Okay, I'm starting over here. I just removed a huge rant because you know how I feel about Apple sometimes. I was ranting about what Apple has done to the Apple TV and how it's basically making things MORE difficult for my mom. Ugh.

But anyway, please advise me:

1- is it only possible to get photos on the Apple TV through Photo Stream?
2- can you only use Photo Stream via iCloud?
3- is it only possible to manage Photo Stream via iPhoto?

Thanks.

1 no, you can also use Flickr
2. yes
3. Or an iOS device, you delete photos from the stream in iOS. I don't think you can do that on Apple TV

Thanks for the response.

The reason I was asking is that my mother is retired so she's on a fixed income and she tries to avoid as many subscriptions as possible. It peeves me that the only way for her to view her photos from her computer on her Apple TV is to have a subscription to iCloud (or Flickr). It's especially annoying considering she used to have 30GB of storage on her first-gen Apple TV (which was entirely used for photos). Now she can spend $40/year for 20GB or $100/year for 55GB. And again, all she wants to do is make a slideshow to show her friends photos from her last vacation**. She doesn't want to do this stuff on the road, just in her own house. She shouldn't have to pay for this. This is bogus.

But thanks for your response, Andy. I guess I was just hoping for better news


By manage I include "get on-to." I see no way to get photos from her computer onto Photo Stream, and it seems the only way to do it is through iPhoto.

Does iPhoto manage the placement of the files for you, or are you able to put them anywhere? My mother likes to create folders in which to put her files, with a specific naming convention. She wouldn't like to do the placement through iPhoto. Picasa just displays the photos and doesn't automatically do any file management. Is iPhoto the same?

**before you say it, I know you can fit a vacation's-worth of photos on the free 5GB, but what won't fit is the decades-worth of photos she likes to see on the Apple TV screensaver...

Is this what you want todo?
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4352

Exactly what I was about to link to. I slightly misunderstood Matt's original question and though he was asking if the only way to get photos direct from an iOS device was via iCloud.

Thanks Matt (and Phoenix and Andy), I bought an apple TV last week and I've been wondering how to use it to view photos.

Even if she spent the money for more iCloud storage that wouldn't do what you wanted anyway. Photo Stream in iCloud only holds the last 1000 photos or three months (which doesn't actually count towards your iCloud storage allowances).

If you want to see all your photos you need to use Home Sharing. I think I'm right in saying you can point that at a folder rather than iPhoto, though wether it shows you the folder structure I'm not sure.

Home Sharing means leaving the Mac on to access the photos.

In my case this PC (not mac) is always on.

Press and hold the button in the center of the DPad. Option appears on the AppleTV to delete a photo in a Photo Stream.

Shared Photo Streams also appear on the Apple TV. As best as I can tell, shared streams also do not count against the 5GB free iCloud storage. Each one is limited to 1000 photos though. http://support.apple.com/kb/TS4379

I don't have an Apple TV, but was briefly shown on in action by a friend, so I knew it could stream video and music from an iTunes library, so I found it illogical that the Apple ecosystem would not support a photo/picture library. And I got lucky with Google

Why not get away from all that proprietary Apple shi uhhh, stuff and do something like this.

tanstaafl.

My guesses would be:
Easy of use for his Mom, which will mean few support calls for him.
Lower power consumption: Dell P4 PC Vs Apple TV hockey puck.

Mea culpa! My fault for the early rant. Thanks so much for the link. That's exactly what I was trying to do. It's certainly not obvious, but it's there at least.

Yeah, that would be a bit of a mess, and far more difficult for my mom to use. I have issues with the Apple TV, mainly that they keep pushing local media further back in the interface. But for the most part it's the easiest thing for the average user to operate that offers playback of local media.

Unless you are recommending some Linux software to go along with that refurb-ed PC, you're suggesting he get away from proprietary shi uhhh, stuff, by switching to different proprietary shi uhhh, stuff? Hmm... can't say I see the logic.

Well... understand that I despise Apple stuff, so I am a bit biased in that regard. And my dislike may well be based on my own prejudices - "If it's different from what I'm used to, it can't be any good."

