or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple stalls Apple TV shipments ahead of iPad 3-compatible refresh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple stalls Apple TV shipments ahead of iPad 3-compatible refresh - Page 3

post #81 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Why would they announce both on the same day?

Seems odd to me. The iPad would steal Apple TV's thunder.

Is the new iPad going to be the new Apple TV as well?

I have no idea why but it just seems odd to me that they would announce both items on the same day.

appleTV is still a "hobby". It's the one more thing that works as an accessory to the iPad.

I just hope I don't have to talk to it to make it work.

1080p, some sort of app store, proper youtube interface, improved remote app, and more viewing options, including Amazon and Hulu+ would be perfect. 1080p and making youtube usable would be enough for me.
post #82 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Just having a "home" button on the remote would be a material improvement for both issues - I hate being several tiers down in the Podcasts or Netflix menu and have to keep *blip* *blip* *blip*ing my way to the main menu screen.

Why don't you just hold down the button?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #83 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Maybe I'm having an off day but I'm not getting the joke.

You weren't around for the first Apple television hilarity with Rolo?
post #84 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You weren't around for the first Apple television hilarity with Rolo?

The name isn't ringing a bell.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #85 of 119
Personally I'd like to see Apple offer something to compete with Vudu HD/HDX. That's been the only reason I never got an Apple TV, and I've got all other Apple products, and upgrade regularly. Well that and I can get a 3D Blu-Ray Player WITH VUDU 3D HDX 1080P for less then the $99 Apple TV, but I digress. If Apple would add 1080P 3D material, even just 1080P material I would buy at LEAST one Apple TV.

If they could get Ala Carte working right I would drop DirecTV in a heartbeat. Ala Carte programming would be awesome. But I don't think it would be cheap enough. For the $100+ I spend with DirecTV for programing I don't think I would get all the same volume of programing (i watch) available Ala Carte for under that. BUT with a different / awesome interface and eliminate the channel guige (hello 80's) I might be willing to pay more.

As for competing services I don't understand why they wouldn't allow Amazon and Vudu. I say that only because they allow Netflix and that's a competitor. Either allow all or none. Personally I was shocked they ever allowed Netflix.
post #86 of 119
I'm curious that the advert http://photos.appleinsider.com/ipad3-120228.jpg for the March 7 launch event has larger app icons and no button.... are we sure this is not a different device to the expected iPad 3? Touch iMac or surprise iTV launch?
post #87 of 119
Of course, it could be an iPad in landscape.... but that would be odd.
post #88 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonelsom View Post

Of course, it could be an iPad in landscape.... but that would be odd.

Of course it's in landscape. It wouldn't be odd at all. If Apple had already implemented a new Dock Connector, they wouldn't want to show it. If Apple didn't want the image to be full of extra crap detracting from the message, they'd do whatever was necessary to remove what wasn't supposed to be there.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #89 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Of course it's in landscape. It wouldn't be odd at all. If Apple had already implemented a new Dock Connector, they wouldn't want to show it. If Apple didn't want the image to be full of extra crap detracting from the message, they'd do whatever was necessary to remove what wasn't supposed to be there.

They could also have a new touch sensitive frame / bezel and no longer need a home button.

If charging was no inductive and data transfers were wifi (or inductive) there would also be no dock connector.

Or we can dream at least.

Would make Jobs happier, less buttons / keys and cleaner look.
post #90 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeremyMc7 View Post

They could also have a new touch sensitive frame / bezel and no longer need a home button.

We ALWAYS need a hardware 'out'.

Quote:
If charging was no inductive and data transfers were wifi (or inductive) there would also be no dock connector.

I'm not being forced to sync wirelessly. And there's no true wireless charging yet.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #91 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Why don't you just hold down the button?

Didn't know there was that functionality. Just like we didn't know until about 2 weeks ago how to play in slo-mo mode.

Which just points to the fact that it'd be eff-ing awesome if Apple could include a cheat sheet of some of these functions in its packaging. (If there was one in our ATV2 box, it was invisible.)
post #92 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian View Post

But unless you get into ProRes444, ProRes ISN'T bandwidth intensive. It clearly has a lower throughput than uncompressed.

Wouldn't be much of a codec if the bandwidth requirement was equal to or greater than uncompressed, would it I was talking in comparison to H.264. ProRes clearly does compress video footage to reduce bandwidth requirements relative to uncompressed, but the compression ratio is small meaning that bandwidth requirements can still be quite high (220 Mb/s isn't going to work over a wireless network, slow laptop HDDs or USB sticks).
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #93 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Which just points to the fact that it'd be eff-ing awesome if Apple could include a cheat sheet of some of these functions in its packaging. (If there was one in our ATV2 box, it was invisible.)

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3176

They did.

Edit: Tho after full investigation there's still more than a few things not on that list...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #94 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

We ALWAYS need a hardware 'out'.



I'm not being forced to sync wirelessly. And there's no true wireless charging yet.


I cant see Apple getting rid of the dock connector completely with all of the accessories plus the only "hardwire" way to restore / sync / charge your iDevice.

