Pentium M-based Intel chip at heart of Apple TV

[AppleInsider]

Exclusive: Pop the lid off an Apple TV, the new wireless streaming media device from Apple, Inc., and you'll find that it's built around an aging Pentium M-based Intel processor and other yesteryear notebook technologies.

Apple through its website last week began accepting pre-orders for the $299 device, due to ship next month. It also listed a general set of technical specifications that included mention of an "Intel processor" and "40GB hard drive."

But for the most part, Apple in its public disclosure on Apple TV has foregone the nitty-gritty of processor specifics, bus speeds and video decoding technology. The omissions have driven some enthusiasts crazy, but we think we've finally got answers.

According to those familiar with the component makeup of Apple TV, it utilizes a 1.0GHz Pentium M-based chip (code-named "Crofton"), which has been under-clocked to run on a 350MHz bus. The chip is based on Intel's pre-Core Duo "Dothan" core and includes 2MB of L2 cache.

Aiding the Pentium M in video decoding are a nVidia G72M with 64MB DDR2 video memory (essentially the GeForce Go 7400) and 256MB of 400MHz DDR2 main system memory, the latter of which is reportedly soldered to the logic board.

Meanwhile, the device's internal 40GB hard disk drive -- a 2.5-inch PATA -- serves as a local storage for 50 hours of movies and TV shows, 9,000 songs, or 25,000 pictures. Users can sync their entire iTunes libraries to the drive but will need an internet connection when attempting to play back licensed content purchased from the iTunes Store.

Apple TV can join a wireless network in one of two ways -- over 802.11n wireless technology or through high-speed 10/100 terrestrial ethernet. However, it won't function as its own wireless router nor will it support Apple's AirTunes technology. Similarly, it doesn't include Bluetooth.

The sole purpose of the device is to act as a set-top box that will stream audio and video content from up to five iTunes libraries to a enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TV.



Wireless technology, according to those familiar with Apple TV, is delivered through the combination of an 802.11n mini PCIe card and five wireless antennas spread throughout the device's chassis -- two for data transmission and three for data reception. A fan is also included for cooling, those people say.

Although each Apple TV ships with a USB port, it is offered purely for services and diagnostics purposes.

When it ships in February, Apple TV will require the forthcoming releases of iTunes 7.1 and QuickTime 7.1.5.

Published Sunday 5:00pm ET as part of Monday's early morning edition.[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2395)

[jp_flashman]

interesting that apple TV has a better graphics processor than the macbook!

[dukemeiser]

Nobody seems to have an answer: Does it HAVE to be a widescreen TV? Or can it be 480p 4:3 ratio?

[Galley]

Nobody seems to have an answer: Does it HAVE to be a widescreen TV? Or can it be 480p 4:3 ratio?

Progressive scan 4:3 TVs should work.

[Propofol]

What does that mean? Will a 30" TV bought in 1994 likely be able to be used with the apple TV?

[dukemeiser]

What I want to know is if standard old full screen 4:3 aspect ratio TVs that have progressive scan will work with Apple TV. Thanks Galley, I sure hope you're right. Otherwise I'd have to buy a new widescreen TV just so it would work, and I'm sure not going to do that.

[Kasper]

What I want to know is if standard old full screen 4:3 aspect ratio TVs that have progressive scan will work with Apple TV. Thanks Galley, I sure hope you're right. Otherwise I'd have to buy a new widescreen TV just so it would work, and I'm sure not going to do that.

I believe it will work fine if you have red-blue-green compositive video ports on your TV. But a TV from 1994 won't have these. I'm not sure about convertors and how that would work.

Internally Apple lists TV requirements as: "Enhanced- or high-definition widescreen capable of 1080i, 720p, 576p (PAL), or 480p."

On its website Apple similarly says Apple TV supports: "Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz."

So it sounds like they only plan to support EDTV and HDTVs that have at least the composite connection.

This took me by surprise as well. Hopefully we can get a better answer soon.

Best,

K

[DeaPeaJay]

Who needs airtunes when you have iTV. That's only logical. I'm also glad they're using an old pentium processor. Who needs the latest and greatest when you have something that works fine and costs less? It saves me money.

[MacSuperiority]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.

[SpamSandwich]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.

Welcome to the real-world of consumer electronics. :D

[Gon]

You know, part for part that's better than the original XBox.

[deepdarkfunky]

wouldn't they want to use something from the ViiV platform?

[msantti]

interesting that apple TV has a better graphics processor than the macbook!

Your joking, right?

[Hattig]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.

And $10m (another made up figure) in software development costs and associated costs (website, support, design, etc).

If it bombs and they only sell 100,000 (the initial shipment), they've broken even ($150 + $100 + misc), and gained some useful technologies / code for the future.

I thought it would use a 1.8" hard drive. A 40GB 2.5GB hard drive is a bit of a let down, albeit cheap. Why not offer a $349 option with an 80GB hard drive, or $399 with 120GB?

I don't care about the hardware, as long as it does the job. Maybe a faster CPU + GPU would have allowed 1080i/1080p support however. Maybe this can be added via a firmware update in the future (1080i especially isn't that much more than 720p) but this is not Apple's style.

I'm waiting until next year for Rev. 2 :) Not that I have a compliant TV at the moment unless it will work on a widescreen PAL TV via component->SCART... Maybe Rev. 2 will be cheaper, or add more features.

I guess we know it runs on a subset of Mac OS X now though ...

[dukemeiser]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.
All you really get is convenience. Anyone can hook there computer up to their TV right now with the proper cables. Apple TV makes it seamless and easy to view all of your media. A built in DVR would make the price more reasonable because $300 is ridiculous. I'll still buy one (if it works with my TV) though I will certainly cringe when I do. Of course a year later Apple will probably add a DVR to it, an then I'll have to buy one of those too!

[Hattig]

You know, part for part that's better than the original XBox.

Heh, good point! Probably 50% faster CPU wise, the GPU memory is the same as the entire memory of the XBox and then there's 256MB more beyond that (= 5x memory), more HD, and the graphics chip is probably far more powerful and featureful too. That's what 5 years of technology advancement gets you.

I guess that as a media device it also has better quality outputs (decent audio DACs, etc)...

Not bad for £199. A Wii is £179 ... then again the Wii is simply awesome.

[Chucker]

interesting that apple TV has a better graphics processor than the macbook!

They're virtually the same, especially if the tv uses TurboCache, which we don't know.

[VTrain]

I don't care about the hardware, as long as it does the job. Maybe a faster CPU + GPU would have allowed 1080i/1080p support however. Maybe this can be added via a firmware update in the future (1080i especially isn't that much more than 720p) but this is not Apple's style.


It already supports 1080i.

[MacSuperiority]

Jobs said 720p.

[VTrain]

Jobs said 720p.

As Kaspar stated earlier,

"On its website Apple similarly says Apple TV supports: "Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz."

[Blascock]

40gb? thats it?...common apple thats tooo small

[pmjoe]

As Kaspar stated earlier,

"On its website Apple similarly says Apple TV supports: "Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz."
Those are the TVs it supports. The actual video it will play back is 720p max.

[solipsism]

I don't care about the hardware, as long as it does the job. Maybe a faster CPU + GPU would have allowed 1080i/1080p support however.

This is part of the marketing.

Early adopters will buy the device, regardles.
Most people know what HD stands for, but have no idea of the differences between 720p, 1080i, 1080p30, 100p60, etc.
The majority of HDTVs currently being used are not even 1080p capable,
Media appliances are not something you need to upgrade as often as a PC. AppleTV (rev.1) will still be useful 5 -10 years from now for most people's needs. So this gives Apple something new to sell you a year from now. (add a faster CPU, GPU, more RAM, larger HDD, and 1000BASE-T). They might even hold off on upgrading the OS's features, with an excuse that the current HW can't handle the load, which will force you to buy the newer version.

[pmjoe]

AppleTV (rev.1) will still be useful 5 -10 years from now for most people's needs.
If it doesn't have the hardware to decompress video beyond 720p, I really doubt it'll still be useful 10 let alone 5 years from now (other than for audio playback). Larger TVs being sold will be mostly 1080p in a year, prices will keep coming down, and then the official switchover to HD in the US will occur in less than 5 years. I'd give it 1-2 years max before the average person starts to realize how weak the specs on this are. On the plus side, that fits in better with your "giv[ing] Apple something new to sell you a year from now".

[solipsism]

If it doesn't have the hardware to decompress video beyond 720p, I really doubt it'll still be useful 10 let alone 5 years from now (other than for audio playback). Larger TVs being sold will be mostly 1080p in a year, prices will keep coming down, and then the official switchover to HD in the US will occur in less than 5 years. I'd give it 1-2 years max before the average person starts to realize how weak the specs on this are. On the plus side, that fits in better with your "giv[ing] Apple something new to sell you a year from now".
If I recall correcly the average person keeps their TV for 5-9 years. There is also iTunes video resolution; I speculate this will only improve to 720p for the next 5 years.

[smax]

How long until someone installs inux on one...?

It would be a cheap box to experiment on...

[bobsmells]

I'm a bit confused - can someone explain why I would need to sync my iTunes content onto the Apple TV's hard drive, if I can stream all the content I want over the air? For a lot of users, I agree, 40gb is less than their iTunes library and this therefore raises questions about what gets synced and what doesn't, and do we enter manual mode somehow if this happens...but if the wireless network will support streaming video (which would be the hungriest bandwidth-wise), then I don't understand why I'd need to have my data in two places (my mac and my Apple TV)?

I guess it'll come down to speed, i.e. content on the hard drive will be accessed faster. But either I'm misunderstanding something or my requirements are different to most people, because I would assume that if there is ANY slowdown or frame loss for streamed video, then the device becomes pretty pointless (for video anyway). And if there ISN'T any slowdown, then we're back to my original question - what's the point in syncing to the hard drive?

Any ideas?

[k squared]

40gb? thats it?...common apple thats tooo small

Too small for what? Stream content from your main computer...that is what it's designed to do, you know.

Of course, once it starts shipping and people crack it open, someone will find a way to upgrade the drive.

[Texas Flood]

You store the content on the Apple TV so that your computer doesn't need to be running to watch or listen to the content.

[Gon]

Heh, good point! Probably 50% faster CPU wise, the GPU memory is the same as the entire memory of the XBox and then there's 256MB more beyond that (= 5x memory), more HD, and the graphics chip is probably far more powerful and featureful too. That's what 5 years of technology advancement gets you.