But, that said, the Windows box gives a lot more options. With Apple, it's Steve's way or the highway.

I have my photos arranged in a nice directory tree: D:\Photos\[camera name]\Year\yyyy-mm-dd [Session Description]\[filename].

It sounds cumbersome, but really isn't, because I have a desktop shortcut (updated annually) that takes me right to the "...\Year" portion of the tree.

If I want to see the pictures of Akela playing in the surf, I know that I took the pictures in 2010, so with three mouse clicks I'm at that session, ready to display the photos.

Admittedly there are more "nuts and bolts" steps to actually creating that directory tree system. When I move a shooting session from the camera to the computer I first have to create the new "yyyy-mm-dd [Description]" directory, and then drag the photos from the camera to the new directory. But I grew up on C:> DOS prompts and nuts and bolts like that make me feel right at home.

As always, YMMV.

tanstaafl.

I do plenty of things on my Mac Mini that Steve wouldn't approve of.

Modern Mac Minis also come with HDMI ports and older ones can be converted to HDMI with a passive adapter. The only problem with Mac Mini vs that Dell box is that the Mac Mini actually holds value. You won't find one for $140.

I've recently be playing around with a Sony Google TV (NSZ-GS7). If you have your photos in Picasa Web, it's about as seamless as can be. It even syncs your friend's photos, so if they come over and want to show you a slide show, there's no setup necessary. The other aspects of Google TV could use some work, but the Gallery app is seriously good (if you live in Google's cloud).

Indeed. The only difference beyond allowing your system is that it also includes (but in no way forces) a photo application that would reduce that face hunting. It also has an Apple logo that spawns highly polarized discussions.

Doug, while I may share some of your prejudices against Apple ( ), I couldn't ever recommend an HTPC to my mom. It would be far too much of a support hassle (not because of the software, but because of my mom).

For nearly everyone who asks me about these set top boxes (who is also the "average consumer"), I give them the same reply: if you have a bunch of Apple stuff and/or use iTunes a good amount you should get an Apple TV. Otherwise: get a Roku.

The Roku is FAR easier to use and much cheaper than that desktop you linked to. Plex even runs on it now, so that can display local media pretty darn well.

I've got the older Sony Bluray/Google TV all-in-one. I agree that it's really great when it works. Unfortunately, I can't recommend a GTV box for the generic consumer. At least with my Sony, it gets wedged maybe once a month ("Application TV is not responding!") requiring you to pull the power cord and reboot it. Also, the new YouTube remote display feature, where a button shows up on your Android phone's YouTube app that lets you shift the video to your TV, almost works, but is seriously buggy. (Ten minutes after you're done and, say, back to watching live TV, it will wake up and hijack your TV screen, showing you the previous YouTube video. Very frustrating.)

I really can't recommend it either, but I haven't seen the issues you're experiencing.

I have the HDMI input on the GTV hooked up to a Windows Media Center PC with Intel HD 3000 video. 9 out of 10 times, turning the TV on works just fine. The HDMI handshaking between the HTPC, GTV, AV receiver, and TV works. But, sometimes something doesn't go right and no amount of pulling cables, rebooting the GTV, receiver, or TV will produce a picture. I have to reboot the HTPC through VNC.

This is a pain in the ass that I imagine wouldn't happen if I was using a traditional cable box. Other than that, GTV is cool to have but I still don't think anyone really needs it. A much cheaper Roku box has more to offer at this time.

Yeah, I agree. I really like my Google TV, and I've been surprised how much nicer it is to not have to change inputs to start using it, but I wouldn't recommend it to many people. Besides, development for it has really stalled. Nobody is making an app for Google TV. As a result, I still keep my Boxee Box around for the sole purpose of using vudu. It's a little absurd to keep an entire device for one service these days, especially when the Google TV should be fully capable of playing vudu content. Sadly, it doesn't sound like they'll ever make an app for it.

GTV, at least, seems to have a credible plan for spreading to new devices. LG and Sony are pushing out TVs with embedded GTV support, and the converter boxes, which used to be pricey, have gotten cheaper.