Maybe a smaller dock connector?


Home button disappearing...all for it. My wife's iPhone and my iPod Touch needed to be replaced due to a faulty home button. Betcha is one of the biggest reasons for repair / replacement. See ya home button.
post #95 of 119
It is time to call things correctly. It is TV set from Apple - not Apple TV.

Apple TV is this:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...amily/apple_tv

I am not sure why writers have problem with proper naming of products and try to give their own.

How the product of TV set will be named we still do not know.
post #96 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by maciekskontakt View Post

It is time to call things correctly. It is TV set from Apple - not Apple TV.

Apple TV is this:
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/hom...amily/apple_tv

I am not sure why writers have problem with proper naming of products and try to give their own.

How the product of TV set will be named we still do not know.

The Apple TV is a box you connect to your HDTV. This is the item the "writers" are talking about. The very first sentence seven states "connected television segment is unlikely to materialize until 2013."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #97 of 119
Id like to see the new chip for Apple TV allow for an App Store with the complete console experience.

I hope this update is not just about a spec bump to 1080p. How would Airplay mirroring even work now that iPad 3 is getting the retina display?
post #98 of 119
my guess is Apple is going to introduce, wait for it,
The first High High Definition TV, capable of more than 1080p.
Won't their competitors kick themselves...
post #99 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

my guess is Apple is going to introduce, wait for it,
The first High High Definition TV, capable of more than 1080p.
Won't their competitors kick themselves...

Except many, MANY televisions above 1080p already exist.

Apple wouldn't make a TV unless they could use Super Hi-Vision. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

They can't care about retina displays on your phone, music player, tablet, and computer without caring about them as your television.

Which is why there won't be an Apple television for decades, if at all, because there's just no sense to getting into that market.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #100 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The name isn't ringing a bell.

Back around the 2006/2007 timeframe (forget which) Rolo made huge predictions for an Apple branded TV.

Maybe you weren't around back then but it's been a bit of a joke since with CONFIRMED!
post #101 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Back around the 2006/2007 timeframe (forget which) Rolo made huge predictions for an Apple branded TV.

Maybe you weren't around back then but it's been a bit of a joke since with CONFIRMED!

I was around. It's odd how there are many posters who have been posting for years that simply don't seem to notice and then one day they are on my radar. But with Rolo he sounds insufferable and tend to forget most of those posters very quickly.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #102 of 119
I was really tempted to pick up an Apple TV when I was in the UK last month. However, the fact that it was 99 Pounds, and the fact that there seemed to be an update on the horizon stopped me.

But then again, I really don't think I will find much use for the Apple TV, given that I have no access to the iTMS. I still think a Mac Mini is the ideal way to go. I already have a Time Capsule and with the added storage on the Mac Mini, I should have instant access to my files on my TV. I don't even have to worry about converting stuff to iTunes compatible versions and can use any player to play the files.

I have an external Blu-ray drive from Sony and can hook that up to the Mini and I should have a pretty versatile HT system.
post #103 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sierrajeff View Post

Put differently, if the networks and other channels can make money from selling to cable providers, after cable providers take their cut, then they should be happy to make the same pro-rata $$ from me via iTunes. They shouldn't be bilking me for more than that.

Of course networks and content providers shouldn't be bilking you, but as long as enough people are willing to pay it, they will though. Even Amazon doesn't tell you that they have the item you chose cheaper elsewhere in their store. It's a buyer beware market place.

Apple will sell you a product when they know it'll be upgraded soon. They won't tell you to wait a week or two. And they will upgrade this upcoming ATV3 with only one new feature without blinking an eye. iTunes sells HD content at a higher price but most buyers can't tell the difference after compression. These companies exist to maximize profit. They aren't altruistic.

If you don't like a price, feature, or business practice, speak out with your wallet. That's what makes them listen.
post #104 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

The name isn't ringing a bell.

If I remember it, you must have forgotten it. Rolo, blast from the past...
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #105 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

What I was meaning here is that if a movie was in the VHS bargain bin for 3.99 in 1985, I shouldn't have to pay 20 dollars for it (or even 10), in iTunes today.

Over Xmas, I saw many movies (not even that old either) in BluRay no less, for $3.99 and $4.99 in giant bargain bins in physical stores. Then I go home and go to the iTunes virtual store and the same movie is $29.99 in SD format.

The production costs of a lot of the older content has long since been paid for and the current "owners" of the rights to it paid essentially nothing for the privilege. None of the money we pay to iTunes for such content will ever go to those that actually produced it, starred in it or created it for us it's just an (immoral IMO) money grab. Most of this content is content we already bought several times over in other formats as well.

When music moved to digital the price dropped by roughly 50% and rightly so. Movies and TV shows have (so far), moved to digital at exactly the same price points or in some cases higher ones. The consumer is being purposely shafted here and it's worth standing up and mentioning it from time to time IMO.

See my post above for the answer to why. But I'm you already know and yours is just a rant
post #106 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post

my guess is Apple is going to introduce, wait for it,
The first High High Definition TV, capable of more than 1080p.
Won't their competitors kick themselves...

