What's inside an Apple TV: Tear-down reveals (almost) all

[AppleInsider]

Wondering which firms help make Apple TV possible? Investment researchers over at Prudential Equity Group are supplying some answers after having purchased one of the new Apple devices and torn it down.

"To us, it looks like a scaled down version of a PC," said analyst Mark Lipacis, whose preliminary tear-down confirms an older 1.0GHz Intel mobile CPU (called Crofton) drives the device, along with an Intel Calistoga chipset and Nvidia GeForce Go 7300 graphics processing unit.

The Apple TV purchased by Prudential also sports Broadcom's 802.11n WLAN chipset as well as Realtek's Audio Codec and Fast Ethernet LAN controller. "In our universe, we are encouraged by the 802.11N win by Broadcom," Lipacis wrote in a note to technology investors.

Other significant design wins favor Linear, which is supplying three step-down regulators; Marvell, which is providing the HDD SoC; Foxlink, which makes the circuit board, Silicon Image, for the HDMI output; Silicon Storage Tech, for the flash memory and controller; Texas Instruments for the various analog components and HDD motor controller; and Cypress, which also makes the unit's clock chip and controller for flash.

On the memory side, Nanya and Samsung appear to be the largest suppliers, Lipacis said. The former is supplying 64MB of DDR2 graphics video memory, while the latter serves up 256MB of DDR3 DRAM. (It should be noted, however, that AppleInsider's previous checks indicate the Apple TV uses 256MB of DDR2 system memory, not DDR3.)

Based on Prudential Equity Group’s I/T Hardware Analyst Jesse Tortora’s estimate that Apple will ship 800,000 Apple TV units 2007 and 1.8 million in 2008, Lipacis in his report attempted to calculated what revenues the different suppliers should expect from Apple TV.

See more photos of the Apple TV's internal makeup.

Intel stands to be the primary beneficiary, he said, with estimated sales of $42 million and $93 million in 2007 and 2008, respectively, from the combined shipments of the Crofton CPU and Calistoga chipset. Next in line is Broadcom, which would reportedly reap some $12 million and $26 million in incremental revenue from shipments of its WLAN chipset over the same time periods. Other revenue estimates include $11 and $25 million for Nvidia, $10 and $21 million from Nanya, and $6 and $14 million from Samsung.

Because Prudential's tear-down is preliminary, it does not include design wins for components such as the Apple TV's 40GB hard disk drive, which means that the actual order of beneficiaries is likely a change in the final report.

"While the Apple TV is a high visibility design win, we do not expect it to change the economic fortunes for most of its suppliers," Lipacis wrote in his report. "[However], we do view design wins as a gauge for how competitive individual players are in their respective markets."

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[wilco]

It's about time!

[quinney]

800,000 in 2007. Hmmm, so every 8,000 hackers who buy one to defile
add another percent to sales.

[EagerDragon]

I wonder what it cost them to make it.

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by EagerDragon

I wonder what it cost them to make it.

Probably around $120-150...

[wtfk]

The picture link is busted--just so the admins know.

[Snowdog74]

My main question is whether or not the Calistoga chipset is one that supports Intel HD Audio. I'm seeing scattered references that imply this, but can anyone confirm?

If that's true, then Dolby Digital Live is already integrated but not enabled.

[suhail]

I'd like to begin by saying that I have purchased the Apple TV on the first day it was available at the Apple store, they had plenty in stock and not many people were buying them (Tysons Corner Mall, VA) I think Apple is going to struggle with this one. In the beginning at least… I'm basing this on three major shortcomings:
1- There are not enough movies, documentaries, or tv shows.
2- There is no rental, so it gets kinda expensive. And, like many others, I wouldn't buy a movie unless I know it is good enough to buy so I can watch it again later.
3- It gets a little confusing when more than one computer has access to it.

Otherwise, it seems to be a product with a potential. If Apple is able to get most of the movie labels to sign-up, along with most of Discovery Channel documentaries etc. it will be a much better product.

I know, it's v.10… hopefully it'll get better.

