Apple Media Centre
Do you think Apple will make a Media centre Mac? Personally I would love one! I could stream my itunes, play movies and record TV... Maybe this has been covered elsewhere, but I saw this in a magazine and it got me wishing...
http://www.evesham.com/PCs/Info.asp?...2-EA3136A0DD43
Im sure Apple could make something far sexier...
http://www.evesham.com/PCs/Info.asp?...2-EA3136A0DD43
Im sure Apple could make something far sexier...
Comments
Slashdot had an article a few days ago about a modded XBox media center that looked pretty slick, and useful.
Apple has positioned themselves as the provider of easy DV movie editing (iMovie), digital listening (iTunes), photo organizing (iPhoto), and music creation (GarageBand). What they don't seem to be providing is integration of all that content with home theater, TV & stereo.
I don't believe Apple has embraced the concept of the PC moving into the living room - especially iBooks. Steve may hate TV, but most of the country spends a lot of hours sitting in front of it. Apple should see the TV as another display device and the home stereo as an extended speaker system. People need/want a way beyond burning DVDs and CDs to get their digital content into their prime listening & viewing environment. Especially considering Apple's target demographic seems to be higher income folks (see constant whining about high cost of Apple computers) and those people have likely also shelled out for a home theater.
The problem I see for Apple is they pride themselves on quality and like to control the entire user experience. Televisions vary wildly in display quality and NTSC is a pretty sucky display format for computer UI type things.
Here we go: D-Link DSM-320. This is the kind of product I think Apple needs. Third parties are making these things for Windows. Apple needs one that integrates with OS X. Apple will have to make it themselves or partner with some third party for the hardware and write the software themselves. If Apple manufactures it, look for a FireWire port or two.
- Jasen.
Here we go: D-Link DSM-320. This is the kind of product I think Apple needs. Third parties are making these things for Windows. Apple needs one that integrates with OS X. Apple will have to make it themselves or partner with some third party for the hardware and write the software themselves. If Apple manufactures it, look for a FireWire port or two.
My non computer literatre friend is always asking why its so hard to do the simplest things... He has now bought a Powerbook and loves OSX...
Just wish we could have the same simplicity and ease of use with home entertainment etc... No more VCR, DVD player, a tangle of wires and horrible SCART cables.....I would like a nice box with an Apple logo, a big HD inside, and something I feel proud to own!
The cool thing about those devices are that the media files are already there. Like EyeTV recorded shows are already there, the CD-ripped songs are already there, the iPhoto images are already there. All you need to do is to switch on your TV and enjoy.
Originally posted by bigd
The thing is that they still need a computer to stream from, etc... I would like to turn my Mac off, and actually sit in my lounge and enjoy some RNR...
A home server disguised as a stereo component is really the missing link in Apple's media strategy, but apparently Jobs doesn't watch TV, so he thinks nobody else does either. I have been torn between buying a Linux box or just buying an old Mac to do this, but I would buy a home media server from Apple in a heartbeat...
I need the fastest wireless out there... in this sucker, times 2. That's right, it's a brave new world, why not give it two receivers and double your streaming rate.
Yeah, that would be great.....
Stip two? I want it to be FW800 equipped and double as an uber buff monk kill all dwarf tivo knock off only with style. Gimick? It's got to stream (via x2 wireless) back to the MAC to record. None of this record it and THEN take it to the mac. Play it like an ipod. What goes out of it stays out. If you want to put in, you put into the mac. It can store all you like, but none of this stand alone HD recorder crap. Heck, tivo already has one of these, just sexify it and slap a mac logo on it....
Apparently I'm late to this party of iServe speculating and many others have thought of it - with various subtleties. So I guess the question remains: Is this a product whose time has come? Or will Apple stay focused on PCs as we know them?
Originally posted by TKN
A home server disguised as a stereo component is really the missing link in Apple's media strategy, but apparently Jobs doesn't watch TV, so he thinks nobody else does either. I have been torn between buying a Linux box or just buying an old Mac to do this, but I would buy a home media server from Apple in a heartbeat... [/B]
OK, so third parties are making "media servers" (or "media bridges" in the case of those with no storage) that are Mac compatible. Does Apple do like they've done with the iPod and prominently feature third party solutions at their store? Or do they make their own and squeeze the third parties out of the market?
