Pictures of the iTV remote

Pictures of the iTV remote

Summary: In case you can't tell by my posts for the last couple of days, I'm really into the iTV. My unhealthy obsession is probably due to the fact I've been waiting forever to get a Mac mini for my home entertainment setup. First I was waiting for Intel, then for Core 2 Duo. For those who share my fascination: a new picture of iTV's remote control popped up on the Interweb yesterday.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple
17

Apple iTV Remote Control

In case you can't tell by my posts for the last couple of days, I'm really into the iTV. My unhealthy obsession is probably due to the fact I've been waiting forever to get a Mac mini for my home entertainment setup. First I was waiting for the mini to go Intel, then for the Core 2 Duo speed bump (still waiting for that one). For those who share my iTV fascination: pictures of the remote control popped up on the Interweb yesterday.

FierceIPTV.com posted pictures of the alleged iTV remote control that are confirmed by a "industry source" and I'm not sure that I like it. Granted, no one's certain that it's the iTV remote and I've never used one - but color me concerned. I took issue with Logitech's Harmony 880 remote on the PowerPage recently and fanboys lit me up! I'm picky about my remotes and stick by my story: The emperor has no clothes.

The iTV remote control pictured is a clone of Ruwido VEXO remote control that was announced in September in Europe:

VEXO is an echo of previous and current Apple products: stylish innovation with a minimalist design (not a single button) that puts it far outside the confines of your everyday remote control. Ruwido is in fact the leader of remote control manufacturers in Europe, but most of their products are unremarkable. The VEXO stands out.

Click through for another picture and the rest of the details.

[poll id=15]

Topic: Apple

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

17 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • i don't buy it for a second...

    there is nothing apple whatsoever about that remote even ignoring the lack of a logo.
    that ridiculous little piece of plastic acting as a built-in stand seems so fragile. the
    entire thing is so aesthetically unappealing as to be mind-blowing. all of that dead
    space in the long part for holding it is as anti-apple as can be. seriously, how anyone
    could connect this thing to apple is someone who knows next to nothing about their
    design philosophy.
    thestuntman
  • Perhaps that would explain....

    ...all those touch screen patents. They're for a remote, and not for a touch screen iPod. Who knows?
    tic swayback
    • Typical Apple innovation

      [i]Perhaps that would explain....
      ...all those touch screen patents.[/i]

      If you are right, this follows Apple's pattern of putting something out long after everyone else and calling it "innovative".

      I bought an earlier model of [url=http://us.marantz.com/Products/526.asp] this remote [/url] about 3-4 years ago.
      NonZealot
      • The cultists are out in force today

        ---If you are right, this follows Apple's pattern of putting something out long after everyone else and calling it "innovative".---

        Wow, you really are threatened by Apple, aren't you? Of course technology is not about usability or making money, it's about bragging rights for fanboys like yourself, or boosting the self esteem of zealots by boasting about the superiority of the products they own. Grow up already. Microsoft is not your local sports team.
        tic swayback
        • Huh?

          [i]Microsoft is not your local sports team.[/i]

          Where did I mention Microsoft in my post?

          However, since you brought them up, how would you react if MS patented their Vista sidebar? I'm sure there wouldn't have been any reaction from the Mac faithful. :)

          [i]Of course technology is not about usability or making money[/i]

          I don't disagree with your point here. It is Apple and their zealots who seem to always make a big deal about whether something is "innovative" or not. MS users have always been far more pragmatic about features.
          NonZealot
          • Once again, the lady doth protest too much

            ---I don't disagree with your point here. It is Apple and their zealots who seem to always make a big deal about whether something is "innovative" or not. MS users have always been far more pragmatic about features.---

            Really? Where? I don't see anyone claiming anything innovative about this remote, which, by the way, doesn't actually exist (at least not as an Apple product). Once again, you've had to make up an opponent, and make up an argument for that opponent. What does this tell you about your obsession? No, those Mac zealots you hate so much don't really seem to exist as far as I can tell. The only ones making up crazy arguments about Apple products are MS cultists like yourself.

