or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple previews iTV set-top device
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple previews iTV set-top device - Page 8

post #281 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26

The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.

A battary is not realistic for the power a good surround will need, and I don't think anyone would appreciate having to remove the speaker a battery to recharge it every week. Wireless signal may be fine, as power is more likely to be in a given wall space than a speaker feed.

Quote:
The 30inch display is already a great screen

That's overkill, and not using the thing what it was optimized for. Good 30" TVs can be had for half the cost of a 30" ACD. You can get a good 42" 1080p LCD TV for less than the 30" ACD.
post #282 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell

I like the idea of iTV replacing the AV receiver. Not replacing its same complex functionality but replacing it with something much simpler. Televisions themselves are capable of directly connecting the cable box, DVD player, and Playstation. Televisions themselves can output an amplified surround sound signal.

In the very near future their will be less need for the complexity and multiple inputs of an AV receiver. Because of digital signals the inputs are being simplified down to the necessary few and much of the hardware functionality can be done in software.

It looks more like the TV is absorbing what you need a reciever to do than the iTV replacing the reciever. The amplifier and A/V switcher would be moved into the TV. What the iTV might be do is replace the CD player, DVD player, radio (podcasts, streaming internet radio), cable/satellite (if iTV works with an IPTV service).
post #283 of 344
Yah the 30inch is a good screen, never said Apple wouldn't have to make changes to get it optimized for a tv environment.

Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.


Also Onkyo was just a suggestion, and I didn't know they were owned by whatever that Japanese company was. Also they don't make the BEST home entertainment stuff. They do make some pretty nice things though, and I have one in my basement hooked up to my 360. Really my point was that if Apple could buy a nice audio company like Onkyo Apple would already have a name for themselves in the audio area.

Also a DVR would be great now as well, but if you are going to be downloading things to your computer then wouldn't that become kind of obsolete in the long run? If you stream the tv shows you could record them I suppose but that seems like an obvious feature. What I'm thinking is for 10-15 years away for it to really take off.
post #284 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26

I think that the iTV will eventually become a whole reciever/amp. It already has most of the things it needs, but make it slightly bigger, put on a LCD (or oLED I suppose) screen on the front and have more ports.

The problem is one of size for the amplifier portion. These are pretty large even in this day and age. You can stuff these into self powered speakers but typically these don't perform quite as well as even a receiver does.

I can see the iTV becoming a tuner/preamp. But even then it has to be much bigger for all the possible inputs.

Quote:
So now Apple has their reciever, but they need speakers to work with them right? So they release wireless (bluetooth or 801.11n) surround sound speakers to connect wirelessly to your iTV. Gives you the option of 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Also supports 2 subwoofers. This could get rid of much of the cable problem, except for the power needed to run them. This is the major flaw in my area. The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.

You can run a line from the sub to the satellites. The sub doesn't have to live anywhere in particular so further back isn't a big deal. Power is less of an issue than speaker cables as by code there will be an outlet somewhere close to where you want to be.

Quote:
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.

Buying Onkyo isn't as far fetched as folks think. Arguably Denon makes better gear and they are now owned by a US holding company (and I think combined with Marantz?). Still if you're after an aquisition I would guess that Lenbrook which owns both PSB and NAD is a better choice. Canadian company I think.

I like NAD gear better than either Onkyo or Denon...and PSB makes nice speakers. I nearly went with PSB Alphas but got a good deal on some Von Schweikerts...

Vinea
post #285 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26

Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.

Basically, a lot of new construction has power jacks every several feet on a wall, so power is readily accessible from anywhere in a room. However, speaker wiring is rarely considered. So, for surrounds, it may be easier to plug into wall power near the speaker than it is to run speaker wires in the wall or hide it somehow.

I think wireless speakers are going to be less efficient (electrically), possibly more complicated electronically, and more expensive than hiding a speaker cable. When I put up my walls, I put regular speaker cabling through the walls to the optimal speaker locations. Assuming they get made, wireless home theater speakers is going to be one technology that I will probably be avoiding unless I have no reasonable alternative.
post #286 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by mzaslove

Yeah, I want one of my computers to have a big hairy monster raided tetrabyte plus drive that I download or rip or whatever my content to and then, in whatever place in the house (or in the backyard) I want to get my content beamed to, either computer, stereo, TV, whatever, it just goes there. No muss, no fuss, no having to worry where everything is, or how to get to it. That's where the iTV works for me. I'm sure attaching it to a Mini would add other capabilities, but I don't need the iTV to be the hub for me, just a way to get content to my TV that is elsewhere.

