Apple reveals new cloud-centric Apple TV - Page 9

you know this reminds me very much of the first iPhone 2G. it had a few essential on-board apps. but otherwise Apple said 'use web apps'. that was ok (revolutionary for the times), but the iPhone didn't really take off sales-wise until the 3G came out with the app store and native apps a year later.

the ATV2 strikes me the same way. it's a great media extender for the iTunes ecosystem, which makes it ok. but it is not going to take off sales-wise either until it puts apps on your TV screen somehow. and just like the iPhone, games will lead the way.

maybe next year. iPad2 would be a place to start. with a more powerful processor - the A5? - it could mirror iPad apps/games running on its screen on your TV screen too via ATV2. AirPlay now does half of this job already.

iTunes video is infested with DRM. Only music is DRM free unfortunately.

you (and all the readers here) have to understand that you are about 1/2 of 1% of the target market Apple TV is focused on. aTV is not meant for people like you, you will find a better solution for anything any company puts out. So your opinion is appreciated, but really minimal at best.

You are absolutely right. CBS app, comedy central app, NFL app, NHL app, HBO app... they are all in the pipeline and wil be a gamechanger for TV as we know it.

I'm really getting tired of hearing this solution. ripping is a pain in the butt. No average person will sit there and rip blu-rays and Dvds through some 3rd party software and throw away the box.

I don't expect apple to do it, but i've been saying for years that forcing people to re-purchase (or now convinced to rent, over and over again) media we already own every time a format change occurs should be considered a crime. Sure we're stupid enough to re-buy all our movies in 3 different formats since home video began, but there must be a compromise. the formats (and codecs) are so vast and rapidly changing, that it's really starting to feel like a conspiracy to keep us buying. Something has to give, and the consumer should not be held captive by this system.

ugh, too many apps, should be integrated to a guide-like UI

Think: The current exchange rate is £1:$1.55. VAT is 17.5% in the UK, not 55%.

Anyone notice a trend in companies not including a HDMI cable with their product though? Sony doesn't, Apple doesn't, a lot of other companies don't. Are HDMI cables really that expensive? The new Apple TV doesn't ship with any way to plug it into a TV!

Personally, I think this device is pretty nice (now). For me, I was waiting on a device that could play my Netflix and access my home computer/iTunes. It does that now in spades and i'm finally going to get one. One feature people seem to glaze over is the "Computers" tab. It will recognize any device in your home network. That is really amazing! I think that feature alone is far more telling about the future of Apple TV.

A couple things would make this even better. One would be that it really needs to integrate WiFi as a hub itself rather than acting as another satellite, and I think it might be heading that way. If it could simply connect to your cable network or ISP source directly and act as the WiFI, Router and home network access center, they would get a lot more people buying them.

It's my same argument with the iPad, you STILL need a computer to work this device. Why not offer some connection or integration with Airport and Time capsule. Why not offer a Blu-ray super-drive as an accessory? Apple LOVES it's accessories. IMO, if these things happen, you'll really start to see a bigger following.

Not at all. These individual apps allow their own sub-cosystem within their domain and not being bound to a UI ala typical tv, but Apple enhanced.

I have netflix and it has been the best subscription I've ever owned. The catalog of titles is what Blockbuster should have been by now. NF has just about any Movie, TV show you can imagine. We've rented BBC TV shows (every season in their entirety) from the 1960's and '70s. Obscure documentaries about Wizard Rock and Renown Architects from Basel Switzerland and many other standard titles. $8.99 gets you 3 rentals a month one disc at a time. Streaming is extra. We have streaming, 3 discs at a time, unlimited rentals per month and pay about $25 per month. Now to get the same from Apple would cost you probably as much as you pay in Cable and a DVR, if not much more. Here's an example. We have about 35 TV shows we have in the DVR queue. Each show records only new episodes. In an average month, we watch about 3-5 shows per day (not including news and sports) and about 21-35 shows per week. Do that math per month you get about $120-$150 a month in TV shows, not including shows that iTunes doesn't carry (like sports and 24hr new networks). So to me, the iTunes model is not worth it. They just package it better.

3rd party solutions gives VARs a reason to exist.

If i'm going to watch TV, i want all my TV stuff in one convenient place, not strewn about in separate Apps., no thank you.

i'm sure i won't be the first to have pointed this out, but $99 = ..... £99

There are roughly 115 million households in the US. According to the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, about 61 million households have some level of cable TV. So, you're saying close to 50% of the american population qualifies as a "tiny niche market"? Don't forget, for reference, Apple has about 150 million iTunes users registered. And regardless, I'm afraid you've missed the point...what percent of those 61 million cable TV subscribing households would love to get rid of that expense?