I think the latter. Apple makes good hardware - good working and good looking. And a media server plays directly into Apple's manufacturing experience: CPU, wireless, storage, networking. The other important factor is also an Apple strength - user interface. A third factor, style, is also an Apple strength. IMHO, all signs point to Apple being able to pull of a successful product.
Apple already has the xServe, an "iServe" - which leverages the "i" brand, and ties in with the iPod and iMac seems like a dead easy winner. Since Steve doesn't like TV, focus the marketing on getting iTunes songs into your home stereo, and storing iMovies and iPhotos to bore your friends and family with. My only fear would be that Steve's loathing of TV would make the PVR features weak, but I think once he committed to doing it he'd make sure it was done right. (Curious to think of the CEO having that much influence on product development, but that seems to be the way things work at Steve's Apple.)
WWDC intro? We know now PMacs were supposed to be bumped in the Spring but missed, many are hoping for Rev C at WWDC. iMacs are LONG overdue for an update, too. Would Steve pull a "one more thing" and pull an iServe out of Apple's hat? Redesigned iMac with an iServe to match? Or does iMac become the iServe, with enhanced A/V capabilities?
- Jasen.
Originally posted by Not Unlike Myself
...Gimick? It's got to stream (via x2 wireless) back to the MAC to record. None of this record it and THEN take it to the mac...
In my opinion you would want it to record at the reciever, where ever that is, so that you can take advantage of hardware recording and compression instead of taxing your computer, which may be in use by someone else, with the task of creating the MPEG file. However the reciever does not have to be at the "TV" node, it could easily be a FW accessory for your iMac.
To me, that is the advantage of a system like this. You have your media in a local access point, available to all of the TV's or sterio's in the house. If you get a new TV then just buy a new iTV node for your network. This would allow the nodes to be made as inexpensively as possible with just a video card, motherboard, and a small hard drive for the OS and for use as a cache for the audio/video stream. No need for an integrated tuner or optical drive. Maybe USB and FW ports for interconnectivity to your iPod, or as a point of entry for your digital camcorder.
Back at your computer you have a seperate tuner that connects to the system via a FW port. It could be programed at any of the iTV nodes through software, and since it is hardware based it taxes your main computer as little as possible. Another possibility would be to have 2 versions of the iTV, one with and one without a tuner. The one with the tuner would be more expensive, but you really only need one (or possibly 2) that has the tuner, the others in the house could be the less expensive version.
I'm not sure if it could be done at these prices, but I think that they are price points that could make this a big seller:
iTV "Tuner"- $150-200
iTV "Node"-$50-100
Since most households have 2 or more TV's and a VCR at each one this could be a huge market.
Originally posted by Programmer
Personally I think there should be one gadget that sits with your TV (each TV) and interfaces to the A/V system and either your home network (hardwired in my case, but wireless support is either optional or built-in). To keep the cost of goods down and reliability up there should be no hard drive -- the entire box should be solid state. It would use your Mac or PC as a server, for both playing back and saving content. The hardware would be a cheap processor (the iPod's could do it), A/V compression/decompression hardware, a network interface, and the digital A/V interface(s). Cheap cheap cheap, silent (no fans) and reliable.
Originally posted by Programmer
Personally I think there should be one gadget that sits with your TV (each TV) and interfaces to the A/V system and either your home network (hardwired in my case, but wireless support is either optional or built-in). To keep the cost of goods down and reliability up there should be no hard drive -- the entire box should be solid state....
I hear ya, the question is can wireless network keep up with a few streams of video, potentially HDTV quality, while maintaining bandwidth for standard network trafic as well? I think it is safe to have some onboard storage to maintain an effective cache of the video, and depending on the complexity of the OS it might be needed for this as well.
As for the 2 "devices" it is to keep cost down, you don't need a tuner at each TV, but you do need at least one tuner that is "hooked" in to the software to scheduele recording of video. Right now standard TV tuners are cheep, $50 VCR's have them incorperated in them. However broadcast HDTV tuners are not. To complicate things further, you might also need a digital cable or satelite tuner. Having a seperate device would allow people to buy the specific tuner for their needs, at least untill they become prolific and cheep enough to encorperate all current "standards" into one device.