Looks like we have similar reasons why iTV could be a useful component for us, unless Apple drastically changes it for the worse.
post #287 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Slayer 26

Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.

Apple could easily afford it. The problem is that most buyers like their (medium) high end audio to sound a little uncommon. In that companies like Onkyo or Marantz, that you've heard of, but don't often see, appeal to these types of buyers. Something Apple branded wouldn't be as appealing, because they're too well known.
post #288 of 344
Quote:
It looks more like the TV is absorbing what you need a reciever to do than the iTV replacing the reciever.

Now that I look at it again you are right. In my scenario iTV has little to do with the receiver.
post #289 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I think the idea is to have an iTV with PVR via the Mac Mini.

The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.

Quote:
I've already decided that I'm just getting the PVR that my cable company uses.

The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.

Quote:
I think iTV is cool. but it's not that cool. I don't think, for me, it would be used even 1/8th as much as a PVR. I don't really need the iTunes store on my TV when I make better use of the resources I already have and that is without the PVR. If the iTV had a PVR I think I may have used iTV and the store just because of the convenience of it, but for me it seems like a waste of time and money in it's current state.

Sounds sensible.

Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.
post #290 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.


The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.


Sounds sensible.

Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.


That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package. Maybe two packages. A less expensive entry level version, and a more robust solution. Because like I said elsewhere: I just don't see the real need for what is being offered now from Apple comparatively, but I do think Apple could immediately control the PVR market - and broaden it as fast, or faster than they overtook the MP3 market when they introduced the iPod. Apple could really strike twice in this decade if they did that.
After that I think it would only broaden their Mac sales far beyond what iPod has done to help them alone, and that may be their third major success in a really short period of time. These are the reasons I like the iTV but also dislike what Apple has shown us, because if they don't jump on this others will attempt to capitalize on it which will dilute the field, and the iPod will probably remain as Apples one fluke successful product.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #291 of 344
Quote:
onlooker:

I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package

Agreed. Although I see the iTV as a good first step to the kind of solution I want - a box that lets me pull content off my home network to show on the lounge TV set, without having my Mac in the lounge - it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box. The lack of this feature however will not stop me buying an iTV version 1 in 2007.

When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.

I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.
post #292 of 344
onlooker, don't you think that the PVR approach contradicts the piecemeal-purchase approach that Apple is invested in? I'm sure elgato and other will continue to do a fine job with their products, allowing them to add-on to iTV, and I'm sure Apple won't try to stop that. But I really don't see Apple getting into that themselves.
post #293 of 344
First and foremost the idea is to be able to stream content from your computer to the TV for both PC & Mac with an attractive easy to use interface. iTV will certainly deliver this.

Secondly the power behind this system is the fact it can access the internet this opens up many opportunities.

I can see this system able to use a wireless keyboard and mouse so being able to set up iTune accounts and possibly they might include a web browser.

G5 2GHZ Power Mac, iPod Shuffle (1st Gen),iPod Nano (2nd Gen),iPod (5th Gen), Apple TV, Apple TV 2G x2, iPad 2,iPhone 4S, rMBP 15" 2.6

Reply

G5 2GHZ Power Mac, iPod Shuffle (1st Gen),iPod Nano (2nd Gen),iPod (5th Gen), Apple TV, Apple TV 2G x2, iPad 2,iPhone 4S, rMBP 15" 2.6

Reply
post #294 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato...

Apple doesn't need to buy ElGato. Apple has all the hardware already, some of it is a bit out of date (TV Tuners/AV in), but I'm sure Apple could update it without too much problem. They have the software as well, including a "virtual" digital video recorder via firewire, part of the firewire dev kit if I recall correctly. If there is anything that they don't have it could probably be developed without too much investment. They really don't need anything that ElGato has to offer.
post #295 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by the3rdParty

it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box.

