or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4 - Page 6

post #201 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

the more interesting thing that people aren't talking about is this... Is this a sign that Apple has some meaningful deals with the studios? Unless things have changed.... While the iTunes movie store is 'okay' its mostly filled with DVD priced offerings in 720p quality and with less than stellar audio support. Certainly no 5.1 or 7.2... It's 2010 and OS X still doesn't do acceptable HT audio.

Is this about to change? I sure hope so... because it's not like Apple (Steve) to roll out a device that supports 1080p without them having any 1080p content to offer.

I really hope there are some content deals in the wings. Some networks are offering VoD options in conjunction with their channels so perhaps that's an avenue for Apple?

Currently Apple rent most 720p videos in 5.1, not sure why you haven't found that. And I would expect 1080p support is more for future proofing, home movies, photo viewing than for rental movies (for now).
post #202 of 258
I'd be delighted to see some live streaming content deals that would offer price competition to the content delivery stranglehold that Comcast exerts in our community.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #203 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Do you ever watch sports, nightly news, or other live broad casts?

Why does everyone think of news as live?
I mean - I know there are special live events, but news could easily be delayed.

In fact - why not have a news "portal" with a list of stories, similar to how the AppleTV shows movie trailers? Tick the stories we want, or watch them all, or choose article by article. Link small stories to other bigger expose/current-affairs programs if we want more information. etc.
post #204 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005 View Post

as a iPhone OS device, it would be able to store and run iPhone Apps, especially multi-player games. Although there might be a new cheaper $49 controller/remote, existing iPhones, iPod touch, and iPads could also serve as controllers.

Like the iPad, it could be easy to port an app from iPhone to AppleTV. I just can't see it running them without alteration. There has to be changes in the interaction method - and Apple would get more traction from forcing developers to make it native.

Personally, I'd like to see novel ideas - like Scrabble on the iPad uses partnerships of iPhone & iPad. If I'm having a FAST jet dog-fight with my friend on our iPhones, let the TV follow the action so others can watch. Same with a car race - do close ups on our cars, show the close calls, replay the crashes.
post #205 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Like the iPad, it could be easy to port an app from iPhone to AppleTV. I just can't see it running them without alteration. There has to be changes in the interaction method - and Apple would get more traction from forcing developers to make it native.

Personally, I'd like to see novel ideas - like Scrabble on the iPad uses partnerships of iPhone & iPad. If I'm having a FAST jet dog-fight with my friend on our iPhones, let the TV follow the action so others can watch. Same with a car race - do close ups on our cars, show the close calls, replay the crashes.

I don't see iPhone or iPad apps being usable on the AppleTV. Just look at how poorly iPhone app look on the iPad with 2x magnification. I stopped using those apps immediately.

Now imagine them being expanded to an HDTV, have no CocoaTouch which means only using a remote am only being used in the widescreen format. It's failure on every level.

I think the best we can hope for is an SDK for the AppleTV without the apps being "universal" in that they can be built for the iPhone/Touch and iPad.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #206 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Looks like Eric Schmidt made off with yet another Apple idea during his tenure on the board. Not surprising given Google's approach to all IP but its own.

Hang on a second... Google bought Android in 2005 and then purchased YouTube in 2006 for $1.6 billion. It's pretty obvious which direction Google saw consumer viewing going and they most definitely laid their cards on the table.

It's fair to say Schmidt had access to Apple's road map, and from a moral standpoint, he should have quit the board when he realized the conflict of interest between Apple's and Google's future goals (it's probably not too paranoid to suggest he stayed on the board just so he could keep an eye on what Apple was doing).

However, to suggest that Google purchased Android and YouTube, then just sat around twiddling their thumbs not knowing what their next move was until Schmidt came back from an Apple meeting one day and said "You guys should see what Apple is planing to do in a few years..." is just plain insanity.

I actually think it's apparent in each companies strategy.

The GTV is very "Google". The point of GTV is to act as a gateway to internet content providers and gather user information in order to gain profit from targeted advertising - Google's core business.