Originally posted by limtc
Hi programmer, isn't this is what EyeHome or Neuston MC-500 is all about? Whether it is cheap or not, just depends on how many these items sold. Ya, I do have those units at my house. They did interface with TV/AV, did use wireless (mc-500, eyehome via wire), did not have harddisk. And yes, they have been running since I installed them, and yes, it uses the Mac and PC as server.
I haven't read about the MC-500 yet, but the EyeHome is fairly close except that it can't act as a recording device itself -- you need the EyeTV. Frustratingly the EyeHome and EyeTV aren't integrated at all, so you can't control the recording from in front of your TV. They have numerous other minor issues as well. Apple is usually pretty good at those kind of details so I'd hope they could do a better job of it.
The network bandwidth question is a reasonable one, but an SDTV signal MPEG-2 encoded is only about 1.5 Mbits/sec. HDTV is something like 4x that (6 Mbits/sec). That is well within the 802.11g protocol's practical bandwidth of ~25 Mbits/sec, which means (in theory) you'd get 3-4 HDTV streams at once and still have some left over for your 1-2 Mbit/sec Internet connection. That's probably pushing it, but 1 HDTV stream + 2 SDTV + LAN/WAN is probably easily done. Who knows what the new wireless FireWire will be capable of (I'm just guessing but that is probably about the same but with FireWire-style guarateed bandwidth protocols added on).
Hard disks are actually pretty expensive, and their prices don't come down (instead their capacities go up). Digital circuits, on the other hand, do drop in price with volume. This means that if you want to build a really low cost set-top box that you can eventually get a decent margin on, you should leave out the hard drive but maximize the chip-based features (e.g. digital tuner).
I think EyeHome integration is not easily done. If it is a straight recording maybe possible, but they also integrate with TVTV and TitanTV, that is close to impossible to display and integrate/show on TV. If it is just a record button that calls EyeTV at background maybe it is possible - but then EyeHome might be running but EyeTV is not (they are separate applications). I do think this is a good idea though, let me see whether there is any solution to this.
Originally posted by Programmer
I haven't read about the MC-500 yet, but the EyeHome is fairly close except that it can't act as a recording device itself -- you need the EyeTV. Frustratingly the EyeHome and EyeTV aren't integrated at all, so you can't control the recording from in front of your TV. They have numerous other minor issues as well. Apple is usually pretty good at those kind of details so I'd hope they could do a better job of it.
Originally posted by limtc
Hi, you can get Neuston information from http://www.neuston.com, where they have a Mac version. But I can you straight it is a player, not a recorder.
Yeah, I already went and read about it from the link at the top of the thread. It is much the same as EyeHome. Pity.
I think EyeHome integration is not easily done. If it is a straight recording maybe possible, but they also integrate with TVTV and TitanTV, that is close to impossible to display and integrate/show on TV. If it is just a record button that calls EyeTV at background maybe it is possible - but then EyeHome might be running but EyeTV is not (they are separate applications). I do think this is a good idea though, let me see whether there is any solution to this.
I asked the Elgato people about it a couple months ago and basically they said "hey, that's a good idea". Duh. Doesn't anybody think for even 5 minutes about how you'd actually want the system to work? There is way too much "throw the technology in a box and ship it" in the industry. Apple has a better track record than most at integrated system design, so hopefully they're working on it. They have been building set top boxes as experiements for more than 10 years, so its possible they've got something cookin'.
Just remember EyeHome is 2 things in mind: 1) it is a media player, to stream iTunes/iPhoto/Video from Mac to TV, 2) it also works with EyeTV, if you have one.
I am using EyeTV and EyeHome in my house, yes, it is designed for my use. I found it much easier to do recording on Mac, and just sit down and relax on sofa. Why do you want to do any editing or modification on TV? I have used before many products (including some I am working on) that uses TV for management - all sucks compared to using a Mac to do things.
Yes, EyeHome is being designed and worked by people who use the products themselves. I can respect that you have a view on how EyeTV and EyeHome should be more tightly integrated, but not everybody view it that way.