Or hook an EyeTV, Miglia, Plextor, or other TV tuner to your Mac and stream recordings to your remote iTV+A/V components. That's my preference although I understand reasons why it might be desirable to go the other direction.

Quote:
When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.

It appears iTV will support a superset of EyeHome capabilities, though possibly losing support (unfortunately) for playback of unexported EyeTV recordings. If that happens there'd still be some market for EyeHome, though Elgato hasn't shown much recent interest in upgrading it (e.g. there's still only one hardware model) and it's gone from the main product listing on their web site. Seems more likely to me that Apple/Elgato would somehow collaborate (e.g. the "Apple should just buy Elgato" idea) to integrate EyeHome products with iTV than Elgato releasing a new EyeHome box to compete with it. <+>

Quote:
I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.

Yeah, the heavy lifting is on the client side; I'd expect most "newer" G3's could be capable media servers. The limitations might be more network/bandwidth-related than CPU-related.

In another post (@Macworld forums) I mentioned EyeHome uses an older Sigma Designs chip that won't support H.264. So far it's anyone's guess what iTV will use. I haven't noticed anything more specific than nVidia and ATI mentioned as having decent H.264 decoders and that speculation is best left to someone better informed than I am.

<+>
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

onlooker, don't you think that the PVR approach contradicts the piecemeal-purchase approach that Apple is invested in? I'm sure elgato and other will continue to do a fine job with their products, allowing them to add-on to iTV, and I'm sure Apple won't try to stop that. But I really don't see Apple getting into that themselves.

That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.
post #296 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

<+>
That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.


I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying. Any product that is like that gets old real quick. Now if it were a PVR you could record some of your current shows no purchase necessary, and if you feel in the mood for a movie, you can quickly save your self a trip to the video store. Without the PVR it's not a daily use product. The key to the success of such a products is the water cooler chit chat, and everybody that has one is continually talking about it every day, and it's going to be that much more appealing to non Apple users because of it. But with videos. IT's just a rental service, and I'd say the majority of the older working class wait until their weekends to watch. BY the time monday rolls around again the enthusiasm is going to be extinguished. There are a lot more obvious reasons what Apple showed us is not being used to it's fullest potential, but I don't think it's all that useful comparatively.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #297 of 344
I haven't read the whole thread, nor any other thread on the iTV but last night I had a thought.

The iTV effectively has Front Row functionality. It can pull audio, video and photos from other computers on your network. And it can pull audio and video from the web. How many people this functionality appeals to I don't know. But think about this ...

On the back of the iTV is a USB port. What could that be for? May be you could plug in HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD/CD, PVR units designed by Apple giving that extra functionality. They stack underneath the iTV. They are cheap in comparison to other players aimed at consumers because they effectively just contain the drive, all the extra functionality required is performed by the iTV.

It's also possible that it could be used to surf the web, take iChat sessions etc.

Now you have this fantastic silent piece of kit that gives you access to all media types and personal communications and does not cost you the consumer that much. Compare this to similar functionality performed by the Xbox 360, PS3 or even Viiv and Apple have a clear winner here.
post #298 of 344
Jootec from Mars, good point, but I have thought about this, and I think the bigger problem with stacking is, in it's original singular vision, there is no PVR in the main unit - so then you have to buy another stackable unit which just made it become an extremely expensive device.
If the bare essentials were the main iTV unit that we saw, and the secondary stack was a PVR, and all stacks costed $299.00, or $299.00, and $199.00 for secondary stacks your talking about a $500.00 to $600.00 unit.
But if they just included/added the PVR to the main unit I think that one feature alone would be your grounded system selling point. At least it's, at that point, an every day product that every family can use. Just like the TV, or PVR is standing alone on their own.

I'm getting off track a bit, but I think it's a more sensible idea to have more than one version, rather than more stacks. Because once you up the price to the $500.00/600.00 range your getting into the MacMIni price range, and you may as well include all the iTV features into a MacMIni with quad core kensington processor, and strap that on your TV. - That may be a little more dramatic than what I had in mind, but I think you can see that where I'm going is that once you start stacking products you can't put a finger on your sweet spot for a selling point, and you have to start considering all the strange ideas that people come up with in the future for new stacks. Which will lead to undersold, and an under appreciated product overall.