            Your team sux, my team rulez!!! It's so childish.
            tic swayback
          • You might be too far gone

            [i]No, those Mac zealots you hate so much don't really seem to exist as far as I can tell.[/i]

            Such a pity to see the effects that years of brainwashing can have on an otherwise very intelligent person. Jobs has done his job well. :(
            NonZealot
          • Where are they then?

            Go ahead, you claimed the Mac zealots were declaring this remote to be "innovative". Where was that claim made, and by which zealot?

            Really, you need to do something about the delusions and the hallucinations. At least if you switch to being a sports team fan you'll have a real enemy to root against instead of having to make one up.
            tic swayback
          • Reading comprehension 101

            From my post:
            [i][b]If[/b] you are right[/i]
            You were speculating that the patents involved this remote and I was simply following your speculation to its logical conclusion. I never said it actually happened. Are you the only one allowed to speculate now?

            and
            [i]this follows Apple's pattern[/i]

            A pattern doesn't have to apply in 100% of all cases. Not only that, since [b]you[/b] brought up a hypothetical situation, I was only extrapolating what [b]would[/b] happen (in the future), based on previous Apple zealot behavioural patterns. This is fairly common practice. For example, whenever MS enters into a partnership with anyone, the ABMer zealots immediately claim that the other company is going to get screwed. If I were to reply: [i]show me today how that company got screwed[/i], I would be laughed off the Internet!! The company hasn't gotten screwed yet but the ABMers are extrapolating future MS behaviour based on perceived past behaviour.

            Now, are you going to claim that Apple zealots don't take every little thing that Apple releases, and claims it is innovative? Yeah, you probably will. Like I said... too far gone. :(
            NonZealot
          • Big ifs

            If the patent did indeed involve the remote and not a touch screen iPod, it would be a major disappointment to the Apple faithful, not something to crow about.

            ---I never said it actually happened. Are you the only one allowed to speculate now?---

            So basically you're admitting that no Apple zealots have made the ridiculous claims you're placing at their feet. That you're just making it all up? Because maybe, at some unspecified time or place you think you saw someone doing something you didn't think was accurate? You can't exactly say where or when, and rather than address the actual person who made these alleged claims, you've chosen to just make up a bunch of stuff? Seems an odd strategy to me, one I have a hard time understanding.

            Why is it your job to correct them in the first place, if they do actually exist? I mean, we all like a good argument, but you have made strawman comments like this on pretty much every ZDNet article mentioning the Mac for the last few weeks. Why the (dare I use the word) zealotry? What do you get out of doing this? Does it make you feel good about yourself? Again, wouldn't it be easier to just buy a Red Sox t-shirt and run around shouting "Yankees suck!"
            tic swayback
          • Patterns of behaviour: end of story

            [i]So basically you're admitting that no Apple zealots have made the ridiculous claims you're placing at their feet.[/i]

            I admit to no such thing. Like I said, if you can't see the Apple zealots who do this, you are too far gone. They are easy to spot: look for anyone who claims the Mac is better and, to prove their point, they use terms like M$ and winblowz. Note, people can say the Mac is better as long as they back it up with factual claims and they don't lie about Windows. I can't even remember the last time anyone wrote cr@pple but if you can honestly say you don't see M$ or people claiming that [url=http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10533-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=28363&messageID=530870] XP doesn't support restricted rights users [/url], well, you really are too far gone!!

            [i]Why is it your job to correct them in the first place, if they do actually exist?[/i]

            Well, it isn't my job but it is a task I take on willingly. The point is that if these zealots can see how absolutely ridiculous they sound, maybe they will think twice about posting. I think we will all be happier when the last Mac zealot stops posting on ZDNet, don't you? And no, there are no Windows zealots here. Like I said above, when was the last time you saw anyone write lin$ux or cr@pple or say something as ridiculous as [i]People are forced to buy OSX because it is impossible to buy a PC without it preinstalled.[/i]?

            As an added bonus, sometimes it is fun tweaking the idiots... but you wouldn't know what that was like, right? ;)
            NonZealot
          • I can see zealotry just from reading your posts

            I don't need to go search out posts from these imaginary Mac zealots--I can see a real live zealot just by reading your posts.
            You claim they're easy to spot, but all I've seen lately is you making up fake posts with fake arguments from fake zealots. If they're so prevalent and are over-running ZDNet, how come you keep having to write posts for them?