The ATV is likewise very "Apple". It acts as a gateway to iTunes to extend, and lock consumers into, the "eco-system" in order to gain profit from content purchased through Apple.
post #207 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post


The ATV is likewise very "Apple". It acts as a gateway to iTunes to extend, and lock consumers into, the "eco-system" in order to gain profit from content purchased through Apple.

In some ways yes, but iPhone OS isn't as closed as it might be. There are streaming apps from many media outlets and Apple no longer seem paranoid about letting others to the party.

An ATV with apps could be a wonderful thing. US customers would get the usual suspects, and here in the UK we would get BBC iPlayer, Spotify, and perhaps Netflix clone LoveFilm. (although their streaming efforts so far have been nothing short of abysmal)

And don't forget all those games. All Apple need do is redesign the Apple remote to be a little more Wiimote like, and you could make an awful lot of iPhone games work with higher res assets and frame buffer, controlled with a d-pad and accelerometer.

I'd also like Safari in there as I find myself using my PS3's web browser on my KURO quite a bit, despite it being a useless browser. (although it does at least, have flash) Obviously I don't type anything into it beyond URLs, but for reading it's fine.
post #208 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't see iPhone or iPad apps being usable on the AppleTV. Just look at how poorly iPhone app look on the iPad with 2x magnification.

You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?
post #209 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Hang on a second... Google bought Android in 2005 and then purchased YouTube in 2006 for $1.6 billion. ... However, to suggest that Google purchased Android and YouTube, then just sat around twiddling their thumbs not knowing what their next move was until Schmidt came back from an Apple meeting one day and said "You guys should see what Apple is planing to do in a few years..." is just plain insanity.

I don't know why you think those dates make your point. I know the iPhone is magical, but it didn't just pop into existence that day that Steve pulled it out of his pocket. And you're not the first to mention these dates in this context, but, duh!
post #210 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Till Apple gets a content deal with content creators, that's actually competitive with cable, it's highly unlikely most of us would get rid of our cable boxes.

I did more than 2 years ago and I haven't missed it one bit (especially the monthly cable bill). The best part is watching television shows without commercials - it changes the entire experience not having to endure those damn psychological manipulations every few minutes.
post #211 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maury Markowitz View Post

But I don't like this model. I don't want to have to have two machines running to do the job of one.

Maury

Don't think of it as separate PC, think of it as an accessory device to extend your PC and the internet to your TV at minimal cost and effort.

If this is what Apple does (which seems reasonable on all counts) and it doesn't vibe with your particular needs then you don't have to buy it, can run a cable from your PC to your TV so you only have the one "machine" or choose a different service.



excatly. my television/media viewing works via SageTV www.sagetv.com which is a central media server, and then very low power (6 watts?) media "extenders" at the nodes (televisions) i want to view at. the extenders do all the heavy lifting (decoding, etc) and the server just has the main software, and all the (four) ATSC tuners hooked up to it. i've got a wireless HD extender that i can plug in a wireless keyboard to the extender for data entry , etc.

the days of HTPC are kind of over unless you are looking to game on your 60" tv. the idea is a central server and very low power extenders/nodes for each television. i'm sure the eventual idea is a cloud system owned and operated by apple, and then your personal device can be plugged into any tv or monitor/keyboard setup and allow you access to your data from anywhere. but our data speeds arent there yet.

the box on top is the HD200 i use. the bottom one is the old HD100, which was the size of a normal cable box.


post #212 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

My vision on the service:

There will be a subscription service and it will have ads (iAds) for probably ~$50/month. The most likely reason for no significant storage is probably for reducing any concerns of the content providers about piracy. Apple will distribute iAds over the air give a significant portion of the revenues to the networks and studios. You will be able to interact with the ads through the Apple Remote and you iPhone/


This sounds awful. I love my apple tv because there are no ads!
post #213 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

This sounds awful. I love my apple tv because there are no ads!

That's my sentiment exactly - the best part of the ATV experience is not having to endure those awful advertisements and programme interruptions. I haven't watched commercial television in 2 years and haven't missed it at all.
post #214 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Don't think of it as separate PC, think of it as an accessory device to extend your PC and the internet to your TV at minimal cost and effort.


That is a needed and viable category.

But will it be codec agnostic, or must one use Apple-specified codecs?