You need to focus this thing down to being a very user friendly product, that has things that are the state of the art of things to come that are usable, and affordable today. PVR makes it user friendly, and affordable today in the fact that you can use it every day with out continually paying into it, and user friendly state of art of things to come is the iTunes store features. Those will be the big pizzaz features. I can't wait to see what iTV2 brings, but currently iTV really must have a PVR because it's a essential to it's success.

People keep saying that Apple needs the TV sales @ iTunes store to be the big revenue maker, but Apple needs to sell the hardware first. People will come to store once the hardware is there. I heard similar, and the same arguments when Apple started selling MP3 Players, and people kept saying Apple was promoting piracy because you could use MP3's on an iPod. Their thinking was iTMS wouldn't work because people would continue to download for free. Once the Hardware was there, and Apple's store made it that easy, iTMS became the most visited store, and most downloaded music place in the world. The difference is convenience. Apple will still sell TV shows. I don't doubt that. Sales will probably slip initially, but in the long run I think we'll see a lot more people buying seasons from iTS than single episodes are sold now.

And nay-sayers keep saying that selling TV is iTunes biggest reason for not having PVR, but Its not like selling TV shows is going anywhere. Maybe at Full DVD price it should but, if your favorite season is over, and your sitting around and want to check out a show you've never seen that you hear good things about (like me with LOST) You can download that show, and check it out. There are 20 - 30 examples of ways people will still continue to use the store for TV, but people keep focusing on the few that will reduce. I say If you put the hardware out there that store will out do many expectations on TV show sales. I have a feeling I'll start buying past seasons of good shows if they drop the price below what it is on DVD.

ABC is just one of the networks that obviously doesn't think giving TV away for free is that big of a deal - they do it from their website. It's not commercial free, but it's free. iTS will still continue to sell TV shows way into the future.
I think for Archival purposes DVD is the way to go on that, but for everyday, or just plain viewing ITV viewing will probably compete better all the way.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #299 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Jootec from Mars, good point, but I have thought about this, and I think the bigger problem with stacking is, in it's original singular vision, there is no PVR in the main unit - so then you have to buy another stackable unit which just made it become an extremely expensive device.

I disagree. The iTV comes with basic functionality that Apple want you to have to help them in their OS X and iTunes store endevours. Making it stackable makes it configurable to the consumer's needs. It becomes what the consumer wants of it. I want a HD-DVD player and Blu-Ray player, another wants just a PVR. It's what we both want. All you do is buy what you want, stack it, plug in the power cable and USB cable and off you go. By adding a PVR in to the base unit, you add something that not everybody needs and adding to the initial price. The need for a PVR varies in different countries. In some countries it would be useless.

A PVR is really nothing more than a TV Tuner and a hard disk. Both of those (assuming SD tuner, not HD) these days are cheap. There is no reason why Apple could not sell a PVR addon unit for about a 100 bucks or so. Looking at this device for example, everybody has different needs. One person is quite happy with a single tuner, yet another might want 3. Person 1 buys a single PVR unit, person 2 buys three. To the consumer through iTV, no matter how many PVR units they buy, it appears they only have one, yet they may record as many programs simultaneously as they have tuners. The iTV is intelligent enough to decide which PVR unit is most suitable to record requested program.

I'd still go for a stackable user-configurable set up. It saves me money and space under my TV. Yes the base unit and a single add-on unit is expensive may be in comparison to a single PVR. But does the PVR have the extra functionality of the base unit? The more devices you want to add the cheaper the whole package becomes. Apple does not do cheap, it does perfection. And perfection doesn't come cheap but it can come reasonably priced.
post #300 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying.

Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.

For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.
post #301 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.

For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.

#1 cable has a set subscription price that you either agree to or not. This is not a similar argument, and you know it.