I personally have gone from $120/month for comcast standard digital cable (NO HD) and internet to $45/month for just HSI (Actually $19.99/month intro for 6 months). I was already paying for netflix ($8.99), and will continue to. Most of my viewing is movies and intelligent tv series from netflix, and occasional primetime network stuff. I will now be able to get all the major networks in HD for free OTA (since I don't have my coax taken up by a stupid comcast cable box) and the rare TV show I can't get from netflix, hulu, free download, or OTA, I might rent for 99 cents from Apple.

I'm not saying everyone is in the same boat as me, or even close, but there are _many_ compelling use cases for the AppleTV now. For instance, all you folks talking about using your PS3 or Xbox 360 for streaming...how does that compare to the _silent_ 6 watts (max) of the new AppleTV? Try doing some honest tco calculations including electricity. How about the tiny size? I have a love/hate relationship with my Roku, but the ability to take it on any kind of trip and still have great streaming content _on a TV_ is worth a lot once you try it. The new AppleTV appears to be even smaller than Roku.

Finally, I'm convinced Apple will provide an SDK at some point, leading to an app store. Yes, touch control is the big question...do you simply offer this feature for people with some iOS touch device? Apple is already allowing iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch to act as a touch sensitive remote for controlling the UI...why not also for apps?

At $99 this is much more compelling than another Roku, considering how incredibly hit and miss Roku's software engineering seems to be. MLB.TV on the Roku is about as bad a service as I've ever seen. Class-action bad. And the UI on Roku is marginal at best.

I'd be surprised if Apple doesn't sell close to 10 million of these in the first year.

Just be glad they didn't call it the iTV!! That would have alienated the UK entirely.

So - the price. Well, if you want to go away and work out what the import duty and VAT is on the Apple TV (and remember, it is OUR government that has instituted both) you'll see why there's such a disparity in price. VAT having gone up to 20% isn't really helping.

Like the revamped device and price point. I was looking forward to a cloud based service that I OWN the content I buy and stream it to the Apple TV when I want to watch it. I don't want to rent it, that's dumb.

Looks nice but....

1. Streaming music to my AirPort Express is so unreliable I now just plug my iPod into speakers, if it only streams this seems like a big risk to take (for me anyway)
2. Streaming requires the computer to actually be on which mine never is, which makes it a bit of a hassle to watch something you have. Quicker to go to the DVD rack
3. Rentals of new releases at £3.49 for new releases is only 50p less than sky. I would have to rent 198 films to pay back the cost of buying the box. Admittedly there's the whole collection of library titles as well, but still if the main feature was renting films then the price is far to high. You could have almost 2 years of DVD rental via post for that amount.

Apple and Jobs are not stupid. Why change the hardware of ATV to iTV? Steve said it: "Nobody owns the living room yet". Watch him: this is what he is gunning for. It is just the beginning...

1. iOS-centric device.
- Simple shared hardware for a very cheap ($99 is buy-on-whim price) but profitable (I bet cost is $60-80) device for every home TV. Underprices X-Box/PS3/Wii as a home console (NOT a game machine)...
- Same development platform for Apple and 3rd party, easy porting of 100,000's of apps,
- New device for new apps/widgets with a twist (eg. same game on iPhone, iPad, iMac and iTV with different scope/angle/level/multi players).

2. Cloud based content from new Data Centre:
- iTunes (music, films, podcasts)
- iLife cloud (was expected in this Keynote)
- iPhone/iPad/iTV apps (game central)
- MobileMe apps (iCal, Mail, adress, docs/content)
- TV presentation device for above with iPhone, iPod and iPad as joysticks/remotes/input/synch devices.
- Ping social site presentation device. iTunes? Just tip of the iceberg... Family/friends/strangers doing sharing/collaboration/discussions/recommendation of games/films/photos/music/document from iTunes/iLife/iWork/MobileMe cloud.

3. iTV v.2:
- No local storage today is a big minus. Apps/Photos/music I want local, films I stream on my ATV v1. But we do not know how much flash memory is inside for buffering/48hr playback of rented content... iSupply will tell. If not already 32Gb i bet you in 12 months a 32Gb, 64Gb and 120Gb solid-state iTV versions will appear for some local content.

Today this is a h/w shell with a potential. Next holidays season you will be limited to buying 2 per household and will wait 2 weeks to get one anyway... it will sell as fast as iPad or iPhone 5 and production will not keep up. And nobody will talk about h/w but the cool new app that lets you leave your family calendar/tasks/notes on the home TV from your iPhone, eg. real-time update of the family shopping list as you stop off at the petrol station on your way home...

No, VAT is increasing to 20%. You aren't taking in to account import duty, and US products are all sold excluding sales tax, which has to be added on top and varies between different states, but is generally about 10%.

You need to sharpen your reading comprehension skills. Why would I need to find a Sony BD player for $70? Why would BD rentals have to cost 99 cents or less to be competitive with Apple TV's pricing? Those comments make no sense.