I guess that as a media device it also has better quality outputs (decent audio DACs, etc)...Yes. This means the folks who predicted the hardware would be highly specialized, were mistaken. This is why I brought up the comparison to XBox. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a gamepad - connect via infrared or any wireless standard they want by using the USB plug at the back - and sell games far beyond what is possible with the iPod.

An AppleTV Live Arcade, if you will.

[dukemeiser]

I'm a bit confused - can someone explain why I would need to sync my iTunes content onto the Apple TV's hard drive, if I can stream all the content I want over the air? For a lot of users, I agree, 40gb is less than their iTunes library and this therefore raises questions about what gets synced and what doesn't, and do we enter manual mode somehow if this happens...but if the wireless network will support streaming video (which would be the hungriest bandwidth-wise), then I don't understand why I'd need to have my data in two places (my mac and my Apple TV)?

I guess it'll come down to speed, i.e. content on the hard drive will be accessed faster. But either I'm misunderstanding something or my requirements are different to most people, because I would assume that if there is ANY slowdown or frame loss for streamed video, then the device becomes pretty pointless (for video anyway). And if there ISN'T any slowdown, then we're back to my original question - what's the point in syncing to the hard drive?

Any ideas?

If you shut your computer down, you could still play it off Apple TV after you sync it. Plus it's a good way to back up your media. Hardly anything on my computer is more important than my photos, videos, and music so having them backed up automatically to another location is also good insurance.

[dukemeiser]

Yes. This means the folks who predicted the hardware would be highly specialized, were mistaken. This is why I brought up the comparison to XBox. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a gamepad - connect via infrared or any wireless standard they want by using the USB plug at the back - and sell games far beyond what is possible with the iPod.

An AppleTV Live Arcade, if you will.

It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.

[solipsism]

It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.

Five words: eight-oh-two-eleven-bee

[anantksundaram]

This product seems like a DUD. It does not approach Apple's usual standards.

Way less than meets the eye. I was truly looking forward to getting one for my birthday (from my wife, who usually asks me what I want, I tell her, and... :D), but I am going to wait.

Yesterday's stuff.

:no:

[Gon]

It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.You apparently ignored the part of my post that said "any wireless standard". There's an USB plug at the back which the tech specs claim will be used for "service and updates". Sounds to me like that port is unused practically always. In fact, if they just build in standard USB joystick support, you could go to the nearest computer store and pick up a run-of-the-mill PC wireless gamepad. For instance Logitech has a good pad with 2.4GHz wireless, tiny USB receiver and multiple pads supported on one receiver.

[Johnny Mozzarella]

You apparently ignored the part of my post that said "any wireless standard". There's an USB plug at the back which the tech specs claim will be used for "service and updates". Sounds to me like that port is unused practically always. In fact, if they just build in standard USB joystick support, you could go to the nearest computer store and pick up a run-of-the-mill PC wireless gamepad. For instance Logitech has a good pad with 2.4GHz wireless, tiny USB receiver and multiple pads supported on one receiver.

Actually the official thech specs list it as "USB 2.0 (for service and diagnostics)"
This is the biggest let down for me.
I would have gotten one if I could of attached an external HD to supplement the 40GB internal drive.

I think Apple has a golden opportunity to create the home server standard.
The AppleTV should be able to back up important files from from up to 5 Macs & PCs.
Backup is the killer app! Something nobody has made drop dead simple.
They should have called it the iVault and designed it to work with Leopard's Time Machine.

[solsun]

This product seems like a DUD. It does not approach Apple's usual standards.

Way less than meets the eye. I was truly looking forward to getting one for my birthday (from my wife, who usually asks me what I want, I tell her, and... :D), but I am going to wait.

Yesterday's stuff.

:no:

Why not just buy a Mac mini and hook it up to your tv? Bigger hard drive, better processor, more Ram, bluetooth, and you can still hook it up to your wireless network plus you'd be able to surf the web and buy content from iTunes directly from your tv. With tv you have to buy content from your computer and stream it to your tv (not very convenient if your on the couch and want to watch something spur of the moment) Using a Mac mini and a wireless keyboard on your coffe table, you could buy content directly from iTunes and watch without streaming.

Considering that Mac mini's already have the Front Row interface, I don't really see the appeal of tv. The mini is even smaller.

Oh yeah, the mini is a dvd player too.

[Chucker]

Five words: eight-oh-two-eleven-bee

A remote via WiFi? You have got to be kidding me. The battery life would be disastrous.

[NanoAkron]

Imagine - a hacked AppleTV on top of your TV, with hacked iPhones as accelerometer-based controllers.

Apple-Wii, here we come...

[krankerz]

I don't see why people keep bringing up non-widescreen TV's with component that are 480p. I have FOUR TV's in my house all of which are 4:3, have component inputs, but are only 480i. I KNOW that these types of TV's are out there (mainly because I own several). What about these TV's? Will they not be supported either? I have never heard of this...Heck, my PS3 is a frickin Blu-ray player hooked up via component capable of (although it's not) outputting at 1080p and still works on my 480i component TV. I would be speechless if Apple forced this down my throat. Anyway, I already bought the Apple TV because I'm an Apple whore, so I'll know soon enough if I have to upgrade.

[Wiggin]

I think Apple has a golden opportunity to create the home server standard.
The AppleTV should be able to back up important files from from up to 5 Macs & PCs.
Backup is the killer app! Something nobody has made drop dead simple.
They should have called it the iVault and designed it to work with Leopard's Time Machine.

How much you want to make a bet that when Leopard is released Time Machine will work with Apple's new Airport Extreme wireless router. Remember, there's a USB port there to hook up an external USB drive...instant NAS. You didn't think Apple would leave you hanging with no storage options to point Time Machine to did you? 8)

[franksargent]

I thought it would use a 1.8" hard drive. A 40GB 2.5GB hard drive is a bit of a let down, albeit cheap. Why not offer a $349 option with an 80GB hard drive, or $399 with 120GB?

I don't have a clue, but I'd expect one of the first things someone would try is to replace the stock HD with a higher capacity HD. I'll bet one of the techy websites tries this after a teardown. Yes, you would void the warranty, but if it is known that this will work, some people will risk it.

I'm assuming that the stock drive doesn't have any "special sauce" and that it's a standard stock mac partition.

[smax]

If you hook the drive up to a computer along with another larger drive and clone it, why wouldn't it work? Unless they only allow the thing to address 40 GB of space...

[mikef]

I don't see why people keep bringing up non-widescreen TV's with component that are 480p. I have FOUR TV's in my house all of which are 4:3, have component inputs, but are only 480i. I KNOW that these types of TV's are out there (mainly because I own several). What about these TV's? Will they not be supported either?

According to the Apple posted specs, no, your 480i capable sets are not compatible with the AppleTV. Maybe it's an oversight on the spec sheet and the AppleTV will output 480i, but that's not what it currently says/does.

Since I'm using old 480i technology at home, the AppleTV is no good for me either :(

[solsun]

According to the Apple posted specs, no, your 480i capable sets are not compatible with the AppleTV. Maybe it's an oversight on the spec sheet and the AppleTV will output 480i, but that's not what it currently says/does.

Since I'm using old 480i technology at home, the AppleTV is no good for me either :(

Mac mini and Front Row will do it.

[tacojohn]

I can't get over how much people are complaining about the AppleTV and the iPhone!

The AppleTV does exactly what it set out to do- provide an easy way for people to get their media from their macs to their TV's. Nothing more, nothing less.

It's a simple device that let's people do this and it does it well. Apple still wants people to use their computers as digital hubs, but this allows you to step away from your mac and view all of your iTunes media on a larger screen in your home theater.

They're aiming to provide an end to end solution for movies, photos, and music. You use your mac to purchase and organize your media and you have other devices (AppleTV, iPod, and iPhone) that can easily share and playback this media.

Simple- no complicated configuration, special codec support, etc. Simple Simple Simple.

[solipsism]

A remote via WiFi? You have got to be kidding me. The battery life would be disastrous.

I'm not kidding. 802.11b is older tech uses very little power. Especially when you reduce the signal strength to only function within the size of a large room as there is no need for the signal to travel through several walls. It's quite feasible.

[solsun]

I can't get over how much people are complaining about the AppleTV and the iPhone!

They're aiming to provide an end to end solution for movies, photos, and music. You use your mac to purchase and organize your media and you have other devices (AppleTV, iPod, and iPhone) that can easily share and playback this media.

Simple- no complicated configuration, special codec support, etc. Simple Simple Simple.

But currently, ?tv is not really an end to end solution for media in the living room if you have to get up and go to your den to purchase a tv show, then go back in the living room to watch it.. ?tv needs to allow direct access to the iTunes store from your living room so you can sit on your couch, purchase a movie or tv show and begin watching immediately.. Until it does this, I think the Mac mini is a much better end to end media device.

[solipsism]

But currently, ?tv is not really an end to end solution for media in the living room if you have to get up and go to your den to purchase a tv show, then go back in the living room to watch it.. ?tv needs to allow direct access to the iTunes store from your living room so you can sit on your couch, purchase a movie or tv show and begin watching immediately.. Until it does this, I think the Mac mini is a much better end to end media device.

I thought it did do that, hence the pairing to only one machine (i.e.: one iTunes account). Maybe that was for only viewing movie trailers.

[solsun]

I thought it did do that, hence the pairing to only one machine (i.e.: one iTunes account). Maybe that was for only viewing movie trailers.


Nope, there is currently no direct access to the iTunes store from Apple TV.. All iTunes content must be purchased from the host computer. A glaring oversight on Apples part in my opinion. I mean the device has an internet connection, a hard drive and it can stream, why on earth would they not allow you to purchase content directly from your couch?

[AgNuke1707]

But currently, ?tv is not really an end to end solution for media in the living room if you have to get up and go to your den to purchase a tv show, then go back in the living room to watch it.. ?tv needs to allow direct access to the iTunes store from your living room so you can sit on your couch, purchase a movie or tv show and begin watching immediately.. Until it does this, I think the Mac mini is a much better end to end media device.

But you still have to get up, go to the Mac Mini and buy the content if you want to watch it. You haven't saved any time, plus, I don't want my HDTV being my computer monitor.