#2 There are very few people that don't have some form of cable, or satellite service now a days, so I would have to say that you are a extreme minority. But why would a PVR stop you from buying any other show you've never seen? No one (no one that works for a living, or has a life) can keep up with all the high quality programming on todays network, or cable television stations.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #302 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

You "found out", or you "pulled out of your behind"?


http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...t/article.html

That info I pulled from out of my behind.

post #303 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package. Maybe two packages. A less expensive entry level version, and a more robust solution. Because like I said elsewhere: I just don't see the real need for what is being offered now from Apple comparatively, but I do think Apple could immediately control the PVR market - and broaden it as fast, or faster than they overtook the MP3 market when they introduced the iPod. Apple could really strike twice in this decade if they did that.
After that I think it would only broaden their Mac sales far beyond what iPod has done to help them alone, and that may be their third major success in a really short period of time. These are the reasons I like the iTV but also dislike what Apple has shown us, because if they don't jump on this others will attempt to capitalize on it which will dilute the field, and the iPod will probably remain as Apples one fluke successful product.

Mmmm...I dunno how profitable the PVR market really is. TiVO has $200M in revenue and no profit other than for a bit in 2005 if I remember correctly. Of course, if they can settle with EchoStar 2007 will be a profitable year.

Elgato is privately held (and German) so you don't get the same visibility.

TiVO has a great UI...better than any of the variations from Comcast, DiSH, etc I've tried. I own a Replay too. I can see Front Row equalling it but really, there wasn't a whole lot to improve (note: I have an old Series 1...).

Still Apple is a hardware company but in a strict PVR arena I dunno that it holds many advantages over the incumbants. iTunes is only mildly profitable so selling content isn't where Apple makes money...selling iPods is. I dunno that they would sell more PVRs than TiVO and it wouldn't be subsidized by the monthly fee.

Personally, despite the advantages of TiVO I stopped using it and just lived with the $10/month HD-DVR Comcast supplied me with (which might be TiVO made but I think it was Motorolla). Sure beats paying...what? $700 for a TiVO Series 3 + Cablecard rental + Tivo monthly charge? That would be true of any apple offering as well. Hard to compete with nearly free. Especially since TiVO software is going to get used by Cox and not the so-so interface from Comcast. SeasonPass, for whatever reason, seemed poorly implemented everywhere else.

Plus cablecards are currently one-way so you lose VOD service...which is a downer...unless you use their box. Which can have a DVR built into it for $7/month more. Breakeven is what? 100 months?

So Apple doesn't control the entire food chain as it did with iTunes + iPod as it would the PVR market and would depend on cable, satellite and rbocs to make it work as seamlessly. Companies that have existing DVR partners and can provide addded value such as VOD, PPV, etc that compete with iTunes and who in some cases sell competitors to video iPods (like PocketDish). The "It Just Works" has to work with everything...including HD via CableCard, VOD, PPV, etc.

Meh. I don't believe all the IPTV hype but now that the RBOCs have gotten into the play it seems a lot more likely than a few years ago. I see iTV as some kind of IPTV play but not sure how Apple benefits other than not getting shut out of the living room. Microsoft is still hard at work with SBC/AT&T on their U-verse offering trying to tame packet loss (causing pixellation and freezups). They claim HD by end of October. We'll see.

If IPTV does work, and the RBOC are spending $$$ on it, then you can skip the PVR and end up in VODland. But unless video flips the business model to where iTunes is the big money maker vs hardware I dunno where the home run for Apple is. Then again, I dunno that Apple needs a home run with iTV but a base hit.

Here's an oddball question: Why is TVMini HD shaped funny and not stackable with the mini?

Vinea
post #304 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, []

We disagree. I have plenty of non-PVR content on my computers for using with iTV.

Jootec from Mars mentioned a few valid reasons for not putting a PVR in iTV's base unit. And providing program guides for different international regions is another consideration that would add complexity and possibly increase the price.

I've benefited from EyeTV being a separate PVR component and would lose portability if that capability were built into iTV or Macs.
post #305 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

We disagree. I have plenty of non-PVR content on my computers for using with iTV.

Jootec from Mars mentioned a few valid reasons for not putting a PVR in iTV's base unit. And providing program guides for different international regions is another consideration that would add complexity and possibly increase the price.

I've benefited from EyeTV being a separate PVR component and would lose portability if that capability were built into iTV or Macs.

I'm not saying that iTV doesn't do things. How usefull they are for the average TV consumer is another question. Loose the Apple zealotism, and take another look.