[Snowdog74]

Originally Posted by suhail

I'd like to begin by saying that I have purchased the Apple TV on the first day it was available at the Apple store, they had plenty in stock and not many people were buying them (Tysons Corner Mall, VA) I think Apple is going to struggle with this one. In the beginning at least… I'm basing this on three major shortcomings:
1- There are not enough movies, documentaries, or tv shows.
2- There is no rental, so it gets kinda expensive. And, like many others, I wouldn't buy a movie unless I know it is good enough to buy so I can watch it again later.
3- It gets a little confusing when more than one computer has access to it.

Otherwise, it seems to be a product with a potential. If Apple is able to get most of the movie labels to sign-up, along with most of Discovery Channel documentaries etc. it will be a much better product.

I know, it's v.10… hopefully it'll get better.

These were the same kind of complaints that arose around the launch of iPod.

It's important that the complaints keep coming because even if Apple is already working on these other concerns (and I am fairly certain they are), they at least will have a better understanding of the sense of urgency in the public eye as to which issues need to be addressed most and in what order.

[DeaPeaJay]

Originally Posted by suhail

I know, it's v.10… hopefully it'll get better.

What happened to the other 9 versions?

[DeaPeaJay]

So is 800,000 a pretty good number to shoot for? If they sold that many, would people stop saying it's a "doomed" product?

[soward]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

So is 800,000 a pretty good number to shoot for? If they sold that many, would people stop saying it's a "doomed" product?

Well, according to Microsoft 1,000,000 in the first year of a new media device in an existing market is a major success. So I'd say .8M in 9 months in a totally new market would be just a totally wild blow out success -- if M$ were involved. For Apple, I'm sure the pundits will agree it's a total failure/won't last/market anomally/etc.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

So is 800,000 a pretty good number to shoot for? If they sold that many, would people stop saying it's a "doomed" product?

Well, I would say it depends if all those 800,000 actually sell or if they are just shipped to retailers. If Apple really wanted to, they could play with the numbers by shipping 800,000 to the Apple Stores even if only 100,000 are actually sold. The Apple marketers can proclaim they reached the projected 800,000 shipped meanwhile Apple Store employees are busy stuffing the break room fridge with AppleTV's because they ran out of other places to store the things.

And it's not an entirely new market. It's an entirely new market for Apple (unless you want to count combining an iPod and an iPod video cable or the Airport Express with AirTunes) but media extenders have been around for some time.

[Joe_the_dragon]

Why does this have a on board video card with it's own ram and the mini has the
POS GMA 950 that uses 64mb + 12mb for over head = 80mb of system ram?

[filburt]

Originally Posted by Snowdog74

These were the same kind of complaints that arose around the launch of iPod.

#3 probably applies to iPod, but not the other two. Only major criticisms the original iPod faced were high price and Mac-only compatibility. Getting music into iPod was not an issue.

[Kestral]

So would it be possible to install Mac OS X Server on this and run this as a cheap and cheerful server?

[MacGregor]

Even if the appleTV doesn't top the charts at first - and I think it is still more of a factor of how many people really have HDtV's in their homes - it is great to not even hear a whiff of "Apple needs this to be big or it is DOOMED!" How times have changed. Now it seems that the assumption is that Apple will dominate a consumer market and the question seems to be "when" not "if."

I won't get an HD TV for at least 2 years so this device means little to me. I think I am in the vast majority, but then again in 2 years, the GUI and platform will mature to the point that it will probably seemlessly fill the DVR and an online rental functionalities at this price point and THEN I'll get it .... version 3.0!!

[bdkennedy1]

I'm bypassing the iTunes store all together. I'm not going to buy and download a bunch of mediocre movies. I'm spending a little extra time and ripping my DVD's of movies and TV shows. Whatever I don't have that I want I buy from Amazon for a couple bucks and rip it.

[sjk]

Originally Posted by filburt

Getting music into iPod was not an issue.

And getting music for an iPod has never been an issue.

Sources and types of video content for Apple TV are far more limited. I don't see how the current iTunes Store model for video purchases can be anything more than a niche market; it quickly becomes impractically unaffordable for most people. Apple TV will quickly fall into a niche without more flexible alternatives for content, whether it be from the iTunes Store and/or other sources. Apple TV is premature and immature but I think it was important for Apple to get it on the market now.

[JCG]

Originally Posted by sjk

And getting music for...more flexible alternatives for content, whether it be from the iTunes Store and/or other sources. Apple TV is premature and immature but I think it was important for Apple to get it on the market now.