I think there's a lot of confusion as to the identity of this device. I think the 40GB drive was only intended as buffer space. If you're streaming the content over WiFi, why do want it on the device itself? I think Steve confused a lot of people in the Keynote by saying that you can sync ?tv and put iTS content on it. That made a lot of people think this thing was intended to be an alternative storage area. In that case a larger HDD would be warranted, but right now, if you're gonna watch 40GB of TV Shows or Movies before you sit down at your computer again, there may be a few issues for you to work out.

Where Apple will sell this to people is in their retail stores. Let the geeks fight about the specs on it, but if all the customer knows is that you have access to all of your digital media from your TV and sees one in action, they'll be sold I'm willing to bet Aunt Betty doesn't rip DVDs to DivX either, so the H.264 and MPEG-4 codecs (the iPod codecs) would be all it really has to support ... for right now...

[solsun]

But you still have to get up, go to the Mac Mini and buy the content if you want to watch it. You haven't saved any time, plus, I don't want my HDTV being my computer monitor.



No you don't still have to get up. The Mac mini has bluetooth and Wifi.. If you put a wireless keyboard on your coffee table, you can purchase directly from iTunes, and then immediately access it via front row all from your couch.

[AgNuke1707]

No you don't still have to get up. The Mac mini has bluetooth and Wifi.. If you put a wireless keyboard on your coffee table, you can purchase directly from iTunes, and then immediately access it via front row all from your couch.

IF you have a wireless keyboard. Not everyone DOES. And, if you can see the small type all the way from your couch, more power too you. I also don't want my keyboard hanging out at my coch where I can spill beer all over it

[solsun]

IF you have a wireless keyboard. Not everyone DOES. And, if you can see the small type all the way from your couch, more power too you. I also don't want my keyboard hanging out at my coch where I can spill beer all over it

Well yes, you would have to BUY a wireless keyboard... And reading text on a 40" widescreen tv is not a problem at all... As far as spilling beer is concerned, well, that's a problem you'll have to solve on your own..

For me, the Mac mini makes much more sense as living room solution than Apple tv, at least with a mini, I can access, purchase and watch content without leaving the couch. I also get a bigger hard drive, a better processor, a dvd drive and iTunes/web access..

[solipsism]

Nope, there is currently no direct access to the iTunes store from Apple TV.. All iTunes content must be purchased from the host computer. A glaring oversight on Apples part in my opinion. I mean the device has an internet connection, a hard drive and it can stream, why on earth would they not allow you to purchase content directly from your couch?

That does bite. I figured that was the reason it paired with one--and only one-- iTunes account. I'm being optimistic and saying this feature will be available in the future as an iTunes on Demand feature.

[dacloo]

It's not a computer people. Not in the sense that it will need to provide you a word processor, complete MacOSX desktop, etc. It's just there for one job: providing a Front Row variant that streams and caches content. It should do that one job very good, nothing more.

Only, yes, I am a bit worried about the 40gb harddrive, but my guess is that it's mainly for caching stuff only.

Is it possible to record TV to the harddrive and burn it with a computer?

[ksec]

Someone said that within one year most Monitor will be 1080P or FullHD.....
Well it is already the case today. All new TV are either "FullHD" or "1080P" "capable" already. Or so the say.

But how many of them actually have the resolution of 1920x1080? i.e the 1080P / FullHD resolution? Very very little.

So instead of pointing the finger to apple / jobs. i think those TV manufacture should be the one to blame for fooling the market.

On a side-note 720P and 1080P aren't so much different on screen smaller then 42".

So i suppose itunes will soon sell 720P video then?

And the possibility of 1080P support? May be they will have to work with Nvida on hardware video acceleration. Since i dont think this spec is not capable of decoding 1080P.

[ascii]

Wow... "el-cheapo inside" sticker required.

I have a feeling this thing will go the same way as the iPod HiFi, destined to languish on the shelf.

[Cosmos 1999]

wouldn't they want to use something from the ViiV platform?

I really thought the final product would have been some sort of Mac mini boosted with ViiV capabilities (remember the so-clalled Kaleidoscope project (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0511macmini2.html) more than a year ago?).

Intel ViiV seems a very good solution. It is codec-independant. Moreover the software which does the trick is pretty OS-independant: it is a bit like a firmware on a chip (Intel calls it the Integrated Media Server software).
It takes any movie, and transcode it to a native DLNA (http://www.dlna.org)-compliant codec (MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 H.264 for video; and LPCM, MP3 or AAC for audio) then sends it to the TV, so the user doesn't have to mess with codec installation.
Microsoft uses it in Windows MCE. Why didn't Apple use it too, with a sexier Front Row interface? It would have be so cool.

So what can Apple TV do compared to ViiV? Stream iTunes content only. Video files supported: .mov/.mp4/.m4v (MPEG-4 and H.264)
iTunes is based upon QuickTime. QuickTime can play .avi files with DivX/XVID codec -if the codecs are installed- but iTunes cannot! (try it)
To me, Apple TV seems castrated from start.

[Chucker]

Microsoft uses it in Windows MCE.

Microsoft uses what in MCE? Viiv? Viiv didn't even exist when the latest MCE was released.

[sunilraman]

According to the Apple posted specs, no, your 480i capable sets are not compatible with the AppleTV. Maybe it's an oversight on the spec sheet and the AppleTV will output 480i, but that's not what it currently says/does.

Since I'm using old 480i technology at home, the AppleTV is no good for me either :(

I think any 4:3 TV will work on the following conditions:
1. (There is a component input OR you have a component-to-composite adapter) AND
2. Your TV is able to "detect" OR you can set your TV to "know" that it is a 16:9 signal,
.....ie. Your TV will letterbox 16:9 signals if it autodetects or you force it to letterbox.

That's my take on things. :smokey: ...What's with the AppleTV bashing on this thread? 50 HOURS peoples... That's enough for mainstream use. Talking about a MEGA-NetworkAreaStorage is a bit tangential. Not what the AppleTV is designed for.

Yes, Apple is a profit whore, I agree. Their profit margins on this are sweet. Most importantly though, it is needed to drive growth of TV shows and movies and Macs and iPods. :smokey:

[Cosmos 1999]

Microsoft uses what in MCE? Viiv? Viiv didn't even exist when the latest MCE was released.
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 was the first OS to use ViiV (ViiV 1.0). And Media Center Extenders are DLNA Compliant (the transcoding trick). See point #4 on this page (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2510&p=2).
ViiV 1.5 is an update with Intel processors (PentiumD and Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo) and ViiV 2.0 changes some things with the transition to Vista.

[Chucker]

Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 was the first OS to use ViiV (ViiV 1.0). And Media Center Extenders are DLNA Compliant (the transcoding trick). See point #4 on this page (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2510&p=2).
ViiV 1.5 is an update with Intel processors (PentiumD and Core Duo -> Core 2 Duo) and ViiV 2.0 changes some things with the transition to Vista.

What are you talking about? Viiv 1.0 wasn't even released until January 5, 2006. Media Center Center Edition 2005 was released on October 12, 2004. That's well over a year before that. Viiv 1.5 isn't out yet.

:err:

And the page you're linking to was written almost a year after MCE 2005 had been out, and months before Viiv was.

[Cosmos 1999]

What are you talking about? Viiv 1.0 wasn't even released until January 5, 2006. Media Center Center Edition 2005 was released on October 12, 2004. That's well over a year before that. Viiv 1.5 isn't out yet.

:err:

And the page you're linking to was written almost a year after MCE 2005 had been out, and months before Viiv was.

My link is not the latest. But two separate products coming at different dates on the market and from different companies does not prevent these partners from working on an interoperable solution. MS and Intel worked on this thing before ViiV ever came out, not after. And this Integrated Media Server Software does not lie into the OS. What do you do of all these Media Center PCs having the ViiV logo on their case? They don't exist?
BTW here is the ViiV Supported Operating System (http://www.intel.com/support/desktopplatforms/viiv/sb/CS-021739.htm) info page on Intel's web site.

In this PDF from Intel (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/viiv/intelviivtechnology_guide.pdf) (2006) you can see some info about DLNA transcoding in ViiV.

And I've just saw why I could not find any recent document about the "Integrated Media Server". It's because Intel renamed this engine to Smart Streaming Technology (http://www.intel.com/support/desktopplatforms/viiv/sb/cs-022795.htm).

[parky]

I'm a bit confused - can someone explain why I would need to sync my iTunes content onto the Apple TV's hard drive, if I can stream all the content I want over the air? For a lot of users, I agree, 40gb is less than their iTunes library and this therefore raises questions about what gets synced and what doesn't, and do we enter manual mode somehow if this happens...but if the wireless network will support streaming video (which would be the hungriest bandwidth-wise), then I don't understand why I'd need to have my data in two places (my mac and my Apple TV)?

I guess it'll come down to speed, i.e. content on the hard drive will be accessed faster. But either I'm misunderstanding something or my requirements are different to most people, because I would assume that if there is ANY slowdown or frame loss for streamed video, then the device becomes pretty pointless (for video anyway). And if there ISN'T any slowdown, then we're back to my original question - what's the point in syncing to the hard drive?

Any ideas?

You can sync content to the Apple TV so that you don't actually need the have the computer on as well to watch content. It gives you the option to stream or to store locally, i.e. more flexibility.

You can select what you want to be synced, e.g. playlists, latest 10 TV programs / movies downloaded, specific photo albums, etc.

I think it is a great idea to have local content that is constantly updated in the background.

Ian

[Chucker]

My link is not the latest. But two separate products coming at different dates on the market and from different companies does not prevent these partners from working on an interoperable solution. MS and Intel worked on this thing before ViiV ever came out, not after. And this Integrated Media Server Software does not lie into the OS. What do you do of all these Media Center PCs having the ViiV logo on their case? They don't exist?
BTW here is the ViiV Supported Operating System (http://www.intel.com/support/desktopplatforms/viiv/sb/CS-021739.htm) info page on Intel's web site.

Yes, Viiv supports MCE. No, MCE is not based on Viiv. It doesn't require Viiv, and it doesn't take advantage of Viiv. Perhaps the next MCE version will, but I don't believe so.

[Marvin]

interesting that apple TV has a better graphics processor than the macbook!

This really pisses me off. Oh, Apple can't use a good GPU in the Macbooks and Mini because of form factor and price. F*ck you Apple.