Does it really have only one HDMI output? How abut a separate Toslink for multi-channel sound to route to the sound system? (My TV has no HDMI output).

Will it really stream video from where my stuff is on my computer, or will it connect only to iTunes? I routinely move stuff around from the download directory to the music or video folders on my computer, and then, when I want to archive, I move the content to an external drive. iTunes cannot deal with any of that.
post #215 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jetz View Post

Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.

Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.

If you can install 3rd party apps, Netflix here we come.
post #216 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Not interested. Apple just wants to sell us movies. It doesn't actually want to help make our media lives make sense.


I got a demo of AppleTV at the iSore once. They showed me in detail how you could use it to buy content from Apple. Not much else.
post #217 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by copeland View Post

If it accepts my D-Link NAS that works as a ITunes server too and I can plug in a real network cable - have 1Gb network in my house - I'm sold.
Waited for this device for 2 years.

I assume you meant 1TB :-)
1GB would get you about 2 tv shows.

Of course, 1TB isn't that much these days either. I put in a 8TB raid (raid 5, 6TB actual storage). It's already 1/3 full. iTunes is making me go broke.
post #218 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by graxspoo View Post

Not interested. Apple just wants to sell us movies. It doesn't actually want to help make our media lives make sense. Something like the Boxee Box is actually much close to what I'm looking for:

Streams movies on any server in your house.
Views photos live from any server in your house.
Plays music from any server in your house including iTunes libraries.
Plays all internet content.
Plays Netflix streaming movies.

Now THAT's a media integration platform worth getting excited about. A new piece of hardware to sell me overpriced movies from the iTunes store? Notsomuch.

OTOH, if you can install 3rd party apps, your problems are solved.
post #219 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I got a demo of AppleTV at the iSore once. They showed me in detail how you could use it to buy content from Apple. Not much else.

I've had mine since it first launched and I've not bought one thing from Apple regarding content. Of course I had to hack it, but once I did a whole world of content was available for viewing on it, and it's one of my favourite devices in the house.

What are the chances this new device would be any different? Probably less than zero, huh?!
post #220 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I don't know why you think those dates make your point. I know the iPhone is magical, but it didn't just pop into existence that day that Steve pulled it out of his pocket. And you're not the first to mention these dates in this context, but, duh!

I thought you were talking about ATV\\GTV.
post #221 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.

GoogleTV is not that far away. By licensing GoogleTV to multiple manufacturers it makes it much easier for Google to sneak it into your home. You didn't intend to buy GoogleTV but your cable box or TV or Blu-ray player had it included.


My guess is that Apple will eventually settle down to doing what it has always done - make a very successful and profitable line of products that appeal greatly to an affluent subset of the population.

I can't really see another portal to the App Store becoming the dominant home media-streamer. But I can easily see that many, many people will get a lock-in and pay gobs of money to Apple for content, apps, etc.

It will be a winner, I think. But will it become the ubiquitous home DVR/HTPC/Media Server? Unlikely in my estimation.
post #222 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

For high quality (BD level) you would need a stable 45 mbit connection. For broadcast cable HD quality, you would need 15-20 mbit. For low quality highly compressed 1080p (Xbox Live level) that would cost you around 10mbit. Current 720p iTunes streams are 5mbit, but to be frank, they look mostly awful.


Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?
post #223 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


In fact - why not have a news "portal" with a list of stories, similar to how the AppleTV shows movie trailers? Tick the stories we want, or watch them all, or choose article by article. Link small stories to other bigger expose/current-affairs programs if we want more information. etc.


It's here already. It is called Google News.
post #224 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?

His heart is in the right place.
post #225 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

This sounds awful. I love my apple tv because there are no ads!

There's going to have to be ads. In order for there to be any subscriptions service, TV companies will have to believe that they can recoup potential lost revenue from losing eyeballs through network ads. It would make sense that even early on Apple has a high asking price for iAds.

The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything. I could use a DVD player I already have, use Netflix and have access to more content at a cheaper price. There needs to be a subscription service in order for the product to be a huge hit. This is why Google TV will be a flop.

Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.
post #226 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

I got a demo of AppleTV at the iSore once. They showed me in detail how you could use it to buy content from Apple. Not much else.

What nonsense. This is what happens when you are too lazy to find out for yourself, and instead rely on a 'demo' at the iSore (sic).

The only content I've ever 'bought' is movies I rented ($4.99 for 720p HD, rented typically once a week; the selection and currency are excellent). The following are totally free: Youtube, Internet radio, your own music, thousands of podcasts (including video podcasts of just about every news/talk show) your own photos, your own movies that are on iTunes, and anything you've bought from the iTunes store that is on your hard drive.

In fact, I usually do not have the time to digest all the choices I have from amongst the free content on AppleTV.
post #227 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickertb;

I want an Apple OS in my (Philips) TV!!

I don't want another remote control
I don't want a new settop box

Apple should license (free of paid) its OS to TV manufactures...!!

Or - TVs should have a card slot/printboard where a small computer or OS can be inserted.

Why do I want to buy another TV when I don't have to?

Which is cheaper, a new TV or a set top box?

Set top is the better choice in the short run and then implementing your idea in the long run but knowing Apple they would never license their OS
post #228 of 258
With cloud based sync and iPhone OS, this could be a path to making the iPad a stand alone product, not requiring a desktop computer.
post #229 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What nonsense.
The only content I've ever 'bought' is movies I rented ($4.99 for 720p HD, rented typically once a week;


If Apple could get everyone to spend $250+ per year on a product with almost no marginal cost, the Apple TV will be one hell of a profit center.
post #230 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofear1az View Post

Why do I want to buy another TV when I don't have to?


These days, TVs only last a few years. Not like the old B&W tube-type consoles that lasted an entire childhood...
post #231 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

You're agreeing with me, but responding as if you think I said the opposite?

Yes, I read "can't" as "can". Mea culpa.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

But will it be codec agnostic, or must one use Apple-specified codecs?

Of course not, without knowledge of codecs nothing could play. We can expect

Quote:
Does it really have only one HDMI output? How abut a separate Toslink for multi-channel sound to route to the sound system? (My TV has no HDMI output).

There are several things to consider here.
  1. How popular is TOSLINK in consumer HES?
  2. Is HDMI going to be found on all HDTVs or HES receivers that have TOSLINK, thus negating the need?
  3. What benefits does TOSLINK offer over HDMI?
  4. What disadvantages does TOSLINK offer HDMI?
  5. Does TOSLINK offer HDCP support?
From what I can tell HDMI offers more throughput, is more future-forward and is more ubiquitous than TOSLINK. The only benefit I can see for the inclusion of TOSLINK is to allow the HDTV to only be the monitor and allow the speakers to route through a separate receiver system that doesn't offer video.

I guarantee that the next AppleTV will not offer component or analog audio. I'm sure many will complain for various shortsighted reasons but it's safe to say that Apple can appease the content owners better by only offering A/V ports that are HDCP compliant.

Quote:
Will it really stream video from where my stuff is on my computer, or will it connect only to iTunes?

That is the kicker. Connecting to iTunes will surely happen, but connecting to your network as a whole would be great. If there is an SDK then I think Apple would just leave that up to a 3rd-party.

Quote:
I routinely move stuff around from the download directory to the music or video folders on my computer, and then, when I want to archive, I move the content to an external drive. iTunes cannot deal with any of that.

i love it for audio but hate it for video. I'd catalog it in iTunes if I at least had the option to double-click a file and have it play through QuickTime. THe default iTunes video players asks very differently. I suspect we'll see a 64-bit Cocoa iTunes X coming this fall. Hopefully they've rethought the app from top to bottom.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

If you can install 3rd party apps, Netflix here we come.

That seems like a great way for Apple to offer a device for your HDTV that no one can even come close to touching. What other HW company that makes a media extender would have 3rd-party apps ready? They wouldn't just be a contender, but could own this market, too.

The rumored 16GB seems like plenty of space for the OS and apps. If this is true, perhaps they will demo this new device at WWDC along with the TV SDK for a fall release along with the new version of iTunes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

I assume you meant 1TB :-)
1GB would get you about 2 tv shows.