And now the price is what? a Mac Mini ($599 to $799 base), EyeTV ($199 to $350 for HD), and an iTV? ($299) Lets just keep throwing in the cash to make this thing a usefull PVR. Pfft... \ THe cheapest you can dio this is about $1100.00 before taxes.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #306 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I'm not saying that iTV doesn't do things. How usefull they are for the average TV consumer is another question. Loose the Apple zealotism, and take another look.

And now the price is what? a Mac Mini ($599 to $799 base), EyeTV ($199 to $350 for HD), and an iTV? ($299) Lets just keep throwing in the cash to make this thing a usefull PVR. Pfft... \ THe cheapest you can dio this is about $1100.00 before taxes.

You don't need an iTV for SD PVR...just a mini and a EyeTV. $800.

What makes you think that an Apple SD PVR solution would be cheaper than $800? And why is it compelling vs a $700 Series 3 or a $10/mo HD-DVR from your cable company? Frontrow?

I guarantee it wont work as well as the cable HD-DVR with respect to getting PPV and VOD working as things stand today unless Apple inks a deal with Cox, Comcast and Dish. Getting Frontrow as a replacement for the so-so UI is hardly a decent trade off.

Vinea
post #307 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

I'm not saying that iTV doesn't do things. How usefull they are for the average TV consumer is another question. Loose the Apple zealotism, and take another look.

And now the price is what? a Mac Mini ($599 to $799 base), EyeTV ($199 to $350 for HD), and an iTV? ($299) Lets just keep throwing in the cash to make this thing a usefull PVR. Pfft... \ THe cheapest you can dio this is about $1100.00 before taxes.

I think we're missing the point here. Apple isn't really interested in offering a traditional PVR as iTunes allows you to download your TV shows/Movies directly, pre-broadcast, pre-advert now at similar quality. Broadcast TV is effectively a competitior & whilst PVRs are better as a capure concept than VCR capturing a one-off transmission is still prone to errors - downloading isn't (miss a block, just get it again).

iTV looks great as a media breakout box and would be a good option for those with Machines already but why not release two products; one for existing iTunes users and one for home theatre consumers who want something better than TV/PVR. What a great opportunity to deploy Macs wholesale - as consumer devices. Buy an add-on keyboard/mouse package and Apple has another Mac user.

Am I dreaming?

McD
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
Why does somebody ask me a question, I can never understand, I can never provide the answer, but believe I can.
Reply
post #308 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by McDave

I think we're missing the point here. Apple isn't really interested in offering a traditional PVR as iTunes allows you to download your TV shows/Movies directly, pre-broadcast, pre-advert now at similar quality. Broadcast TV is effectively a competitior & whilst PVRs are better as a capure concept than VCR capturing a one-off transmission is still prone to errors - downloading isn't (miss a block, just get it again).

iTV looks great as a media breakout box and would be a good option for those with Machines already but why not release two products; one for existing iTunes users and one for home theatre consumers who want something better than TV/PVR. What a great opportunity to deploy Macs wholesale - as consumer devices. Buy an add-on keyboard/mouse package and Apple has another Mac user.

Am I dreaming?

McD

I'm not disagreeing with you on that one bit. Well except that TV is a competitor. But the one of the main pro PVR arguments is penetration. How useful is the iTV to the average TV consumer without it? No use at all. Looking at it from the consumer standpoint, and not an Apple fan standpoint this product is a buy, and keep buying, and buying, and buying " " " " " " " " "... And so on. Not a great deal, and not a consumer friendly deal either.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #309 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Loose the Apple zealotism, and take another look.

Please lose (with one 'o') the snide remarks if you want to engage in a civil discussion about the topic. And I don't know where you got the impression my comments were tainted by Apple zealotry.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if iTV will or won't be a product for average consumers.