This card is better than the GMA for these reasons:

GMA: shader model 2, 3DMark06 = 170, shared DDR2 memory, no Hardware T&L
7400: shader model 3, 3DMark06 = 800, dedicated GDDR3 memory, Hardware T&L

:mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-List.844.0.html

[GregAlexander]

So i suppose itunes will soon sell 720P video then?
I hope that's the plan and that the iTV is capable of it. The cynical part of me is wondering if the 720p is only there for showing iPhoto slideshows.

So now we know the RUMOURED video hardware - anyone know if it's capable of 720p or greater?

[nutrix]

[/B]But currently, ?tv is not really an end to end solution for media in the living room if you have to get up and go to your den to purchase a tv show, then go back in the living room to watch it.. ?tv needs to allow direct access to the iTunes store from your living room so you can sit on your couch, purchase a movie or tv show and begin watching immediately.. Until it does this, I think the Mac mini is a much better end to end media device.


I think you are missing the absolutely massive point here. I (and I'm sorry for swearing) don't want to buy another fucking computer only so that I can watch movies on my TV. Sure the Mac Mini would work, but set up with a TV would make it an impractical computer. But more importantly a Mac Mini is twice the price for something that I would use merely an extension. This isn't mentioning that I would have to authorise another computer just for the sake of movies.

The Apple TV is intended to be an enhancement of the services on your computer. It makes no difference about what hardware is in the thing. It has a few very simple tasks to perform and I'm sure as it is a dedicated system is perfectly capable of doing them. I'm sure Jobs would have had his whip out if it wasn't up to his (incredibly high) standards.

I surf the internet, download stuff, with the computer because it has a keyboard. Are you intending to disturb the balance of the living room by chucking a whole irritating bunch of additional computer peripherals in just for the convenience of being able to download a movie and then watch it instantly. In fact, why doesn't Apple make a new wireless controller with multi-touch interface costing an extra £200. That's like buying a brand new sports car to get your kids to school quicker. Get real. Buy your movies in advance and press "sync"... it isn't hard.

I think this a great product and I'm a tad pissed off with myself because I had the whole living room wired to get my iTS content on my TV.

[DaveGee]

Taking any bets how long it takes for some group to get Linux run on it?? At $299 bucks the machine has quite a lot going for it (and I'm just talking about hardware and elegance). I can't imagine it'll be too long before we see MythTV based AppleTVs along with a host of other special purpose linux devices...

Here's some of the things I love to see:

Access to the standard:

iMovies
iTunes
iPhoto

Additional access to:

MAME
Insert any/all other popular emulators
Home Automation (ala web access to Indigo)
TV Guide listings
Weather / News Feeds
Sports and such....

You get the idea :)

I'm betting for those additional features it wouldn't be too much work to somehow add/hack them in.

Dave

[JeffDM]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.

I'm sure it does, and I don't have a problem with that.

The people that have a problem with this just don't understand any of the complexities or costs of bringing a product to market. In other words, the incremental costs of the hardware don't even begin to tell of those expenses. To illustrate this, Apple's average net margin is about 10%, not 50% as you might suggest.

[vinea]

interesting that apple TV has a better graphics processor than the macbook!

With the M there's probably no way to get solid 720p playback without PureVideo.

Kind of a bummer as 1080 is a non-starter if the M is underclocked unless the G72M on aTV performs better than the stock 7400 which tops out at 10-11 mpbs output rate according to nVidia.

Shame...there are several SOC solutions that would have work about as well. Either that or Apple or nVidea really improved H.264 performance for PureVideo.

Vinea

[parky]

Taking any bets how long it takes for some group to get Linux run on it?? At $299 bucks the machine has quite a lot going for it (and I'm just talking about hardware and elegance). I can't imagine it'll be too long before we see MythTV based AppleTVs along with a host of other special purpose linux devices...

Here's some of the things I love to see:

Access to the standard:

iMovies
iTunes
iPhoto

Additional access to:

MAME
Insert any/all other popular emulators
Home Automation (ala web access to Indigo)
TV Guide listings
Weather / News Feeds
Sports and such....

You get the idea :)

I'm betting for those additional features it wouldn't be too much work to somehow add/hack them in.

Dave

ITS NOT A COMPUTER and no doubt will be missing some items from preventing it from ever being one, like IO for Keyboard / Mouse, etc.

[vinea]

Actually the official thech specs list it as "USB 2.0 (for service and diagnostics)"
This is the biggest let down for me.
I would have gotten one if I could of attached an external HD to supplement the 40GB internal drive.

I think Apple has a golden opportunity to create the home server standard.
The AppleTV should be able to back up important files from from up to 5 Macs & PCs.
Backup is the killer app! Something nobody has made drop dead simple.
They should have called it the iVault and designed it to work with Leopard's Time Machine.

Yes, but if I wanted a big stack o noisy HDs next to my TV I'd just use a regular computer configured as a HTPC rather than aTV.

I suspect they are positioning the new Airport for this. Airport next to the cable modem with a HD attached available wirelessle over draft-N allowed disconnected (except for power) Timemachine backups of MacBooks and MBPs. A real Apple NAS at some point would also be welcome.

aTV will make someone a nice linux machine. :)

Vinea

[pmjoe]

Taking any bets how long it takes for some group to get Linux run on it?? At $299 bucks the machine has quite a lot going for it (and I'm just talking about hardware and elegance). I can't imagine it'll be too long before we see MythTV based AppleTVs along with a host of other special purpose linux devices...
I'm sure someone will have Linux on it in short time. But, at $299, you won't see too many people doing too much with them. You can get a used Xbox for $100 or less and do most of the same things, or even buy a whole computer with better specs for $300.

These will be nice for Linux when you can pick them up for $150 or less.

[JeffDM]

Yes, but if I wanted a big stack o noisy HDs next to my TV I'd just use a regular computer configured as a HTPC rather than aTV.

I suspect they are positioning the new Airport for this. Airport next to the cable modem with a HD attached available wirelessle over draft-N allowed disconnected (except for power) Timemachine backups of MacBooks and MBPs. A real Apple NAS at some point would also be welcome.


Hard drives aren't that loud these days. Just don't pick an enclosure with a loud fan and it's fine. Drop in a Samsung drive and you probably will not notice it was there even if a random seek test was done on it.

[DaveGee]

ITS NOT A COMPUTER and no doubt will be missing some items from preventing it from ever being one, like IO for Keyboard / Mouse, etc.

Linux hackers... Keyboards?!!? We don't neeeeed no stinkin keyboards :lol:

I've got a 200MHz (?) NSLU2 (linksys hard drive network sharing device) that I've since rebranded with linux and now it can provide a ton of other functions! For $99 it's pretty cool actually!

Dave

[solsun]

[/B]


I think you are missing the absolutely massive point here. I (and I'm sorry for swearing) don't want to buy another fucking computer only so that I can watch movies on my TV. Sure the Mac Mini would work, but set up with a TV would make it an impractical computer. But more importantly a Mac Mini is twice the price for something that I would use merely an extension. This isn't mentioning that I would have to authorise another computer just for the sake of movies.

The Apple TV is intended to be an enhancement of the services on your computer. It makes no difference about what hardware is in the thing. It has a few very simple tasks to perform and I'm sure as it is a dedicated system is perfectly capable of doing them. I'm sure Jobs would have had his whip out if it wasn't up to his (incredibly high) standards.

I surf the internet, download stuff, with the computer because it has a keyboard. Are you intending to disturb the balance of the living room by chucking a whole irritating bunch of additional computer peripherals in just for the convenience of being able to download a movie and then watch it instantly. In fact, why doesn't Apple make a new wireless controller with multi-touch interface costing an extra £200. That's like buying a brand new sports car to get your kids to school quicker. Get real. Buy your movies in advance and press "sync"... it isn't hard.

I think this a great product and I'm a tad pissed off with myself because I had the whole living room wired to get my iTS content on my TV.

I disagree, I don't think I've missed the point massively.. In fact, I think Apple missed the mark as far as what consumers need/want to make this a real killer living room product.

I agree that a Mac mini may be overkill for the living room, but a mini is currently the only way to be able to do what I would want in a living room device.. Apple Tv is already a computer, so all Apple had to do was create a way for it to interface with the iTunes store for Movies and Tv show purchases on demand... They could have done it so it would be all menu driven (without the need for a keyboard,) so that consumers could watch movie previews and be able to immediately purchase and watch all from their couch.

Microsoft managed to make an on demand movie service with the Xbox 360 which offers both purchase and rental options as well as full HD resolution... Apple could have (and should have) done it better.

[solsun]

[/B]


I surf the internet, download stuff, with the computer because it has a keyboard. Are you intending to disturb the balance of the living room by chucking a whole irritating bunch of additional computer peripherals in just for the convenience of being able to download a movie and then watch it instantly. In fact, why doesn't Apple make a new wireless controller with multi-touch interface costing an extra £200. That's like buying a brand new sports car to get your kids to school quicker. Get real. Buy your movies in advance and press "sync"... it isn't hard.
.


To further elaborate on my above post... If Apple did it right, extra peripherals would not be needed... Purchases through Apple tv could be done with the simple Apple remote.. A menu based navigation with categories like "new releases," "dramas," "comedies" etc. etc... move up and down through the categories, press the menu button to watch the trailer, and press menu again to purchase and begin downloading.. The hardware is already capable of this, a software interface to the iTunes store is all that's needed.

[Clive At Five]

Seriously, WHY is there a Hard Drive in this thing? It makes NO SENSE! If it can stream at 300Mb/s, that should be plenty quick for any 802.11n-equipped computer. So assuming that one's AppleTV gets its media from a "host computer" (which is in turn connected to the iTS), everything on the AppleTV would be a duplicate of content on the host computer -- a device which could just as well be streaming the data. Apple could have cut the price by almost $50 by not including the 40GB HD. Very unwise, if you ask me.

Alternatively, they could've added another HD plus a slightly beefier processor and made the device, in effect, a 80GB, dual-turner DVR/media streamer (granted it would probably be a little thicker). Since DVRs are all the rage these days, Apple could see the DVR features available today and raise media streaming... all for a very low price of $400, flat.