It's great that you use Airplay to stream your music, home movies, tv shows and photos to your Apple TV; this product is obviously for you, and those features are unique to the Apple TV. As a means of consuming Hollywood movies and tv shows though, there are better options for the money. And I don't trust that your Sony Blu-Ray player is a good indicator of the user experience of other brands, including the LG that can be had for $30 more than the Apple TV.

For the occasional movie and tv show watchers who can't be bothered to tune in when the show airs for free on broadcast television in HD, the Apple TV is good. For people who watch full seasons of tv shows and a couple movies a month, you can't beat discs-by-mail or Redbox in terms of price, selection and quality. A blu-ray at Redbox costs $1.50, despite Redbox's cost to purchase the disc and pay someone to stock the machines, and is much better picture and sound quality. Why it costs $4.99 for a lower-quality stream that's virtually free of overhead makes no sense. And discs-by-mail makes barreling through seasons of tv shows dirt cheap; considering there's typically 6-8 episodes per disc, the cost becomes significantly less than 99 cents.

Ripping isn't that hard. Typically only a few seconds of effort. The processing may take a while, depending on your hardware. Who cares? It's like worrying about how long a dishwasher takes.

I'm not sure why you consider DVD ripping unorthodox. Ripping content for fair use on the device of your choice was the whole original impetus behind iTunes. Why does it seem odd to you to extend that to video?

Doesn't your blighty VAT account for about half of this, mate? (as for the rest I have no explanation)

But don't worry - with our growing appetite for voracious gov't and US VAT on the way, we'll soon catch up in the colonies.

OK lets use airplay which eliminates the storage problem of the ATV
now
i have 4 macs, how do i "chose" which one to stream from, do i name each one a unique "ID"
how do i name each mac

your thoughts because in a few weeks---I'LL HAVE MY NEW ATV AND STREAMING FROM ONE OF MY MACS
wahoo!!!

everyone focuses on ATV but to me the big deal is a simplified interface access to your stored media---AIRPLAY is H-U-G-E

I actually agree with both of you!

1) Individual apps by content providers will allow them to implement their "delivery system" to whatever level of content they chose to provide in the way they chose to provide it.

2) This will result in a lot of competing formats which will be messy, confusing and wasteful of resources.

3) Eventually, a common format will evolve, ala ePub, that will allow consolidation of the delivery of the content under a single (or a few) apps with a standard UI.


I think that all three steps are necessary -- you won't get the content providers unless you let them do it their way and to their time-frame, motivations, objectives, etc.

A natural selection will take place as the providers experiment with, refine and eliminate features of their unique delivery systems... always with an eye to what the competition is doing, and what the consumers like.

Eventually, some implementable standards will evolve which will allow a few apps to provide what the contentment-providers and consumers want.
.

.

I was quite disappointed that there were no AppleTV apps announced, yesterday-- and, especially, no SDK for AppleTV,


Likely: the AppleTV has an A4 processor; has similar RAM and graphics hardware; runs iOS-- so, where are the apps and SDK.



On reflection, I am even more confused! What we don't know is how much SSD storage the AppleTV device contains. Is it 1 GB? 16 GB? More? Less?


What if there is very little room on the device for additional apps?

Will Apple limit the apps to those provided by itself and/or a few select 3rd-party developers?



What if there is no room at all on the AppleTV for additional apps, content, games, etc. that we've come to love on our iDevices?


Does that mean that the AppleTV is WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get)? Pronounced Wizzy-Wig.

Does that mean that the AppleTV is WYGIWYW (What You Get Isn't What You Want)? Pronounced Wiggy-Woo.


Is that all there is to AppleTV-- a streamer (actually, to be more accurate, a streamee? )


That can't be right... can it?


What about all the games and apps I (and many others) expected to have at our fingertips for the big screen?


Is it possible/practical for the apps to reside in the cloud, too -- and be downloaded as part of the streamed content?


Is it possible/practical for the apps to reside on other devices within WiFi range of the AppleTV?
-- Where, we select an app from an AppleTV Apps Menu and the app is temporarily installed on the device at fast WiFi speeds (instead of slow Internet download/streamer speeds)?
-- Would a few seconds startup delay be acceptable?


It could mean that we'll never get AppleTV apps and an SDK... or that we already have them.



I just ran a proof-of-concept experiment on my iP4 and the New Epic Citadel game (preview):
-- 00.0 Start the app (tap its icon)
-- 04.0 Logo Appears
-- 05.4 Art components begin being displayed
-- 16.4 Start Button appears (Art component display continues)
-- 25.0 App fully loaded waiting for user.

Because of the way the app displayed progress (while loading) the long start time was hardly noticeable-- not the least bit off-putting.


The Epic Citadel app is 128.2MB.

So, it takes 25 seconds to start the Epic Citadel app on Apple's fastest iDevice!