            I think it's hilarious that you claim I'm magically brainwashed, and then claim that no one ever uses the term "cr@pple" and that there are no MS zealots on this site. Wow, talk about brainwashed!

            ---Well, it isn't my job but it is a task I take on willingly---

            I would say you take it on obsessively.

            ---. I think we will all be happier when the last Mac zealot stops posting on ZDNet, don't you?---

            No, that would be sad, like killing off the last unicorn (another mythical creature). Who wants to read talkbacks filled with nothing but Windows cultists? Not me.

            ---As an added bonus, sometimes it is fun tweaking the idiots... but you wouldn't know what that was like, right? ---

            Sure, but you've taken it way beyond that. You're one of the most frequent posters here now, and nearly all of your posts that I see are bizarre attacks on imaginary posters. It's getting seriously weird. It's no longer just ripping on someone saying something stupid, it's inventing an enemy out of whole cloth, supplying them with dialogue, then disputing that made-up dialogue. It's kind of like watching a crazy man muttering to himself on the subway.
            tic swayback
          • I feel sad for you

            [i]there are no MS zealots on this site[/i]

            I guess it depends on your definition. If we use the Mac zealot definition: [i]An MS zealot is anyone who believes that Apple isn't perfect and [b]dares[/b] to state it!!!!11!!1one!111![/i]

            then yes, there are plenty of MS zealots. By any sane person's definition though, there are no MS zealots here. Wishing I was wrong about that won't make it wrong, no matter what Jobs tells you in your sleep.

            [i]Who wants to read talkbacks filled with nothing but Windows cultists?[/i]

            Here is where I feel sad for you. You basically admit here that anyone who isn't a Mac zealot is automatically a Windows cultist. Unfortunately for you, the vast amounts of empirical evidence on ZDNet doesn't back you up. You should try seeing the world as it is: in shades of gray. Seeing everything in black & white is a sure symptom of being a zealot. When the last Mac zealot stops posting, we will be left with rational people who can discuss OSX flaws, Windows flaws, and how neat a certain feature is without lying about "the other guys". Right now, all of the lying is coming from the Mac zealots.

            [i]It's kind of like watching a crazy man muttering to himself on the subway.[/i]

            Well, if the crazy man is bothering you, why do you keep talking to him? In fact, why is it your job to talk him out of his insanity? I suspect you hear what the crazy man is muttering and you have a sneaking suspicion that he is right. This bothers you so you feel you must go on a crusade to make him be quiet. Yikes, you are probably only a hair's breadth away from beating him to death!!

            Have a good weekend tic, it's been fun. :)
            NonZealot
          • Stunning blinders you're wearing

            Wow. Just wow. It's amazing how you can live with complete contradictions like that. First you claim you're not Anti-Apple, just Anti-Zealot, then you refuse to see the existence of any zealots other than Apple users. And of course, you define an Apple Zealot as anyone who prefers Apple's products over the competition. Then you try to make the opposite claims for me. My, the hypocrisy is getting thick in here.

            As for the crazy man on the subway, I find him oddly fascinating, kind of like reading the book "Helter Skelter". Doesn't mean Charlie Manson was right, just that psychosis is a fascinating subject for study.
            tic swayback
      • RE: Pictures of the iTV remote

        Arrange circumstance you'on the branch of learning of idea intended for <a href="http://auedtabs.com/">buy viagra</a> ease and <a href="http://auedtabs.com/">viagra</a>, by to time <a href="http://nzedpills.com/">viagra</a> is absolutely i'm sorry? Accurately you appeal in place of <a href="http://edPillenLaden.com">viagra</a>|<a href="http://maigrir-beau.com/">phentermine</a>
        tytviagra
  • What about Hannibal?

    At tvease.net- as mentioned on boingboing.net

    "We create the only media centers on the market that come fully configured and
    ready to use" Seems to have it all- with Linux all configured...

    http://store02.prostores.com/servlet/tvease/Detail?no=8
    chris102@...
  • I don't think so...

    That looks more like a sony or samsung product. If that thing's made by apple I'll eat my hat.
    lostarchitect