Much like AppleTV is/was a "hobby" for Apple, I see GTV as the same thing for Google. Give them a few years and it will get more serious.

What I'm surprised we haven't seen yet is any integration of GTV (or Boxee or whatever else) into a consumer home theater receiver. Those things have increasingly complex UI requirements, for which it would make sense to have GTV as a front-end rather than the traditional homebrew kludges. Also, I suspect there's a significant overlap between the crowd who says "I want decent audio, so I bought speakers and an amp" and the crowd who might be willing to deal with the quirkiness of GTV.

I'm firmly in the "I DO NOT want an integrated solution" camp. I simply do not ever want a GTV, Apple TV, Roku, or anything BUILT IN to a television set. It simply makes no sense. I've had the same TV for 6 years now, and in that time I've had at least 4 set top boxes attached to it because the product segment has advanced like crazy in that time. For example, the first Apple TV was released when I bought my TV. If that had been built in, today I wouldn't have the latest interface and I wouldn't have Airplay. I'm not picking on Apple there, either. I could make the same argument about any of these other set top boxes. I also plan to keep this TV for another 3 years at least.

While integration looks nice and is simpler to use for most end users, it has that one huge downside that makes no sense to me. You could argue that later on you could just add the latest box, but then I'm left with a kludgy system. I only want my TV to be a big, dumb monitor.



The problem is that they don't have "a few years." Apple is getting more serious about the Apple TV, whether or not they release an actual set top box or even make content deals. They're already ahead of Google, and Google has completely stalled. I haven't received an update for my Google TV in ages, and while that may be Sony's fault, I haven't heard that I'm missing anything important. That, combined with the developers having apparently abandoned the platform, leads me to believe that GTV does not have a good future.

Heck, the biggest evidence I can think of is that I see no "Google Plusification" of Google TV.


Aside from my earlier feelings about integration, I can think of an easy answer to this one: so few people buy receivers. I once asked an employee at a respectable home theater store in my area: how many people go with a complete home theater versus just using a TV for sound and component switching. He estimated a 50/50 split. Today, I wouldn't be surprised if even fewer people buy receivers.

I will agree, though, that the UIs on receivers has been absolute garbage for years. I have a fairly recent (2 years old) Denon receiver that can't even show the on-screen menu on digital outputs. Even when I'm using an analog connection, it's all white letters on black background, and has a terrible interface. But I've seen screenshots of recent receivers that look like they have really slick UIs. One looked almost like the PS3 interface.

But in the end, I think these companies are now all about targeting the largest market they can, and that means set top boxes and TVs.

Further food for thought: if you look sideways at a GTV box, it's really a switch with two inputs: the external HDMI input (typically your cable box or TiVo) and the internal GTV feed. Mine adds a third input: the integrated Blu-ray player.

That's not too far away from the new generation of low-end home theater receivers. Consider, for example the bottom-of-the-line Denon AVR-1312 ($250 list, $180 direct from Denon on sale). It's got 4 HDMI inputs, 1 HDMI output, and a small handful of other inputs. The back panel is mostly blank. Higher-end Denon units add support for Apple Airplay and other networked features, but those probably have Denon's crappy UI. Conversely, if you shoehorned a GTV box in here, you'd instantly have a very useful device at what would probably still be a dirt cheap price.



I do agree that Google hasn't been doing very much lately with GTV. The only recent feature bump I can think of is the YouTube app integration with Android phones, which is too buggy to use, at least for me. They also have been tweaking minor things, like updating the Google Play Store app to having rough parity with what you find on phones. I think part of the problem is that there just aren't that many things you *do* with a box like this. The only apps we regularly run are Pandora and Google Play (both for music) and occasionally ViMu Player (nee GTVBox), which connects to my computer upstairs to stream MKV files and such. Since GTV remote controllers are completely useless for gaming, you won't see a lot of native game ports. (Given the specs of a modern GTV box, it's kinda surprising that Google hasn't pushed them as a console gaming platform, not even for casual Wii-like games.)

The biggest mystery to me is that HBO has a native Android version of HBO Go, but they require GTV users to go through the web browser, which is much more painful to navigate. Plus, if/when Google strips Flash out of the GTV Chrome browser, HBO Go support will die.