Perhaps this will be a future version of the device, and Apple might just be testing the waters, but if the device fails, primarily because it doesn't include DVR capabilities, the AppleTV will not have a second chance. Apple needs to get the product right the first time, not the second time. Same goes for all their computers/devices, practically... 2nd gen is always better. I know I'll receive some flak for saying this, but that's why I'm waiting for the 2nd gen iPhone... that and I don't have money for it now ;). A big wedding is coming up! :D

-Clive

[mikef]

I think any 4:3 TV will work on the following conditions:
1. (There is a component input OR you have a component-to-composite adapter) AND
2. Your TV is able to "detect" OR you can set your TV to "know" that it is a 16:9 signal,
.....ie. Your TV will letterbox 16:9 signals if it autodetects or you force it to letterbox.


The tech specs on apple.com say otherwise.

Not all sets that have component in from a few years ago support 480p and you cannot convert a 480p signal to composite using just a (physical) cable adapter.

[solsun]

Seriously, WHY is there a Hard Drive in this thing? It makes NO SENSE! If it can stream at 300Mb/s, that should be plenty quick for any 802.11n-equipped computer. So assuming that one's AppleTV gets its media from a "host computer" (which is in turn connected to the iTS), everything on the AppleTV would be a duplicate of content on the host computer -- a device which could just as well be streaming the data. Apple could have cut the price by almost $50 by not including the 40GB HD. Very unwise, if you ask me.

Alternatively, they could've added another HD plus a slightly beefier processor and made the device, in effect, a 80GB, dual-turner DVR/media streamer (granted it would probably be a little thicker). Since DVRs are all the rage these days, Apple could see the DVR features available today and raise media streaming... all for a very low price of $400, flat.

Perhaps this will be a future version of the device, and Apple might just be testing the waters, but if the device fails, primarily because it doesn't include DVR capabilities, the AppleTV will not have a second chance. Apple needs to get the product right the first time, not the second time. Same goes for all their computers/devices, practically... 2nd gen is always better. I know I'll receive some flak for saying this, but that's why I'm waiting for the 2nd gen iPhone... that and I don't have money for it now ;). A big wedding is coming up! :D

-Clive

The hard drive is so that Apple TV can be used if the host computer is turned off. A DVR in a Apple device is unlikely since Apple's is in the business of selling content via the iTunes store.. A DVR would essentially record for free the same content that Apple wants you too BUY.

[solipsism]

Alternatively, they could've added another HD plus a slightly beefier processor and made the device, in effect, a 80GB, dual-turner DVR/media streamer (granted it would probably be a little thicker). Since DVRs are all the rage these days, Apple could see the DVR features available today and raise media streaming... all for a very low price of $400, flat.

Besides the obvious reason stated by solsun, how do you figure a dual tuner DVR and a larger HDD would cost only $400. Other problems with your statment:
[list] 80GB HDD for a DVR?
The load required to compress streamed H.264 wireless media, record compress in H.264 from two tuners, wjile outputing a 3rd source to an HDTV requires more than a slightly beefier CPU. There

[solipsism]

To further elaborate on my above post... If Apple did it right, extra peripherals would not be needed... Purchases through Apple tv could be done with the simple Apple remote.. A menu based navigation with categories like "new releases," "dramas," "comedies" etc. etc... move up and down through the categories, press the menu button to watch the trailer, and press menu again to purchase and begin downloading.. The hardware is already capable of this, a software interface to the iTunes store is all that's needed.

APpleTV doesn't even need to do the work. It can access, purchase and download this media from the synced computer's iTunes. I think this is what is going to happen as I cant imagine any other reason why one and only one computer can be tethered to the appliance.

[BEatMaKeR]

As Kaspar stated earlier,

"On its website Apple similarly says Apple TV supports: "Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz."

Who really cares. The video content is not as good as DVD quality, nor is it anywhere near what the coming standard of Blu Ray, HD-DVD is... So what is this device really good for again? Certainly not for the videophiles out there.

Can you say... Laser Disc anyone? :lol:

[nutrix]

I disagree, I don't think I've missed the point massively.. In fact, I think Apple missed the mark as far as what consumers need/want to make this a real killer living room product.

I agree that a Mac mini may be overkill for the living room, but a mini is currently the only way to be able to do what I would want in a living room device.. Apple Tv is already a computer, so all Apple had to do was create a way for it to interface with the iTunes store for Movies and Tv show purchases on demand... They could have done it so it would be all menu driven (without the need for a keyboard,) so that consumers could watch movie previews and be able to immediately purchase and watch all from their couch.

Microsoft managed to make an on demand movie service with the Xbox 360 which offers both purchase and rental options as well as full HD resolution... Apple could have (and should have) done it better.

I believe you are talking about consumers in general and then you move into "what you would want". Consumers want simplicity and the best practical way to engineer the iTS without the use of a physical keyboard into Apple TV is to make it like an iPod. Imagine an iPod with thousands upon thousands of different artists. And face it, that's what you would have to do to be able to access every song on the iTS. Either that or have some god awful on screen keyboard thing that you scroll across to type in letters.

Why would Apple bother spending all that money and time to achieve a couple of new sales of songs and movies when they don't even make money from them?

The whole approach of iTunes is that it does everything for you. The idea of season pass is that it downloads every new version, and by definition it will sync it to apple TV straight away. While the MS thing is a good price, how much do the geeks who use XBox 360 A.) Spend on XBox Live B.)Spend on the super-dooper XBox 360 that you need in order to have a large enough hard drive in order to store all these HD videos and C.) Spend on their 50 Mbit/s ultra geek connection to actually download all this gumpf.

Microsoft is the prime example of how throwing money at a problem may get you results, but not the best results. I can imagine in typical Microsoft style, the XBox Live store will be confusing in terms of prices (points?? is that like monopoly money?) and confusing in terms of interface.

Microsoft is aiming at a vastly different market I'm afraid so your argument there is void. As for iTunes, just go to your computer, click on what you want, download it, and then press sync to Apple TV, done.... Do you really want years of Apple software engineering for something that would take you 5 seconds more otherwise, or maybe 5 minutes pre-planning? God it's this kind of lazy attitude that is causing mass obesity in this world.

[Clive At Five]

The hard drive is so that Apple TV can be used if the host computer is turned off. A DVR in a Apple device is unlikely since Apple's is in the business of selling content via the iTunes store.. A DVR would essentially record for free the same content that Apple wants you too BUY.

Who turns off their computer?

Your iTS comment makes sense in the present, however, the iTS is not the future of digital content, at least not yet. *Maybe* in the long-term future, you will be able to select what shows you want to watch and they will be "otomatically" d/l-ed from the iTS to your TV, but let's have a reality check. So much of the world today has cable or sattelite. DVR is an option for them, but expensive. If Apple could release a device that appeals to both camps, it'll slowly pull more people in. Eventually, once iTS becomes a viable alternative to cable, people will start to switch. Until then, DVR will be a useful tool.

-Clive

[Zandros]

Odd. With the older Dothan based core, they're missing out on the SSE3 and Media boost or whatever Intel calls it.

Interestingly enough, this seems like it could be a neat little computer. How fast will hackers make this usable as one? :p

[JeffDM]

Who really cares. The video content is not as good as DVD quality, nor is it anywhere near what the coming standard of Blu Ray, HD-DVD is... So what is this device really good for again? Certainly not for the videophiles out there.


Didn't they say they will be offering 720p video? They'd have to make a blunder to make their 720p worse than DVD.

[Clive At Five]

Besides the obvious reason stated by solsun, how do you figure a dual tuner DVR and a larger HDD would cost only $400. Other problems with your statment:
[list] 80GB HDD for a DVR?
The load required to compress streamed H.264 wireless media, record compress in H.264 from two tuners, wjile outputing a 3rd source to an HDTV requires more than a slightly beefier CPU. There

The premium series 2 TiVo model is current $169 at TiVo.com. It supports 180-hrs and has a dual-turner. Plus you can transfer the content to your PC to burn it. Granted that you have to pay for the plan as well, that sort of device will be more than capable for 95% of those who own (or desire to own) a TiVo.

Regardless of what hardware would be required to equip the AppleTV, I am confident that many people would be willing to pay quite a bit for a device that would unite media purchased from the iTS and media received through cable/sattelite.

-Clive

[solsun]

I believe you are talking about consumers in general and then you move into "what you would want". Consumers want simplicity and the best practical way to engineer the iTS without the use of a physical keyboard into Apple TV is to make it like an iPod. Imagine an iPod with thousands upon thousands of different artists. And face it, that's what you would have to do to be able to access every song on the iTS. Either that or have some god awful on screen keyboard thing that you scroll across to type in letters.

Why would Apple bother spending all that money and time to achieve a couple of new sales of songs and movies when they don't even make money from them?

The whole approach of iTunes is that it does everything for you. The idea of season pass is that it downloads every new version, and by definition it will sync it to apple TV straight away. While the MS thing is a good price, how much do the geeks who use XBox 360 A.) Spend on XBox Live B.)Spend on the super-dooper XBox 360 that you need in order to have a large enough hard drive in order to store all these HD videos and C.) Spend on their 50 Mbit/s ultra geek connection to actually download all this gumpf.

Microsoft is the prime example of how throwing money at a problem may get you results, but not the best results. I can imagine in typical Microsoft style, the XBox Live store will be confusing in terms of prices (points?? is that like monopoly money?) and confusing in terms of interface.

Microsoft is aiming at a vastly different market I'm afraid so your argument there is void. As for iTunes, just go to your computer, click on what you want, download it, and then press sync to Apple TV, done.... Do you really want years of Apple software engineering for something that would take you 5 seconds more otherwise, or maybe 5 minutes pre-planning? God it's this kind of lazy attitude that is causing mass obesity in this world.


Um yes, I did say consumers, and in case you haven't noticed,the general consensus is that most people are dissappointed and wanted/expected more from Apple tv (read the forums, check the Apple discussions.) I then explained what I want in a device because I can't speak for everyone else.. Apple is about simplicity. For a living room device, being able to browse and purchase from your couch is as simple as it gets.. Apple could have done this using the same or a similar navigation system as they currently have in place. Streaming is great. Content on demand with a rental option for movies is the "killer" living room device. (I think) most people would appreciate this and it could be done while retaining Apple simplicity. "Browse, Buy, Sync, and stream all from your couch." Having to interface with your computer is an unneccessary step, with Apple tv, you should be able to do it all from your tv.