Looking at the news there are a lot of opportunities for Apple to capitalize on making aliances with other media distribution channels to add value to the Apple TV with freely "Broadcast" services coming and others like Joost or YouTube. Then there is Rental/Subscriptioni models like BlockBuster and Netflix. I don't know if Apple will pursue these in the near future but it would make a lot of sense for them to do so for the very reasons that you point out. Lets face it, for the average person probably 70% or more of their viewing is "free" content from cable, satelite, or OTA, not movie rentals, purchases, or "premium" cable subscriptions.

[bedouin]

Originally Posted by Kestral

So would it be possible to install Mac OS X Server on this and run this as a cheap and cheerful server?

I suspect stock OS X of some flavor running on the ? TV will be happening within a month. I'm pulling that out of my backside, but I suspect that will be the case.

That's the point at which I will likely purchase one.

[ITFinanceGuy]

Personally I think Apple is experiencing a chicken/egg kind of scenario. They are busting these movie studios over the head trying to get them to release all their videos onto iTunes, but most are reluctant, and even if they do get in, it has only been with limited selection.

But now Apple pulls out an ace and says we now have this ATV unit. This is no longer a few iPod users who actually watch video, rather than just listen to music. Now they have a dedicated video unit with few other ways of getting content onto it, for the average person. I think once Apple has some solid sales numbers from this initial release, even 100,000 units, it will help them leverage the movie studios to join iTunes.

The studios can deny money for a while, but when you have 100,000 users just waiting for any content they can get for the ATV, money will talk. Then once more studios get on board, and with more movies, shows, etc... Apple will find it easier to sell the ATV. So the more ATVs they sell, the greater their leverage to the studios, and the more studios they have, the more leverage on the consumer they have. The problem they have now is that they now have a little of both types of leverage, and trying to add to both sides as quickly as they can.

Now I also think that at NAB in 2-3 weeks time, Apple will release their first software update for ATV&iTunes with 5.1 sound and at least 720p HD video content. They hardware and software support for these things are in place, now they just need to execute getting the actual content out, and I bet Steve Jobs is waiting for a big captive audience for that.

Again, it was important for Apple to get the ATV simply out, as they probably had a ton of pre-orders they wanted to fulfill, and any other orders that came in, but they want Steve to have all the media publicity he can get when iTunes announces the new partnerships and HD content available for the ATV.

I'm likely way off, but all those peices just seem to make sense to me. I think the ATV has a bright future though, it is just taking Apple a little while to get all the software and content puzzle pieces in place before they can unleash their full plan.

-ITFinanceGuy
----------------------------
www.itfinanceguy.com

[bwik]

Strongly disagree that Apple is spending only $150 on this. Clearly, the product has cost a lot of $ to develop. It is a major strategic initiative. Like the PS2, Apple probably loses money on each one (depending how you look at it). Even manuf costs would be over $250 I mean look at the raw component costs... plus factory gear-up.

This product has the potential to absolutely rock the world electronics market to its very core.

If it can do this:

1) View HD home movies (it already can)
2) View ripped DVDs actually ripped well (no software yet; Handspring is not good enough)
2) Record HD video from Television

Then we are talking about a world-rocker, an incredible strategic triumph for Apple - the nation's television habits (and billions of dollars) ride on the balance. Heck, my HDTV interface / navigation experience sucks. Plus, no HD recording. If there's any third-party way around THAT, bingo, huge market.

Time will tell.

[EagerDragon]

HP gave up on building media center PC's, I wonder if the Apple TV introduction had anything to do with that.

[huntercr]

Something to consider... it took Tivo 3 years ( 4 really ... official start was 1999-2003 ) to get 1 million subscribers. If they are aready anticipating sales this high, it will be amazing IMHO

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by bwik

Strongly disagree that Apple is spending only $150 on this. Clearly, the product has cost a lot of $ to develop. It is a major strategic initiative. Like the PS2, Apple probably loses money on each one (depending how you look at it). Even manuf costs would be over $250 I mean look at the raw component costs... plus factory gear-up.

This product has the potential to absolutely rock the world electronics market to its very core.