It took 25-30 seconds to properly install the app in the iP4 using iTunes sync over USB

Theoretically, 802.11n can attain 200 Mbs, 0r 25 MBs.

Over WiFi, the transmission and temporary install of Epic Citadel app could be accomplished in about 6 seconds.

I assume, that the AppleTV can multithread and begin displaying Epic Citadel content as the transmission, temporary install, and load takes place.


If true, you could experience Epic Citadel app on the AppleTV and Big screen, with little noticeable delay-- even though the app was dynamically installed as part of the selection / app-startup process


We may have already witnessed running apps on the AppleTV!


Hmmm.....

.

I rip all of my Blu-Rays for other devices such as my iPhone 4. I bought a $150 ASUS external Blu-Ray drive and use free software. It's click and rip. Easy using these instructions:

http://www.macworld.com/article/1457...y_ripping.html

To me is like a vending machine for your TV.

What I would like on this device:
- 3+ USB Ports to connect my drives.
- Being able to play any movie type imaginable (not just those rented/ purchased from apple)
- 1080P

a total FAIL.

Steve Jobs rather support Netflix on ALL the Macs instead of Blu-Ray! LMAO!

No product is designed for everybody and if they make enough off of it to keep supporting it, great. I'm sure they are testing various waters and will, when the time comes, release a nice device that will appeal to a larger customer base. Right now, they seem happy with it, and so do at least enough customers to not cancel it altogether.

They do refer to it as a "hobby".

I for one really want one at home to stream stuff to the living room and one for the office to allow better meetings. At 99 bucks, it is a no brainer: no more fussing with and / or having people trip over cables. Every iPad in the office is an instant presentation device.

-excuse me but how 10's of tb do you need to connect to the atv so you need 3 usb ports

-jailbreak, no worries there.

-apple can't cater with a $99 for a resolution that's not even in 20% of home in the U.S. let alone the world.

Well, for me, I think its worth the investment. Since my DirecTV bill is about $89 a month now (and includes TONS of commercials I have to keep skipping through on my DVR) and I also pay for netflix on top of that, and occasionally rent or buy a movie on itunes as well.

I think the new Apple TV really helps me ditch the direcTV (hopefully) and be able to merge all of my devices without having to wire everything together every evening. I like to have my laptop on the couch with me. Now, if my movie is on my laptop, I can control it and play it on the TV without even getting up. If its on my main desktop computer, I can access it from apple TV and play my movie that way. If I want to rent a new TV show that just came out, bam, click of a button. Play around on youtube when friends are over, use my iPhone and stream my movies off of that. Not to mention my music. I love hooking my iPhone up to my home theater system to play my music, but it never fails I need my phone for something or I get a call and I have to go unplug it, get the call or do whatever, then walk back in the living room, plug it back in, double tap, hit play again. And if I was watching TV, then I have to set the stereo back on "iPhone" and turn the TV to the correct Channel again if I was watching a video. It will be much easier to keep my phone with me, and just stream my music or videos. I cant wait. I'm going to move my charger for my phone right next to the couch!

Now 4.2 just needs to hurry up so I can use my phone to stream!

Why not? They release software for OSX, and that is only run on a very small percentage of the worlds computers

Haha I totally agree! Coldplay is safe pop-rock for the middle-aged that want to think they're cool. So really it's not that surprising that Apple wants to use them. However they risk losing street-cred though if it keeps that up!

your wait will be long .....grasshopper

Didn't Apple shoot themself in the foot as I'm sure unread stream from the mac wrong as I don't get the .99 cent model when most content is already FREE online. If it starts to disappear torrent will be everywhere but if it can stream from PC or mac doesn't that mean it will stream torrents?

First you download transmission for the mac then go to kickass torrents where you can download just about anything. Even DVDs about to be released before they are releassed. I only do that if i
find a show and missed season 1 and they are on season two as almost evey network shows their shows free which is why now with no buying you can get with torrents but no more for Atv. Weird.

Not sure if this came up yet, but does anyone know if the new AppleTV will act as a wireless extender/access point like the Airport Express? I'd consider buying one for my bedroom TV if it did, since I have an ethernet port in there and the wireless signal from downstairs is a bit weak. Without the wireless extender capability, I'd need to add another base station or access point up in the bedroom in order to even use AirPlay reliably, which would kinda suck.

I've been googling for more information on this topic since they announced the new ATV and I haven't found a single word one way or the other.

.
Nope.
Who's waiting? Got me a WDLIVE Best purchase I've ever made.

what about the possibility that ATV connects to your dvr and acts like slingbox

now that would rock

http://digg.com/news/technology/Appl...patent_filings

5 TB So far. (Most 1080P are 8GB+)


You got a point there. I think TV manufaturers should also stop making TVs with such a high res that nobody watches too.