware of what Apple had in development long before it was revealed to the world. Plenty of time to report back to Google and get working on their own touch OS. It's 1984 all over again.
The iPad keyboard is good? If its improved over what I have on my iPhone 4S, then maybe it is okay. But if its the same basic keyboard, but bigger, then no - it isn't anything like as good as what google have on Android (this is from typing regularly on both my 4S and Nexus 7).
Netbooks are just small laptops, which surprisingly are still doing ok.
Zack, please, the first Android phone, to buy, in the shops was the G1 aka HTC Dream, first available 22 October 2008.
iPhone available to buy June 29 2007. Source: Wikipedia.
That's a full 15 months earlier. 15 months. By the time Google had got their act together, Apple had already released the 2nd iteration of iPhone, the 3G.
Android (for touch) was totally a reaction to the iPhone and it took Google all that time to re-engineer Android for touch and come up with what was at best a mediocre device notable only for being the first smartphone to offer Android. And that chin.
As it was, I had to wait for my then feature phone contract to expire before getting what was then the new(ish) HTC G2. By that time, of course, other manufacturers were coming on board with their takes on what constituted a great Android phone. And that G2 ended up being buggy rubbish BTW.
Google debuted Android in November 2007, with a prototype 3G touch device (before the iPhone 3G was released
The TMobile G1 came a year later because Google had to get people on board with Android before anything could happen. They formed the Open Handset Alliance in November 2007 following Android's debut and worked closely with HTC to create the first Android device. Android as a touch operating system was already in existence the same year Apple debuted the iPhone, so they absolutely did not take 15 months to "catch up" as it were.
The two OSs were very much being worked on in parallel. The interesting thing is how far Android has come in such a short time. After the success of the Motorola Droid and later the Samsung Galaxy S and HTC Desire, it only took Android around a year to begin surpassing iOS.