They might die laughing, but that's about it.
post #107 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atashi View Post

I could see streaming still being the main schtick but it would be nice to have the option of using the thing without having to fire up the computer as well.

I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

A netbook makes a very good low-power iTunes server. Mine running Windows 7, actively streaming content from its internal HDD using iTunes consumes just under 5 watts

My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

AirCapsules should come with iTunes server capabilities built-in.

That I'd love to have. I download bootlegs from concerts quite often, and bought a Mini for that. But I need to copy it over to have it on my Mac Pro. All this copying, backing up gets to be tiresome. A single point for store would simplify my setup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You'd think they'd have added a "Aake on AppleTV" in System Preferences Of course, this likely wouldn't work with notebooks with the lid close and being their biggest Mac seller that make it a moot point.

I don't have a laptop to try it out on, but OSX has WoL for WiFi, and I believe I read somewhere that it works on all Macs. Certainly works on my desktop (Wake On Wireless, or WoW)

Edit; seems there is indeed an issue with closed lid WoW, see KB

"Portable Macs: About "closed clamshell" mode and Wake on Demand

If you use a portable Mac and closed clamshell (closed display) mode, you may be unable to register with the Sleep Proxy Server in order to use Wake on Demand.

To allow use of Wake on Demand with your portable Mac, attach its MagSafe power adaptor and an external display, close the lid, then wake it up via an external USB keyboard. Next, close the lid again, then wake it again with the external keyboard, but do not open the lid. Your Mac should now register with the Sleep Proxy Server and be able to participate in Wake on Demand."
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
How to enter the Apple logo  on iOS:
/Settings/Keyboard/Shortcut and paste in  which you copied from an email draft or a note. Screendump
Reply
post #108 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen View Post

If I remember it, you must have forgotten it. Rolo, blast from the past...

Remember when we'd get so excited about potential mac speedbumps they had to create a special forum for the Temporary Insanity?

Macs! Imagine that. It seems so long ago now before the iPhone.
post #109 of 119
An upgraded Apple TV processor could allow for greatly expanded functionality with the set-top box, namely the ability to stream and play back true high-definition 1080p content. Currently, the Apple TV is restricted to 720p resolution for high-definition content.


The current Apple TV also has computing resource issues when playing high-resolution lossless audio. The display stutters while scrolling long song titles, and scrolling through lists (e.g., artists) stutters and slows. There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.

So, a higher processor capability looks to be needed. Indeed, the current Apple TV seems to be rather underpowered for its current list of tasks. Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
post #110 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by camper View Post

Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?

No. Filler.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #111 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by camper View Post

There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.

The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16

Quote:
Originally Posted by camper View Post

Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?

No.

720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #112 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.

My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.

aTV2 w/XBMC + uPNP/DLNA NAS does what you want. The Synology DS212j seems like a nice little box for $199 diskless. Do RAID 1 on a pair of 3TB drives and you have a nice little backup and media server. I believe it can run as an iTunes server for music. It should also do airplay for music as well.

If you really want WOL then the DS212 has that at $299 and a slightly beefier CPU.
post #113 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16

No.

720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.


OK, so it resamples to 48/16. That's pretty much irrelevant as the CPU still doesn't have enough power to handle that resampling and concurrently do simple tasks like scrolling a song title, or scrolling down the list of artists.


Do you really think that Apple sets a limit like 720p arbitrarily? Or did they not have enough confidence in the capability of the CPU to make the leap to 1080?
post #114 of 119
The A4 and A5 SoC use PowerVR graphics but also Imagination VXD decoding which have handled higher resolutions for years. The limit is most likely arbitrary.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #115 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

No, you just have to think about wasting electricity and making sure you have your computer on and iTunes open for absolutely no reason.

low wattage NAS.
post #116 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

low wattage NAS.

Intriguing How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.

Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #117 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Intriguing How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.

Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.

That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.
post #118 of 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.

Except you can't use a low-wattage NAS with Apple TV* because Apple TV uses iTunes Home Sharing protocol which is proprietary to Apple and as far as I know hasn't been licensed to anyone else. Also, as far as I know all NAS devices use desktop HDDs which have higher power consumption than laptop HDDs.

* unless you jailbreak and install XBMC

Hence, a netbook running iTunes from its internal HDD would be an even lower-power solution, as I already mentioned. iTunes running on my netbook (bought for the sole purpose of iTunes sharing) takes about 1% cpu and the power consumption is 5 watts. I imagine Tallest Skil couldn't bring himself to buy a netbook, even if it is the best solution \.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #119 of 119
Yep, jailbroken is how i'm using xbmc from an atv2 to a low wattage NAS. It is an excellent solution but admittedly the jailbreak process is too convoluted for many people.

I'll be buying an atv3 the moment it is released, probably two actually. My fingers are crossed that new hardware is immanent. With 1080p output and a bit more processing power, it would quickly become one of, if not the top choice as an xbmc box.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple stalls Apple TV shipments ahead of iPad 3-compatible refresh