If it can do this:

1) View HD home movies (it already can)
2) View ripped DVDs actually ripped well (no software yet; Handspring is not good enough)
2) Record HD video from Television

Then we are talking about a world-rocker, an incredible strategic triumph for Apple - the nation's television habits (and billions of dollars) ride on the balance. Heck, my HDTV interface / navigation experience sucks. Plus, no HD recording. If there's any third-party way around THAT, bingo, huge market.

Time will tell.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying.

The Apple TV isn't a DVR, it doesn't do HD recording. Yes, HD-DVR's would cost more money to make. But Apple certainly isn't taking a hit on it.

Also, Sony sold the PS2 for a profit from day one. The PS3 is the first console they've sold at a loss, although by now they're most likely making a profit.

[bwik]

I was just saying the TV box is a killer market waiting for Apple to exploit it. That's not to say Apple TV 1.0 is that product yet.

Right, ATV 1.0 does not record HD. But, what if it could? Not likely, but it's a killer app.

Next up... again... digital home movies. In the next several years most families will upgrade to HDTV and HD video cameras. This is a messy task that Apple streamlines.

Finally, I do think a really find DVD ripper will enhance the Apple TV market.

As for production cost, that's a trade secret I don't know. But at least grant that given the strategic long term potential here, it matters not one iota what Apple nets on the boxes this year. It is to Apple's advantage to price low and move product / iTunes content / buzz at this juncture.

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by bwik

I was just saying the TV box is a killer market waiting for Apple to exploit it. That's not to say Apple TV 1.0 is that product yet.

Right, ATV 1.0 does not record HD. But, what if it could? Not likely, but it's a killer app.

Next up... again... digital home movies. In the next several years most families will upgrade to HDTV and HD video cameras. This is a messy task that Apple streamlines.

Finally, I do think a really find DVD ripper will enhance the Apple TV market.

As for production cost, that's a trade secret I don't know. But at least grant that given the strategic long term potential here, it matters not one iota what Apple nets on the boxes this year. It is to Apple's advantage to price low and move product / iTunes content / buzz at this juncture.

You're right on about home movies, but neither DVR nor DVD ripping are killer apps. Anyone who buys an Apple TV already has a DVD player. Anyone who buys and Apple TV, and wants one, already has a DVR.

These additions would add tremendous cost (DVR options alone would more than double the price), provide no benefit, and, in the case of DVD ripping, be illegal.

Subscription TV shows, and higher quality movies, are the killer apps. When the Apple TV can replace cable and DVDs, that's when things get interesting.

[Project2501]

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Subscription TV shows, and higher quality movies, are the killer apps. When the Apple TV can replace cable and DVDs, that's when things get interesting.

What I still think Apple should try to create is intenet video and music storage, Videos take way too much space, especially if 40gig hd is what you are supposed store your bought content. Bought videos and music should be stored into your account, and be dowloadable anytime and many times. Torrent type of storage network is propably not going to happen anytime soon, but that is something Apple could do. Also home media server is something I feel Apple should consider, because every other component for digital lifestyle home is getting there, but few terrabit reliable storage hub,( that could be used also as Time Machine back-up drive,) is something that we are still missing. Storing videos, music and photos in Internet, though would delay home storage problem for a while.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

You're right on about home movies, but neither DVR nor DVD ripping are killer apps. Anyone who buys an Apple TV already has a DVD player. Anyone who buys and Apple TV, and wants one, already has a DVR.

These additions would add tremendous cost (DVR options alone would more than double the price), provide no benefit, and, in the case of DVD ripping, be illegal.

Subscription TV shows, and higher quality movies, are the killer apps. When the Apple TV can replace cable and DVDs, that's when things get interesting.

If you have a DVD player, you already have movies available with higher quality than iTunes. If you already own a DVR, you probably already have some form of cable/satellite and thus already have subscription TV shows. So what is AppleTV bringing to the picture that anyone who wants it doesn't already have?

The only way that AppleTV will replace cable is when it will have some sort of all-you-can-watch subscription model. In effect, it will have to become cable to replace cable. If you're single, only have one tv, only watch a few shows that all happen to be on iTunes, then AppleTV could be a replacement for cable.