Originally posted by Programmer
Yeah, I already went and read about it from the link at the top of the thread. It is much the same as EyeHome. Pity.
I asked the Elgato people about it a couple months ago and basically they said "hey, that's a good idea". Duh. Doesn't anybody think for even 5 minutes about how you'd actually want the system to work? There is way too much "throw the technology in a box and ship it" in the industry. Apple has a better track record than most at integrated system design, so hopefully they're working on it. They have been building set top boxes as experiements for more than 10 years, so its possible they've got something cookin'.
Originally posted by limtc
Unlike EyeHome, it does not have PVR function, but it has wifi capability built right in.
Just remember EyeHome is 2 things in mind: 1) it is a media player, to stream iTunes/iPhoto/Video from Mac to TV, 2) it also works with EyeTV, if you have one.
I am using EyeTV and EyeHome in my house, yes, it is designed for my use. I found it much easier to do recording on Mac, and just sit down and relax on sofa. Why do you want to do any editing or modification on TV? I have used before many products (including some I am working on) that uses TV for management - all sucks compared to using a Mac to do things.
Yes, EyeHome is being designed and worked by people who use the products themselves. I can respect that you have a view on how EyeTV and EyeHome should be more tightly integrated, but not everybody view it that way.
So can you pause live TV like a TiVo (or other DVR) can? Can you hit record on one channel then switch to another to watch it live? Skip commercials? If you can, great... but Elgato told me back in January that they don't support that functionality. These seem like perfectly reasonable requests, and they are supported by most of the DVRs on the market. There were a few other shortcomings, all reasonable DVR type stuff, that Elgato gave me negative answers too... I can't remember them all now.
Being able to program the automated recording on the Mac is fine, but my Mac is in another room from the TV (even more so if you have multiple TVs & EyeHomes) and the family doesn't want to go into the office just to record a TV show. Especially if I'm using the Mac for work.
EyeHome design is primary to play back the media from the Mac, it is not designed to be a replacement for Tivo, at least not now. There will be new enhancement coming, but probably not in the PVR area you are looking at. The enhancements will come from more integration and syncing with iTunes/iPhoto, besides EyeTV. (and from what I understand, if you are looking for things coming from Apple related to PVR, you will be deeply disappointed too).
Originally posted by Programmer
So can you pause live TV like a TiVo (or other DVR) can? Can you hit record on one channel then switch to another to watch it live? Skip commercials? If you can, great... but Elgato told me back in January that they don't support that functionality. These seem like perfectly reasonable requests, and they are supported by most of the DVRs on the market. There were a few other shortcomings, all reasonable DVR type stuff, that Elgato gave me negative answers too... I can't remember them all now.
Being able to program the automated recording on the Mac is fine, but my Mac is in another room from the TV (even more so if you have multiple TVs & EyeHomes) and the family doesn't want to go into the office just to record a TV show. Especially if I'm using the Mac for work.
Originally posted by limtc
Hi programmer, I can definitely understand your stand. That you view EyeTV + EyeHome as a Tivo combination. Unfortunately, right now, EyeTV is the PVR, but EyeHome is not.
EyeHome design is primary to play back the media from the Mac, it is not designed to be a replacement for Tivo, at least not now. There will be new enhancement coming, but probably not in the PVR area you are looking at. The enhancements will come from more integration and syncing with iTunes/iPhoto, besides EyeTV. (and from what I understand, if you are looking for things coming from Apple related to PVR, you will be deeply disappointed too).
Yeah, I don't know what Apple or anyone else is doing in this area and I know that's not what Elgato is trying to be. It is a huge step up in usability and flexibility, however, and they are really close to having what is necessary. The network connection is bidirectional so they have the capability to send instructions to the server+DVR, why not use it?
Apple hasn't announced anything at all -- are you saying you have an inside source of info on what they are doing in this area?
Originally posted by Programmer
Yeah, I don't know what Apple or anyone else is doing in this area and I know that's not what Elgato is trying to be. It is a huge step up in usability and flexibility, however, and they are really close to having what is necessary. The network connection is bidirectional so they have the capability to send instructions to the server+DVR, why not use it?
Apple hasn't announced anything at all -- are you saying you have an inside source of info on what they are doing in this area?