[JeffDM]

Who turns off their computer?

I do. Even if you don't think it is much, it's still a waste of power to leave them on all the time. Even sleep mode is a lot better than just leaving it on, and all it takes is a mouse click and a second to get back to normal.

[Ken(gr)]

I'm really curious about that. Either I'm missing the point, or there is too much hype for something so unnecessary. Here's a few thoughts and please tell me where I'm right and where I'm wrong.

: : a Mac mini can do everything an appleTV does, and more (apart from the new Front Row app).
: : even if you have a Mac mini in another room, all you need to carry along to your TV room is Mac mini, power brick and remote.
: : Apple laptops can do the same and are even more portable than the Mac mini
: : appleTV is supposed to reduce the fuss with cables etc, but you still need another device for DVD playback on your TV.

[vinea]

Alternatively, they could've added another HD plus a slightly beefier processor and made the device, in effect, a 80GB, dual-turner DVR/media streamer (granted it would probably be a little thicker). Since DVRs are all the rage these days, Apple could see the DVR features available today and raise media streaming... all for a very low price of $400, flat.


DVRs are a commodity item. $10/month from comcast gets you a HD capable DVR.

Without cablecard you miss out on all the interactive pieces of HD (HD VOD, PPV, etc). The cheapest TiVO's series 3 is still more expensive.

The cheapest Series 2 is only $69. Of course there's that monthly service fee.

It is doubtful that Apple could make a dual tuner DVR Series 3 competitor for $400...especially now that TiVO won its case and Apple would have to pay royalties. Nor would aTV compete with a $70 TiVO. So why bother? Let Miglia do it.

Vinea

[rdas7]

I agree with those who are saying a mini is the better option, but I'll go one better and suggest a TOTAL media setup for the home, centered around a mini. Please let me know if you think this is so crazy:

1 mini in the living room, with a bunch of nice drives + backup for adequate storage (let's say 200GB+). Front Row + remote for all your media/browsing needs.

Set this mini to store 1 "Master" iTunes library - that is, all music, all purchased movies, all tv shows (throw in a bit torrent config while you're there).

Everyone in the house syncs their iPods to this machine.

All other machines in the house can share the Master iTunes library from the mini via iTunes Sharing/Front Row Sharing (plus have their own private/local media if they want).

Benefits:
• 1 Master Library means everyone in the house doesn't need to purchase the same song/movie/etc. multiple times if they want it on their iPod
• No more 100GB of media clogging the boot drive on your personal computer
• centralized backup (connect 2 drives to mini, use scheduled mirroring)
• bit torrent client always running (use your router to throttle bandwidth as needed)
• divx/avi playback

Given that the AppleTV has a Pentium M and you can pick up a Core Solo mini now for roughly the same price... am I missing anything here?

If you want to get really fancy, install OSX Server on the mini and have Mobile Home accounts for everyone on the network (Dad's using the iMac again, no problem, open the MacBook and check your mail). [Of course, OSX Server software increases the setup cost]

[vinea]

I'm really curious about that. Either I'm missing the point, or there is too much hype for something so unnecessary. Here's a few thoughts and please tell me where I'm right and where I'm wrong.

: : a Mac mini can do everything an appleTV does, and more (apart from the new Front Row app).


Perhaps. There is no HDMI support on the Mini although you can do DVI to HDMI for video. Oddly there is the rumor that Apple TV doesn't do HDCP which would be a mistake if the studios limit HD sales on iTunes. On the other hand they may not feel 720p in the wild is all that big a threat...especially since they haven't enabled ICT anyway.


: : appleTV is supposed to reduce the fuss with cables etc, but you still need another device for DVD playback on your TV.

Presumably the intent is to have iTunes hold your video library as it does your audio library. No DVD player required on the aTV any more than a CD player is require on the iPod.

Eh...with the UWB wireless HDMI products at CES there's a 50-50 shot that the next HT projector I buy might have that built in which reduces my need for aTV. Guess I was wrong about that.

Vinea

[Ken(gr)]

Presumably the intent is to have iTunes hold your video library as it does your audio library. No DVD player required on the aTV any more than a CD player is require on the iPod.

Thank you for your answers. As for the iPod/CD, aTV/DVD relation, I cannot agree with that.

It's fast and easy to rip an entire CD, and it eats up 50-100MB of your hard disk space. And you do need as many of your CDs ripped in order to create playlists etc.

The situation with DVDs is a lot different. They eat up a lot of disk space, they are hard to rip (illegal too?), and there are DVDs that you rent, too.

[drow]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.

can i please tell you what the components cost of a mouse is? pleeeeease? that should make your head explode.

exploding heads are fun. :devil:

[Splinemodel]

How long until someone installs inux on one...?

It would be a cheap box to experiment on...

I'm waiting on this too. My estimate is that by late february, we'll wee a post on linuxdevices.com

[JeffDM]

I'm waiting on this too. My estimate is that by late february, we'll wee a post on linuxdevices.com

Maybe for a screen shot of the kernel booting. Even with the rapid development & experimentation on the Linux platform, it takes longer than that to get it to do something useful other than maybe routing packets.

[sjk]

You store the content on the Apple TV so that your computer doesn't need to be running to watch or listen to the content.

If you shut your computer down, you could still play it off Apple TV after you sync it.

The hard drive is so that Apple TV can be used if the host computer is turned off.

But you might need internet connectivity. The original article says:

Users can sync their entire iTunes libraries to the drive but will need an internet connection when attempting to play back licensed content purchased from the iTunes Store. (emphasis added)

If true, that means Apple TV can't be used for "offline" playback of FairPlay content? Ouch.

According to the Apple posted specs, no, your 480i capable sets are not compatible with the AppleTV. Maybe it's an oversight on the spec sheet and the AppleTV will output 480i, but that's not what it currently says/does.
That's my understanding, too. Looks like any TV that won't support a progressive scan DVD player using non-interlaced output (480p) also won't support Apple TV.

Since I'm using old 480i technology at home, the AppleTV is no good for me either :(
Same here. :(

The manual for my not that old JVC AV-27F704 says:

• Progressive DVD player (players with an output scan of 31.5 KHz) will not work properly with this television. Set your DVD player's output to "interlaced" or non-progressive mode.

That hasn't been an issue since my much older Pioneer DV-C503 DVD changer doesn't have progress output.

[sjk]

Who turns off their computer?
Power outages that outlast UPS battery backup? :)

[vinea]

But you might need internet connectivity to. The original article says:

Users can sync their entire iTunes libraries to the drive but will need an internet connection when attempting to play back licensed content purchased from the iTunes Store. (emphasis added)

If true, that means Apple TV can't be used for "offline" playback of FairPlay content? Ouch.


I'm guessing only if you turn your wireless router off with your computer. There was something in the keynote about the aTV being associated with only iTunes account but could stream from 5.

I guess that's how they handle "managed use" where someone comes over with a purchased movie on a laptop.

Vinea

[sjk]

Um yes, I did say consumers, and in case you haven't noticed,the general consensus is that most people are dissappointed and wanted/expected more from Apple tv (read the forums, check the Apple discussions.)
And you really think forum users accurately represent Apple TV's target market?

[sjk]

I'm guessing only if you turn your wireless router off with your computer.
Or a wired router, since Apple TV might be directly connected to one with Ethernet.

There was something in the keynote about the aTV being associated with only iTunes account but could stream from 5.

I guess that's how they handle "managed use" where someone comes over with a purchased movie on a laptop.
So, Apple TV will use an additional online method to authorize content that may have already been authorized in iTunes to play on specific computers (including any Apple TV synchs with)? In other words, seems Apple TV alone can't be authorized for iTS FairPlay content playback.

[solsun]

And you really think forum users accurately represent Apple TV's target market?

Maybe, maybe not. But I honestly don't think I've read more than a handful of comments by people who think that this is the "killer" living room device that it could have been.. I mean, why spend $299 plus $179 for Apple's 802.11n router to playback near dvd quality movies without dolby surround when a $19 iPod av cable will basically do the same thing..

And In contrast to Apple tv, the general consensus on the iPhone is that Apple hit a home room.. We're going to have to wait a while to see how the market reacts to Apple tv, but considering it's limitations, I honestly don't see this being a hit or the must-have living room device that people were hoping for.

[pmjoe]

Alternatively, they could've added another HD plus a slightly beefier processor and made the device, in effect, a 80GB, dual-turner DVR/media streamer (granted it would probably be a little thicker). Since DVRs are all the rage these days, Apple could see the DVR features available today and raise media streaming... all for a very low price of $400, flat.

Perhaps this will be a future version of the device, and Apple might just be testing the waters, but if the device fails, primarily because it doesn't include DVR capabilities, the AppleTV will not have a second chance. Apple needs to get the product right the first time, not the second time.
Not to pick you specifically out, but since people seem to keep posting this. Just to be clear. APPLE HAS NO INTEREST IN PRODUCING A DVR. They want you to purchase content through the iTunes Store. I doubt Apple would've sold what you're suggesting (80GB, dual tuner, faster processor, etc.) for $400, unless there was some kind of subscription involved. Even then, the specs on it probably would've been pretty wimpy (say compared to the DVR my cable company provides me for ~$10/month, that has 120GB, dual HD tuner, record/play 1080i content, etc.).

The real problem with the Apple TV is that even if you had a 3rd party Mac DVR solution, or other sources of video content, the Apple TV's specs are so weak that it's unlikely to support these other videos. You're paying $299 for 2005 hardware.

[GregAlexander]

APPLE HAS NO INTEREST IN PRODUCING A DVR.
Nah.
Apple wants to give us a great media centre type machine. But more than that they want to create up a new paradigm of downloadable content and an Apple Store. To do that Apple needs to assure the media companies that it's on their side (and get their support!), rather than trying to skip their ads.

Seriously, WHY is there a Hard Drive in this thing? It makes NO SENSE!For me, I'd happily stream it all (and I'd rather have access to the 40GB to use as a backup!).

But imagine an Apple savvy husband with his laptop, and a not so Apple savvy wife. He sets up his laptop with movies/video/music etc for both of them, but if he goes out and if there was no sync, the AppleTV box would be useless to his wife (since his laptop is gone - no streaming). This pretty well sums up my parents. The AppleTV sync is perfect for a laptop user who's responsible for the household viewing experience

[vinea]

Thank you for your answers. As for the iPod/CD, aTV/DVD relation, I cannot agree with that.