If you're a family that has 3+ TV's, watches 20+ hours of TV a week, even just getting started with AppleTV is prohibitive. At $300 per TV for the AppleTV unit, possibly requiring investments in new TV's if the current ones don't at least have component video. You're looking at $900+ to start, plus another $700 at least to get season passes to the 20+ shows you watch. And all this just to be stuck ONLY watching those shows since you've now cut off access to all the other content available via cable.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by caliminius

If you're a family that has 3+ TV's, watches 20+ hours of TV a week, even just getting started with AppleTV is prohibitive. At $300 per TV for the AppleTV unit, possibly requiring investments in new TV's if the current ones don't at least have component video. You're looking at $900+ to start, plus another $700 at least to get season passes to the 20+ shows you watch. And all this just to be stuck ONLY watching those shows since you've now cut off access to all the other content available via cable.

Because you need to completely abandon an older technology to pick up a new one?

Or perhaps you could simply downscale your cable premium channels and put the Apple TV on one big screen HDTV in the common area? The $20-50/month you save can be applied to iTunes purchases.

That seems a bit more likely "getting started" scenario...

Vinea

[iPoster]

Originally Posted by Joe_the_dragon

Why does this have a on board video card with it's own ram and the mini has the
POS GMA 950 that uses 64mb + 12mb for over head = 80mb of system ram?

I was about to post something similar. Mini and MacBook - GMA, much less expensive ATV - independent 7300. (yeah, the 7300 is low end, but even low end runs rings around any integrated video, without stealing system RAM as a bonus)

Doesn't make much sense to me, unless there is a refresh in the wind that will give the Mini and Macbook actual GPUs, fixing their only real shortcoming?

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by caliminius

If you have a DVD player, you already have movies available with higher quality than iTunes. If you already own a DVR, you probably already have some form of cable/satellite and thus already have subscription TV shows. So what is AppleTV bringing to the picture that anyone who wants it doesn't already have?

The ability to put other things like video podcasts, photos, music on your TV.

Also the fact that once iTunes gets price and quality competitive that it will take off because it's so much fucking easier than messing with TiVo or going to Blockbuster.

The only way that AppleTV will replace cable is when it will have some sort of all-you-can-watch subscription model. In effect, it will have to become cable to replace cable. If you're single, only have one tv, only watch a few shows that all happen to be on iTunes, then AppleTV could be a replacement for cable.

Duh, I already said that.

If you're a family that has 3+ TV's, watches 20+ hours of TV a week, even just getting started with AppleTV is prohibitive. At $300 per TV for the AppleTV unit, possibly requiring investments in new TV's if the current ones don't at least have component video. You're looking at $900+ to start, plus another $700 at least to get season passes to the 20+ shows you watch. And all this just to be stuck ONLY watching those shows since you've now cut off access to all the other content available via cable.

If you're a man that insists on eating 9,000 calories a day, French restaurants may not be cost effective for you, either. I'd recommend KFC.

Apple TV is for a wholly different audience than Nielsen families.

[TednDi]

My only complaint is that I can't buy movies and TV shows directly from the Apple TV unit.

Kind of weird as I have to go to my computer and download the movie then send it to the Apple TV.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

The ability to put other things like video podcasts, photos, music on your TV.

Also the fact that once iTunes gets price and quality competitive that it will take off because it's so much fucking easier than messing with TiVo or going to Blockbuster.



Duh, I already said that.



If you're a man that insists on eating 9,000 calories a day, French restaurants may not be cost effective for you, either. I'd recommend KFC.

Apple TV is for a wholly different audience than Nielsen families.

Have you actually used Tivo? It could be easier to use but that would probably involve having someone else do it for you. It's just as easy as the AppleTV and comes with a remote that could actually replace your TV remote instead of adding to the clutter like the Apple Remote. And it also lets me put music and photos on my TV if I choose. And with about the same amount of work as the AppleTV, I could get other video content on it as well.

So, you're saying the target audience for the AppleTV is single people who don't watch much video in the first place?

It seems like everyone likes to ignore the statistics about how much TV Americans actually watch when they proclaim the AppleTV a "cable killer." Or the real economics.

I don't know if you're single or not, but how many parents do you think would relish having to pay for Barney? The Teletubbies? Or Sponge Bob? Or any of the other kid's shows out there?

How much do you think an iTunes Season Pass for a daily soap opera would cost with something like 250 episodes a year? Or how much would an HBO series cost from iTunes considering that a 12-episode season on DVD costs about 50% more than a comparable 22-episode season of another show?