I didn't even realize you could get a receiver that was that barren.

While it's a product that I would like, I just don't think it would sell. I also want to observe that if you approach it from another angle, what you're asking for is to put a couple more inputs and a couple more speaker terminals on a Nexus Q

Those receivers aren't much more than an amp and some terminals. I don't think you'd still see a price tag of $250 if it had a GTV squeezed into it.


Here is where I completely agree with you. There really isn't a huge range of things you could do, or more accurately, things you would want to do. When I say I want more apps, I'm wanting apps from content providers. I'm frustrated that vudu and rdio aren't bothering to make an app. rdio is especially frustrating since they already have an app on Android, and I'd just like to see a slightly tweaked version of that. Unfortunately, there's just so few GTV users that nobody wants to develop for it.


HDMI is a wonderful thing, isn't it? I'd like better terminals for the rear and center speakers, but otherwise I'm sure I could get by with that receiver.

Upgradeable firmware could be a solution to this if you could find a manufacturer who was committed to keeping their releases fairly current.

I went rummaging around the GoogleTV G+ group, and it seems there are a few new-ish features that show that things haven't completely stagnated on GTV.

. Prime Time Quick Guide (an overlay search thing that seems to me to be more annoying than useful)
. YouTube "send to your TV"
. Voice Search (assuming you've got a microphone somewhere; my GTV doesn't have one)
. Assorted integration of the Google Play store for movies and TV shows

And I guess there are some semi-important new 3rd-party apps. Notably, Amazon Instant Video is now supported. Sirius XM announced something, but it's not available yet. If you want to work with the movie industry's "Ultraviolet" standard, you can use the Flixster app. So... that's certainly not nothing.

This all looks, at least from the outside, like Google has a modest team that's steadily turning the crank. In terms of long-term strategery (sic), I wouldn't be surprised if Miracast is a big part of it, trying to leverage the success of Android on phones/tablets. Not that GTV supports Miracast. Yet.

If somebody made a clone of the Nexus Q with a beefier amplifier, that would be really attractive for solving a separate problem in my house, wherein I've got my great big speakers that didn't fit into the current home theater so they're sitting forlornly in a corner. I had them hooked up to an Apple Airport Express and a receiver, but I hardly ever used it -- too much of a pain. Sonos makes a box that's got all the right hardware (two channel amp, Ethernet), but I'm not sure I want to buy into their universe.

Yeah, plus that Sonos box is a ridiculous $500. Makes the Q seem like a steal considering all the additional stuff it does.

Ahh, then perhaps you'd like the bottom-of-the-line Onkyo HT-RC460?



Seven channels of real beefy terminals, eight HDMI inputs (one in front), two HDMI outputs, and they even have room equalization. All that, and more, for the really quite remarkably low price of $250. So tell me again why somebody might want to buy a $2000 receiver?

Anyway, since I'm apparently on a roll here, one other gadget caught my eye. Samsung makes a $600 receiver with integrated Bluray player -- probably a good thing if you're setting up a home theater for somebody who hates boxes.

Otherwise, it seems the world of the low-cost receiver has contracted remarkably. Back in the day, you had tons of vendors competing to sell craptastic receivers. If you go to a place like Crutchfield, you won't see much at all at low prices beyond what used to be the second-tier fancy vendors (Onkyo, Yamaha, Denon), who have apparently moved down as others have abandoned the market segment. (Notably unfortunate: Panasonic used to make some great, low-cost receivers with class-D amplifiers. Gone.)

It's all very sad.

I happen to have just purchased a Yamaha RX-A3020 for a friend of mine. The primary reason is the 4 zones with Zone 2 & 3 being amplified. The other option would have been a cheaper multi-zone receiver without built-in amplification. Once you add an external amp to the mix, the price gets up there along with the operational complexity.

Other plusses to the Yamaha are built-in AirPlay support and an app for iOS and Android that looks nifty.

Playing with other people's money is fun.

Where is that machine sold for USD$250 ?

Edit: I see it on Amazon.com (USA) for $300, domestic shipping included. But not (new) for $250 anywhere.