It's fast and easy to rip an entire CD, and it eats up 50-100MB of your hard disk space. And you do need as many of your CDs ripped in order to create playlists etc.

The situation with DVDs is a lot different. They eat up a lot of disk space, they are hard to rip (illegal too?), and there are DVDs that you rent, too.

Yes, you really do need a lot of diskspace but its a lot cheaper today than before. You can get a 1TB NAS for $700.

Legality depends on laws in your country. In the US the Library of Congress ruled no because of DMCA even though some folks believe yes due to fair use/backup.

Vinea

[vinea]

So, Apple TV will use an additional online method to authorize content that may have already been authorized in iTunes to play on specific computers (including any Apple TV synchs with)? In other words, seems Apple TV alone can't be authorized for iTS FairPlay content playback.

I read that to mean that you can't buy new content via aTV but already purchased ones should work even with the host iTunes machine off. Presumably new episodes wont stream in either until you boot your machine.

Vinea

[Sunbow]

I do. Even if you don't think it is much, it's still a waste of power to leave them on all the time. Even sleep mode is a lot better than just leaving it on, and all it takes is a mouse click and a second to get back to normal.

I'd agree unless it's put to good use. Why not keep it on (for the convenience and to avoid wearing it out through thermal cycling) and run something like Folding at Home, which is socially of high value as this contributes to top research at Stanford University. Check out http://folding.stanford.edu/ download the app for your OS and get 'folding'. Join a Team (or set one up) and get that competitive spirit going! The Mac Teams are doing well but surely there are more GigaFlops of power just waiting to crunch numbers to help humankind?!

[Sunbow]

Maybe, maybe not. But I honestly don't think I've read more than a handful of comments by people who think that this is the "killer" living room device that it could have been.. I mean, why spend $299 plus $179 for Apple's 802.11n router to playback near dvd quality movies without dolby surround when a $19 iPod av cable will basically do the same thing..


Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions but the fact that the AppleTV has an HDMI connector and an optical digital audio connector suggests to me that it is going to be able to work with Dolby Digital / DTS material as and when it comes available on the iTunes Store. There is no indication of the sound capability of existing movies (on the quick check I made on the US Store) but this does not preclude future ones from having multi-channel sound.

In principle it doesn't preclude existing movies from having multi-channel sound (does anyone know if they do?) as, at present, the sound may simply be being downmixed into 2 channels when played back in iTunes.

[anantksundaram]

can i please tell you what the components cost of a mouse is? pleeeeease? that should make your head explode.

exploding heads are fun. :devil:

No need for exploding heads: just buy some AAPL shares! :D

[sunilraman]

Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions but the fact that the AppleTV has an HDMI connector and an optical digital audio connector suggests to me that it is going to be able to work with Dolby Digital / DTS material as and when it comes available on the iTunes Store. There is no indication of the sound capability of existing movies (on the quick check I made on the US Store) but this does not preclude future ones from having multi-channel sound.

In principle it doesn't preclude existing movies from having multi-channel sound (does anyone know if they do?) as, at present, the sound may simply be being downmixed into 2 channels when played back in iTunes.

I think it should be possible to have Dolby Digital or DTS output via HDMI or OpticalAudioOut on the AppleTV. The only multichannel source would be DVD streaming from Mac/PC to the AppleTV. We'll need someone to verify if this is the case. :\

[Splinemodel]

Maybe for a screen shot of the kernel booting. Even with the rapid development & experimentation on the Linux platform, it takes longer than that to get it to do something useful other than maybe routing packets.

Possibly. But the AppleTV uses parts with existing Linux drivers (I think). In addition, many of the Apple binaries are likely POSIX compliant and may actually be able to be used as is. Anyway, the linux community has hacked devices that are, in my opinion, a lot harder to hack.

[McDave]

And I thought it was the Windows crowd who get sold down the river on irrelevent specs!

All that bull about beefier processors and graphics cards is annoying cerebral masturbation & the implication that it's substandard technology will only deter sales to non-tech savvy potential customers (precisely the ones who should be buying it). They'll end up with a box, with higher spec hardware but a poor user experience and limited content, to sit in the corner.

The only specs that are relevent are the video playback which is 480p (1.5mbps for H.264 & 2.5mbps for MPEG4) as these relate to it's real-world capability, nothing to do with GHz

The kit should be fine for higher def video playback but Apple are historically bad at leveraging GPU capability (QT all but ignores them) so until a software update unleashes that capability let a black box be a black box - albeit cool & silver-grey.

Even 720p would hike up storage requirements at least 4 fold so current mid-range iMacs would hold around 80 hours (on top of normal useage) not much in the way of TV seasons & Movies

I'm getting one! (after they release TV on iTS outside the US)

McD

[sunilraman]

And I thought it was the Windows crowd who get sold down the river on irrelevent specs!

All that bull about beefier processors and graphics cards is annoying cerebral masturbation & the implication that it's substandard technology will only deter sales to non-tech savvy potential customers (precisely the ones who should be buying it). They'll end up with a box, with higher spec hardware but a poor user experience and limited content, to sit in the corner.

The only specs that are relevent are the video playback which is 480p (1.5mbps for H.264 & 2.5mbps for MPEG4) as these relate to it's real-world capability, nothing to do with GHz

The kit should be fine for higher def video playback but Apple are historically bad at leveraging GPU capability (QT all but ignores them) so until a software update unleashes that capability let a black box be a black box - albeit cool & silver-grey.

Even 720p would hike up storage requirements at least 4 fold so current mid-range iMacs would hold around 80 hours (on top of normal useage) not much in the way of TV seasons & Movies

I'm getting one! (after they release TV on iTS outside the US)

McD

Bingo. The GeForce Go 7400 is nice though :) ..."Cerebral masturbation" ... Heh, that's essentially what we do on AppleInsider every day :D

[sunilraman]

I'm getting one! (after they release TV [AND MOVIES] on iTS outside the US)...

Heh. So I guess you'll buy one in 2009. 8) :D

[aresee]

I believe it will work fine if you have red-blue-green compositive video ports on your TV. But a TV from 1994 won't have these. I'm not sure about convertors and how that would work.

I spent the day looking for converts. Couldn't find any. I found several that would up convert. But none that would down-convert 480i/p component to S or composite.

As far as the HD. The ?TV is the Video iPod. It is a 40GB iPod that syncs to iTunes in one computer. It will also 'share' with 5 computers. The internet connection is to validate that the computer it is synced to and/or streaming from is authorized to play that song/movie.

Network storage, look to the new Airport base station.

[bigkid_in_ny]

Any idea if this will stream/transfer over other content than ITunes purchases?
DVD Rips, MPGs, AVIs, etc?

[aresee]

Any idea if this will stream/transfer over other content than ITunes purchases?
DVD Rips, MPGs, AVIs, etc?
If the codexs are there it will play items stored in iTunes not just the iTS purchases. I don't know about sharing movies and photos that Front Row allows.

[sunilraman]

If the codexs are there it will play items stored in iTunes not just the iTS purchases. I don't know about sharing movies and photos that Front Row allows.

"H.264 MP4 Mencoder" encoded via FffmpegX (eg. for DVDRips) will play nicely in Quicktime. I'm having trouble with Xvids though in MacBook Intel 10.4.8, QT7.

[McDave]

Heh. So I guess you'll buy one in 2009. 8) :D

I guess cerebral isn't the only masturbation on the cards then!

'Here flossy'

[ecking]

What I'd really like to know is what is the chain of command for all the products together. Airport lets any external hardrive become a network drive so I'm picturing a 750mb drive with all my media attached to to airport so I wouldn't have it on my tv or mac in the first place.

Is this possible:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My mac sees that.
My tv sees that through my mac.

Then I wouldn't need to have much on my computer, which I would be cool and save me an assload of diskspace.

What would be really really great is:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My tv sees that without needing my mac on.

That'd be awesome. Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?

[ecking]

IF you have a wireless keyboard. Not everyone DOES. And, if you can see the small type all the way from your couch, more power too you. I also don't want my keyboard hanging out at my coch where I can spill beer all over it

You can spill beer on any remote, that's just an occupational hazard. Lord knows I've spilled booze on all kinds of shit. What we need is to water proof everything!



Someone said that within one year most Monitor will be 1080P or FullHD.....
Well it is already the case today. All new TV are either "FullHD" or "1080P" "capable" already.


Naw, that's not even close to true. Maybe most brand new tvs debuted this year 42" and up are fullHD, but that doens't change what's available for sale today. Most of the debuted tvs don't ship for about half a year anyways, I know because I've been eyeing the new Sharps. And even so I'm also eyeing a new Samsung slim for my bedroom(because of the price) and those also aren't "fullHD."

edit: OOPS I just read the rest of your post and I see that you are commenting on something someone else said. My bad.

[GregAlexander]

Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?

It's already possible to have your iTunes library on a network device, afaik. So your first scenario seems fine.

The second one? I think Apple may decide to allow that at some point, but for now the functionality is turned off.

How about a 3rd scenario...
I have a master iTunes library on a server/hard disk. And like an iPod Nano, I sync my laptop from the master library, giving me a small subset of music since I don't have a big hard disk. I'd like that.

[solipsism]

Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My mac sees that.
My tv sees that through my mac.[/b]

Then I wouldn't need to have much on my computer, which I would be cool and save me an assload of diskspace.

What would be really really great is:
Large external HD attached to new Airport Extreme.
My tv sees that without needing my mac on.

That'd be awesome. Anyone think either of those senarios are possible?

Yes and probably No. AppleTV (and every other media extender appliance) is technically able to see the NAS. However, since AppleTV apparently works hand-in-hand with iTunes, you may have to use the NAS as your iTunes library to get AppleTV functionality. This all seems like a lot of back and forth networking, but if you have multiple computers in your home, this may be the only solution you have. If you only have one computer, then just use the USB port on the computer (unless it's a notebook).

I hope, though it's a longshot, that Apple allows the AppleTV to access media directly from the Airport Extreme. That would reduce the additional network traffic utilization that would otherwise be needed by going from the Airport Extreme connected NAS to the Mac to Apple TV when it could just simple go from the Airport Extreme to AppleTV. Boom!

[damoof]

Too bad there not passing the savings on to the consumer. This box probably costs them $150 max.