Btw, does anyone remember Jobs asking the audience at the Showtime event for their reaction to iTV's pricing? I can't find it in the stream anywhere after he announced $299 at about 1:05:22. Hmm.
post #310 of 344
Sorry sjk. I did have you quoted, but it was directed to any zealot reading. Not you in particular. More people are making reasons that this is such a great way to spend $300, and they don't have any reasonable answer for it. I keep reading what people are saying in various places (mainly Mac blogs) and these people are obviously just way to Apple happy. When a consumer starts pointing out that he would rather start spending money for a free TV show than have a proven product that will help him manage his programming, and then do so much more if he choses to use the iTunes store (which everybody will) You have to wonder about their sensibility.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #311 of 344
I was actually thinking that perhaps the iTV IS Apple's implementation of viiv.

it's an interesting age where computers are starting to grow towards TVs and TVs are... well, you guessed it!

for what it's worth, I support the name teleport for the iTV all the way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jootec from Mars

I haven't read the whole thread, nor any other thread on the iTV but last night I had a thought.

The iTV effectively has Front Row functionality. It can pull audio, video and photos from other computers on your network. And it can pull audio and video from the web. How many people this functionality appeals to I don't know. But think about this ...

On the back of the iTV is a USB port. What could that be for? May be you could plug in HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD/CD, PVR units designed by Apple giving that extra functionality. They stack underneath the iTV. They are cheap in comparison to other players aimed at consumers because they effectively just contain the drive, all the extra functionality required is performed by the iTV.

It's also possible that it could be used to surf the web, take iChat sessions etc.

Now you have this fantastic silent piece of kit that gives you access to all media types and personal communications and does not cost you the consumer that much. Compare this to similar functionality performed by the Xbox 360, PS3 or even Viiv and Apple have a clear winner here.
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
iPatch

pirating for the rest of us
Reply
post #312 of 344
http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/28489
I wonder if there is any truth to this?
post #313 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

How useful is the iTV to the average TV consumer without it? No use at all.

The average consumer don't want to see their photos on their tv? They don't want to change music from the living room? They don't want to see their iMovies without burning a DVD? They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #314 of 344
The only thing on your list that can't already be done is "They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?"

Your forgetting the average consumer isn't a Mac user. Only about 4% of all computer users are Mac users. On average your trying to identify this product with a group who holds no affiliation with you, or Apple.

Wouldn't it be easier to put the box out there for everyone? Apple used to be a hardware company. I think they should try to keep with that philosophy. "If they build it - they will come" doesn't work if your building a product that holds no real value for the majority of America. They could conceivably capture a huge portion of TV owners if they go directly for a stand point that - We (Apple) are the makers of the "phenom" known as iPod, and offer a system that has something for every one. Going directly at the Tivo (Tivo is just an example PVR) market with a Tivo - Plus so much more - attitude they can trounce the iPod phenomenon with this thing, but in all reality what they are offering is pretty a lame, and the market for this is not 1/100th as great as it could be.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #315 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

The only thing on your list that can't already be done is "They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?"

Your forgetting the average consumer isn't a Mac user. Only about 4% of all computer users are Mac users. On average your trying to identify this product with a group who holds no affiliation with you, or Apple.

Wouldn't it be easier to put the box out there for everyone? Apple used to be a hardware company. I think they should try to keep with that philosophy.

?

I don't know what you are trying to say or precisely what you are replying to, but you do know that iTV works with Windows too, right?
post #316 of 344
It did seem like it would work with windows. When Jobs introduced it, he said he was showing a Mac "because he's biased" but that it would work with a PC. But I wonder what PC photo program, if any, will work with iTV?
post #317 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell

But I wonder what PC photo program, if any, will work with iTV?

It doesn't need to work that way, much like iTunes doesn't need a photo program to put photos on the iPod, it just needs the user to point to the user's photo folder. I believe it is the iTunes program that is doing the sharing to the iTV in much the same way Front Row can tap other computers, assuming those other computers are running iTunes.
post #318 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

The only thing on your list that can't already be done is "They don't want to see the tv-shows and movies they buy in iTS on their tv?"

There were tons of mp3 players on the market before the iPod. Just because media extenders exists today doesn't mean that Apple can't release one.

And I haven't found one that works correctly with my Mac and my music.


Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Your forgetting the average consumer isn't a Mac user. Only about 4% of all computer users are Mac users. On average your trying to identify this product with a group who holds no affiliation with you, or Apple.

People with no affilation to Apple buy iPods.


Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Wouldn't it be easier to put the box out there for everyone?

iTV will work with Mac OS X and Windows.


Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

They could conceivably capture a huge portion of TV owners if they go directly for a stand point that - We (Apple) are the makers of the "phenom" known as iPod, and offer a system that has something for every one. Going directly at the Tivo (Tivo is just an example PVR) market with a Tivo - Plus so much more - attitude they can trounce the iPod phenomenon with this thing, but in all reality what they are offering is pretty a lame, and the market for this is not 1/100th as great as it could be.

You focus too much on TV owners doing nothing but recording and watching tv. What about music, pictures, movies?

Today you have to go to the computer to change you music, invite your guests into your home office (or whatever) to show them your photos.

I see no need to compete with PVR makers since Apple would have to make at least 10-12 different models if they have to include a tuner and want to release this outside the US.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #319 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

There were tons of mp3 players on the market before the iPod. Just because media extenders exists today doesn't mean that Apple can't release one.

What on earth does that have to do with the heart of what I said? If your addressing something irrelevant to what I said don't quote me please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

And I haven't found one that works correctly with my Mac and my music.

OK, lets direct focus on the iPod instead of the iTV I get it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL


People with no affilation to Apple buy iPods.

Yes, but my point is that Windows doesn't have all the iLife stuff FOR ITV that Mac's do that's why I'm saying that this is mostly a Mac based product. And overall the few mac like things it does do are not that widely used. (in reality) THey make good commercials, and presentations, and have great "Ooo", and "Ahh" factor, but they are no where near as popular as TV. It's not the same game, nor is it the same ballpark, or even the same universe in terms of popularity, and use.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

iTV will work with Mac OS X and Windows.

Yes it will, but how well, and what will windows offer. As I said you can already do all those things on a computer except watch movies for the iTS, and that is not much of an attraction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

You focus too much on TV owners doing nothing but recording and watching tv. What about music, pictures, movies?

I never said TV owners do nothing but.. blah blah blah. TV watchers use TV to watch TV. How many nights a week do you sit down, and watch a photo-disk for two hours? Comparatively the television is going to be used 99% of the time for watching television shows and movies for a long time to come. There is no getting around that. iTV isn't going to turn the world into a bunch of families that sit down to still picture viewers for hours of enjoyment, and relaxation at the end of their hectic days.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

Today you have to go to the computer to change you music, invite your guests into your home office (or whatever) to show them your photos.

How often are you going to do it? You are going to lose a lot of friends if all you do is have them over to look at your photos. Unless your Annie Liebowitz, or something. Then maybe some people would be interested, but how many times can even Annie Liebowitz do that until it gets old?

BUt it will be use primarily by a family, or 1, or two people. If it were Annie Liebowitz, is she going to want to sit around and watch her photos all the time when she is alone? Or is she maybe interested in catching the last few episodes of 24 because she was away snapping a photo-shoot for the Rolling Stones on tour?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL

I see no need to compete with PVR makers since Apple would have to make at least 10-12 different models if they have to include a tuner and want to release this outside the US.

Your post was pretty easy to address because you had all your paragraphs neatly dissecting my two paragraphs. PLease quit cutting my posts up as if they are separate paragraphs. Each of these are commenting the same quarrel, and separately they don't make sense. It's easy to cut up a paragraph into individual sentences, and pretend each sentence is strictly what it says, but but in paragraph form it hinges on the overall. Nice diversion on your part, but truth is this product is all fantasy presentation that no one is ever going to use very frequently. NO where near a frequently as a PVR.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #320 of 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Yes, but my point is that Windows doesn't have all the iLife stuff FOR ITV that Mac's do that's why I'm saying that this is mostly a Mac based product.

I don't know why you think iLife is necessary or even relevant. iTunes is already available for Windows, and it is likely to be the program that is serving the photos, video and audio. iMovie does nothing for iTV except edit a movie that you would later put into iTunes. iDVD is irrelevant to iTV because it doesn't have a DVD drive. Garage Band might be used to edit audio, but it's still imported into iTunes. iPhoto isn't necessary to manage the photo library, all iTunes needs is a pointer to a photo folder, any photo program or even a file manager can be used to handle that. This is apparent in how iTunes for Windows handles photos to put into the iPod.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple previews iTV set-top device