Why would AppleTV take off to the masses (who would be closer to Nielsen families with 20+ hours of TV time a week) and kill cable? Can anyone actually give me a real answer?

[bwik]

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

These additions would add tremendous cost (DVR options alone would more than double the price), provide no benefit, and, in the case of DVD ripping, be illegal.

I know that is the position of the MPAA, but how is it different from ripping CDs into iTunes, which is fully supported? Legally, how could one distinguish.... and where to music videos fit in? How about ripping television shows you taped? These really are considered Fair Use. Remember, they tried to outlaw VCRs using the logic you describe. Can't blame them for trying, but legally I don't know how strong the MPAA party line is at the moment.

To speak nothing of HDR rights.

Originally Posted by caliminus

If you have a DVD player, you already have movies available with higher quality than iTunes. If you already own a DVR, you probably already have some form of cable/satellite and thus already have subscription TV shows. So what is AppleTV bringing to the picture that anyone who wants it doesn't already have?

I already had a phonograph and many cd players -- Sony Discman, etc -- but I bought a few iPods too. Can you see the point yet? It is a pain to deal with 100s of CDs, DVDs and media downloads.

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by caliminius

Have you actually used Tivo? It could be easier to use but that would probably involve having someone else do it for you. It's just as easy as the AppleTV and comes with a remote that could actually replace your TV remote instead of adding to the clutter like the Apple Remote. And it also lets me put music and photos on my TV if I choose. And with about the same amount of work as the AppleTV, I could get other video content on it as well.

So, you're saying the target audience for the AppleTV is single people who don't watch much video in the first place?

It seems like everyone likes to ignore the statistics about how much TV Americans actually watch when they proclaim the AppleTV a "cable killer." Or the real economics.

I don't know if you're single or not, but how many parents do you think would relish having to pay for Barney? The Teletubbies? Or Sponge Bob? Or any of the other kid's shows out there?

How much do you think an iTunes Season Pass for a daily soap opera would cost with something like 250 episodes a year? Or how much would an HBO series cost from iTunes considering that a 12-episode season on DVD costs about 50% more than a comparable 22-episode season of another show?

Why would AppleTV take off to the masses (who would be closer to Nielsen families with 20+ hours of TV time a week) and kill cable? Can anyone actually give me a real answer?

Are you only capable of writing, but not reading, English?

[gregmightdothat]

Originally Posted by bwik

I know that is the position of the MPAA, but how is it different from ripping CDs into iTunes, which is fully supported? Legally, how could one distinguish.... and where to music videos fit in? How about ripping television shows you taped? These really are considered Fair Use. Remember, they tried to outlaw VCRs using the logic you describe. Can't blame them for trying, but legally I don't know how strong the MPAA party line is at the moment.

To speak nothing of HDR rights.

DVDs, unlike CDs or TV shows, are encrypted. That's why it's illegal to rip them.

Not that it should be, but Apple would be sued out of oblivion and key executives would face jail time if they allowed you to rip DVDs right now.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by bwik

I already had a phonograph and many cd players -- Sony Discman, etc -- but I bought a few iPods too. Can you see the point yet? It is a pain to deal with 100s of CDs, DVDs and media downloads.

Yes and no. I have a 60GB iPod so I can at least for the forseeable future put all of my music on it and carry it wherever I want. If I only had an 2/4/8GB Nano, I'd be back to the same sorts of issues presented by CD's about what to take with me and what not to take.

Video is a totally different animal than audio. Unless I'm at home, I have pretty much zero chance to watch videos. Audio I can listen to most places: in the car, at work, jogging, etc. If I decide to watch some sort of video, I've just decided to set aside a certain amount of time, about 90 minutes for a movie on average. The minute or two it takes to find the DVD and load it is pretty inconsequential to the 90 minutes I'm about to use.

Going back to the audio comparison, if I wanted to listen to one song and it was going to take that same minute or two to find and locate the CD, I'd probably not bother. Which is why ripping all my CD's to the computer comes in handy; I can be listening to it in seconds. But it's impractical to rip all my DVD's to the computer, both in terms of time and storage requirements; it's more convenient to just have my DVD's neatly organized on a shelf.

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Are you only capable of writing, but not reading, English?

Considering your inability to actually respond to my comments, I think you should be asking yourself that question.