You're right genius. Apple shouldn't be in the business of making any money.

[ecking]

It's already possible to have your iTunes library on a network device, afaik. So your first scenario seems fine.

Is there literature from apple on how to do this? I don't have the stuff to do it yet but if it works well and easy I might consider doing that

Yes and probably No. AppleTV (and every other media extender appliance) is technically able to see the NAS. However, since AppleTV apparently works hand-in-hand with iTunes, you may have to use the NAS as your iTunes library to get AppleTV functionality. This all seems like a lot of back and forth networking, but if you have multiple computers in your home, this may be the only solution you have.

Too bad, they should make ?tv have it's own customized version of itunes to get around that.

If you only have one computer, then just use the USB port on the computer (unless it's a notebook).

It is a notebook, not the only computer but my mbp is definetly the one that handles all that stuff. A notebook can't use external storage for it's itunes library? Or do you just mean that since it's mobile its not a permanent solution. I guess when I wanna use ?tv I could just plug it into my mbp. My current itunes library on my mbp is 13gb already and I don't use itunes for video...yet, so an external solution(possibly networked) would be best.


I hope, though it's a longshot, that Apple allows the AppleTV to access media directly from the Airport Extreme. That would reduce the additional network traffic utilization that would otherwise be needed by going from the Airport Extreme connected NAS to the Mac to Apple TV when it could just simple go from the Airport Extreme to AppleTV. Boom![/QUOTE]

Yeah exactly, plus I could use it when my computer is off.

Any word on when going from mac to appletv if the mac can be asleep?

[GregAlexander]

Is there literature from apple on how to do this? I don't have the stuff to do it yet but if it works well and easy I might consider doing that
To store your itunes on the server/hard disk...

In your iTunes Preferences, under Advanced, set your iTunes Music Folder location to wherever you want (ie your network device).

[caliminius]

Why would Apple bother spending all that money and time to achieve a couple of new sales of songs and movies when they don't even make money from them?

Because those sales would drive iPod and now AppleTV sales, just like they do today.

The whole approach of iTunes is that it does everything for you. The idea of season pass is that it downloads every new version, and by definition it will sync it to apple TV straight away. While the MS thing is a good price, how much do the geeks who use XBox 360 A.) Spend on XBox Live B.)Spend on the super-dooper XBox 360 that you need in order to have a large enough hard drive in order to store all these HD videos and C.) Spend on their 50 Mbit/s ultra geek connection to actually download all this gumpf.

I'm going to skip right to point C. How is this any different than getting stuff from iTS which is practically all the AppleTV can play anyhow? Still need to download it. And you wouldn't be making this ridiculous argument in the first place if Apple had announced it was now offering 720p downloads.

Point B: How is this different than buying a $300 AppleTV which can't even do as much as the $399 XBox 360?

Point A; XBox Live is $80 for a year, but that includes a webcam...couldn't find a price without the webcam.

Microsoft is the prime example of how throwing money at a problem may get you results, but not the best results. I can imagine in typical Microsoft style, the XBox Live store will be confusing in terms of prices (points?? is that like monopoly money?) and confusing in terms of interface.

I'm not entirely keen on defending Microsoft, but the XBox Live prices and points do convert to real money that you could use up (unlike Zune points). Yes, it could be confusing with the points, but at least they are in whole 100 amounts.

Microsoft is aiming at a vastly different market I'm afraid so your argument there is void. As for iTunes, just go to your computer, click on what you want, download it, and then press sync to Apple TV, done.... Do you really want years of Apple software engineering for something that would take you 5 seconds more otherwise, or maybe 5 minutes pre-planning? God it's this kind of lazy attitude that is causing mass obesity in this world.

Let me see, scrolling through an onscreen keyboard is more cumbersome then this process:

Go to iTunes on computer.
Search for song/movie/TV show.
Wait for show to download.
Return to living room to watch on AppleTV.

I wonder what updates they are putting in Front Row for this. Currently, if a TV show is downloading, Front Row will give you an error message if you try to access anything that would be in the same folder as the show downloading (for example if you download Episode 7 of Heroes, episodes 1-6 will be unavailable until it finishes). Obviously, that also means it can't do what iTunes can and allow you to start watching the show while it downloads. And please Apple, fix the fricking TV show sort so they are alphabetical!!

[solipsism]

For those that think AppleTV is overpriced, check out the $350 Netgear EVA8000 (http://www.netgear.com/Products/Entertainment/DigitalMediaPlayers/EVA8000.aspx) media appliance.

It offers quite a bit less hardware wise than AppleTV, but it does offer support YouTube (kinda) and many codecs such as Xvid and DivX.

[Psychic Shopper]

Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?, Video downloaded from the internet isn't all that great anyway, the movies on the Itunes store are compressed, so what's the big deal about HD? My mac mini is currently hooked up my stereo via a cable, and hooked up to my monitor and video projector via a splitter. Works for me.

[sjk]

Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?
That's already been asked/answered more times than anyone can count.

[solipsism]

Why not just hook your computer directly to your TV?, Video downloaded from the internet isn't all that great anyway, the movies on the Itunes store are compressed, so what's the big deal about HD? My mac mini is currently hooked up my stereo via a cable, and hooked up to my monitor and video projector via a splitter. Works for me.

Your Mac mini is twice the cost of an AppleTV. Most people don't like to use their entertainment center as their computer.
Most HTPCs have significant fan noise which makes using it in the same room as your TV less than ideal. These small media appliances that are popping up give you the best of both worlds. Many even have rudimentary internet access.
Even HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are compressed using H.264, the same codec as on the iTS.

[iMaciForums]

here is the price and the iTV specs

http://images.apple.com/appletv/images/footerairportextreme_20070109.png


http://www.imaciforums.com/My%20Folder/iTv.jpg


Find out more here

http://www.apple.com/appletv

[dfiler]

Seriously, WHY is there a Hard Drive in this thing? It makes NO SENSE! If it can stream at 300Mb/s, that should be plenty quick for any 802.11n-equipped computer. So assuming that one's AppleTV gets its media from a "host computer" (which is in turn connected to the iTS), everything on the AppleTV would be a duplicate of content on the host computer -- a device which could just as well be streaming the data. Apple could have cut the price by almost $50 by not including the 40GB HD. Very unwise, if you ask me.I completely agree... at least for myself.

I have always-on media servers at my house and would prefer a pure network media player. For me, the local cache is an unneeded expense.

I suspect that apple put a hard drive in it so that people who turn their computers off, or have laptops, can watch content without having to turn on their computer.

[sjk]

I have always-on media servers at my house and would prefer a pure network media player. For me, the local cache is an unneeded expense.
Same here; I've been noticing we have similar media streaming strategies. :)

I wonder if ATV still works if its HD fails.

I suspect that apple put a hard drive in it so that people who turn their computers off, or have laptops, can watch content without having to turn on their computer.
Or "borrow" protected content via synching though I don't understand all the authorization aspects of it yet. In iTunes, authorizing protected content is a one-time transaction. For ATV, Internet access is required at different times although information from Apple is still sparse. That's not the clearest explanation but hopefully it makes some sense. I'm still thinking of other scenarios when the HD "cache" might be useful.

[GregAlexander]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had one iTunes library and used partial syncing and caching to play to all our machines?

[dfiler]

Wouldn't it be nice if we had one iTunes library and used partial syncing and caching to play to all our machines?Even better, one library with no syncing or caching.

Not that having multiple computers with content is bad. Rather, the best solution is one that doesn't require any syncing or caching. The user gets a list of all the available content and selects what they want to play. They shouldn't have to manage anything.

iTunes accomplished this almost perfectly with music file management on a single computer. People no longer have to ever touch, move, or rename song files, ever. Next, iTunes took on the difficulties of library management on multiple computers on the LAN. I wouldn't characterize their solution as perfect, but it is probably still the best available.

The AppleTV is a network video player for lack of a better term. Apple is attempting to simplify media playback by making media available anywhere on the network regardless of where it is physically stored. And here's the important part... with as little file management as possible. The whole concept of "syncing "is a necessary evil at best.

[GregAlexander]

Even better, one library with no syncing or caching.

Not that having multiple computers with content is bad. Rather, the best solution is one that doesn't require any syncing or caching. The user gets a list of all the available content and selects what they want to play. They shouldn't have to manage anything.
Don't get me wrong :) I want to sit at any iTunes and have the full library. I want fast response to any search or browsing of the library, and I don't want any stutters due to the network (even if someone restarted the 'server'). I'd prefer the song to keep playing if I take my laptop out of range (doesn't happen too often) and I'd also like to keep playing if I leave my network entirely.

Now, my Laptop may not be able to hold the whole library, so I'd need to nominate (somehow) my subset of music/video etc.

Most of syncing and caching doesn't need any user intervention. The user doesn't care how it works, what's local and what's on the server. They just want their full library (and when away, a nominated OR shuffled subset).

[dfiler]

I view syncing as a temporary and necessary evil. The best solution is that of wireless network video players streaming anything from anywhere.

We're... so... close. :D

[GregAlexander]

I view syncing as a temporary and necessary evil. The best solution is that of wireless network video players streaming anything from anywhere.

We're... so... close. :D
I've always been against the principle of "speed up the network!" in contrast to the "be more efficient in what we send across the network".

In previous posts you've said you don't like syncing, but your reasons are stated around usability. Are there other reasons?

[dfiler]

Usability issues are my main gripe with syncing. I suppose that if all of your synced devices had capacities larger than your media collection, it wouldn't be an issue.

Cost would be another reason. If a network is available, there is no need for local storage. Which means you don't have to pay for storage and the product is cheaper.

[GregAlexander]

Usability issues are my main gripe with syncing. I suppose that if all of your synced devices had capacities larger than your media collection, it wouldn't be an issue.

Cost would be another reason. If a network is available, there is no need for local storage. Which means you don't have to pay for storage and the product is cheaper.
Agreed that you don't want a subset available on your computer, you want all available. And it has to be seemless. This can be done though using a caching/syncing background process and a bit more brains in the iTunes software (to show the whole library, but play from local source if it's synced).

I doubt you'll save much money by smaller hard disks on your computer - it would be nice to have central storage in general (not just for iTunes) and maybe let Time-machine use excess local capacity for its backups.

Anywa... getting way off topic - apologies to others... let you get back to Pentium M stuff :)