Of course, 1TB isn't that much these days either. I put in a 8TB raid (raid 5, 6TB actual storage). It's already 1/3 full. iTunes is making me go broke.

He stated "1Gb network" as in 1Gbps wired ethernet network.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?

Depends on the bit rate and sustainable average network speed. For example, a high-profile Blu-ray file may be 40Mbps, which is considerably higher any of the sites streaming 1080p, so the only way you'll be using that is from ripped Blu-rays. Note that 40Mbps converts to 5MBps. Now take that actual through put of wired and wireless networks. There will be buffering but this isn't actually an issue these days.


Quote:
Originally Posted by str1f3 View Post

The reason the Apple TV failed has nothing to do with hardware. The iPhone OS is nice but the problem was that it didn't really replace anything.

it wasn't meant to. It was meant to connect you computer, your media hub, to your TV. That will not change.

Quote:
Apple's goal should be that the Apple TV is the only box you'll need for your TV.

I wholeheartedly disagree. Besides different types of HES HW having different usable lifespans having a single device that does everything is complex, expensive, and goes against everything Apple has historically done. Not everyone wants to pay for cable card slots they won't use, or a PVR when they prefer their TiVo or another Blu-ray player or one at all.

I think Apple is going to be pushing this for every room in the house with a TV, not just the living room and usually you don't have all these devices in every room, so a cheap small device would be the best choice, IMO.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #232 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tipton View Post

With cloud based sync and iPhone OS, this could be a path to making the iPad a stand alone product, not requiring a desktop computer.

I personally see no evidence of that happening. Even when Apple does incorporate the LaLa purchase into iTunes.com (assumption) to stream your library to your devices the content will still remain on your local device. All it will do will let you stream from the same essential file from their servers, not actually hold all your content on their servers.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #233 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickertb View Post

I want an Apple OS in my (Philips) TV!!

I don't want another remote control
I don't want a new settop box

Apple should license (free of paid) its OS to TV manufactures...!!

Or - TVs should have a card slot/printboard where a small computer or OS can be inserted.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't want to have to buy a new TV to get these features. This $99 Apple device sounds perfect.
post #234 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use.

Apple never had more than 15.8% share...
post #235 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

Are you ignoring the ability to buffer? Isn't that the real question? How much to buffer before playback begins?

Microsoft on Xbox Live have multiple quality levels with each stream, so they simply test your connection then give you whatever stream you can handle. Doesn't take long (a few seconds), then playback starts virtually instantly.
post #236 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevie View Post

If Apple could get everyone to spend $250+ per year on a product with almost no marginal cost, the Apple TV will be one hell of a profit center.

Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.
post #237 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

I thought you were talking about ATV\\GTV.

In that case, it seems even less relevant.
post #238 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

But if you look at computers and smartphones, Microsoft was able to overtake Apple by licensing their software for others to use and Android is catching the iPhone again by licensing their software for others to use. ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Apple never had more than 15.8% share...

Besides it not being the best analogy, analogies, while useful for illustrative purposes, really aren't a good predictive tool.
post #239 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yup, sure, that is all pure profit for Apple. The TV/movie studios don't take the lion's share, servers and software development/maintenance cost nothing, the storefront just magically happens, etc.


I said the product had no marginal cost. The fixed capital costs were not mentioned. The profit sharing arrangements were not mentioned.

If you think I said "that is all pure profit for apple" then you misunderstood the meaning of "product with no marginal cost".
post #240 of 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

IMO this is not just Apple selling you some movies or even some games, this is the beginning of Apple taking over your entire house.


I was thinking along those lines too. IIRC, you have an impressive wireless setup/home network/media sharing setup (or is that Doc someone?) which uses lots of Apple products to their fullest. His system, coupled with this new news, made me wonder if Apple wanted to try to take on the living room, and beyond that, the whole house.

But I can't square that with Apple now being a "Mobile Device Company". And I wonder if taking over the house implies a central server, which Apple has never been so good at, and NAS, and deals with third parties like cable companies and home security companies and utility companies, which Appple has never been very good at.

So I dunno.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New cloud-based Apple TV to cost $99, run on iPhone OS 4