Apple ready to flick switch on Apple TV revolution - Page 5

Seems foolish to store a primary iTunes library (or any other data intended to be kept [semi-]permanently) on a device that can't be backed up. Right now Apple TV's HD only seems intended for temporarily caching iTunes library content.

Actually, pmjoe is 100% correct in his post.

I don't think you've understood anything that I have posted, since your replies to myself and others in this thread have been arrogant insults towards our television viewing habits. You even immaturely suggest that I might be spending hours in a stip club or a bar for no other reason than my world-view differs from yours.

Dropping shit over everybody in this thread the way you have been doing is inappropriate for a child, let alone someone of your purported age.

Don't bother EVER speaking for me.


I'm actually still on the fence about getting the AppleTV. I'll probably wait to see what other iTunes announcements are made upon its release. I think the price is about $50 too steep, but that's Apple.

I also don't know how many price drops/additional features will happen. Will the AppleTV be modeled after the iPod, with frequent updates, or will it be more like the Airport Express which has had very few changes in features/price since it was released. My guess is the latter.

If Apple TV would allow me to subscribe to all my favorite sports teams, and watch all their games in 720p LIVE, along with things like SportsCenter LIVE, and IF they were have to all or most of my favorite cable shows, and IF they can do this for cheaper than it costs for me to pay for cable every year, then I will be a thrilled customer.

But I doubt it will ever happen with this incarnation. Does Apple TV have the capability to steam live content in HD resolutions? I would highly doubt it, due to the amount of bandwidth it would take. This is the deal breaker for Apple TV.

So is it per person or per household? Household would be a lot more realistic.

I did run the numbers and I think the typical break even for buying iTunes rather than cable is averaging less than an hour a day, but that doesn't consider any value for ad-less TV, and doesn't consider any value for the subscriber to sample any show on any channel at any time, so those will be subjective.

I have EyeTV catch about two hours a day, and thankfully, I only spend $50 a year for my channels.

I would say it's update schedule will be closer to the iPods for the first 2 years as Apple changes the software/hardware to meet market demands where it falls short and adds new features where they think that they can add value to the product. There is a lot of room to grow with this device, as well as adding features to Apple's consumer computers to add value to the both products as they grow to work more in conjunction with each other.

You use video in a general sense and are only thinking of America. I'm refering to video on the Internet and in on a worldwide base, which is almost always adopted in the DivX/XviD codec. Any tv show/film is re-encoded in that codec. Not wmv, not h264, but DivX/XviD. Obviously the legalities of this conversation might upset people and if I'm breaking any rules I'll stop, but outside the states a lot of people keep up to date with American TV/Cinema through downloading online, not watching on their TV's 6 months after you guys get it. And the community is massive. When you take into account all the films and tv shows being shared, we are talking millions, and I suspect a lot of Americans do it to. It's quite obvious you don't file share, not that I'm holding that against you.

If I want to watch stuff on my tv, I download from a place like Rapidshare the moment it is aired, burn it to a RW and watch it on my HDTV. I can even download it in 720p, at 700mb including 5.1 sound. When will you be able to do that in iTunes? For me to fork out £200 for an iTV it has to play DivX. And if DivX is not so big, why has every DVD manufacturer gone out the way to include the codec on their product? Visit any dvd backup site on the net, doom9.org, for instance. All you will hear is DivX/XviD praise.

The iPod supported MP3 when it came out, knowing full well that was the codec of choice for pirates. To not do the same with video is double standards, and it's cost me the purchase this time.

No, that's a snappy comeback for folks that seem to think that viewing lots of TV is some kind of virtue. Yes, you can waste your time doing something else as well.

Vinea

OK, so I'll ask my follow-up question again: Why do you need 40GB for temporarily cache-ing stuff?

Yup, what he said!
I watch CSI and Lost in 720p the day after they air in the States. The only way to do that is through torrent (using tvrss feeds in google reader gets new episodes in transmission in one click for those interested). This is perfectly legal where I live, btw.
This is the way most do it here and without the right codec-support (XVID/DIVX) the apple TV just won't catch on here in Europe.

The economic model is that a DVR that costs $300-$1000, costs $12/month subscription and is annoying to set up has nearly zero traction against a DVR that costs $0, costs $10/month subscription and sets up easily from a cable company.

Yes, Tivo is annoying to set up because to get fully integrated DVR capability you need cable cards and have those authorized by your cable company which varies from "a phone call" to "massive run around, multiple visits by clueless techs followed by working for a few weeks and then wiped out when they update something after which you repeat the cycle".

Hence no DVR capability in the aTV. Hence aTV not directly competing against cable but DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

However, if Apple offered original programming on iTunes then iTunes becomes a subscription model with a pay as you go option (or vice versa depending your point of view). This makes it the equivalent of a more expensive HBO.

Vinea

I would assume this is where the rumored H.264 encoder/decoder chips come in.

Honestly I can't see much in the way of hardware upgrades other than DVR functionality. But which kind of DVR would they actually add? I doubt OTA, since each "country" would need a different tuner card-- and a lot of people aren't privy to broadcast over an antenna. Cable DVR functionality doesn't make a lot of sense because the analog stuff will be phased out in a few years (AppleTV is designed for HDTV, remember). You already rent a digital cable box from the cable company, and each cable company uses different encryption/modulation standards...

The processor/memory are probably fine at this point, considering an iPod can decode 640x480 with no problems.

Perhaps once they start shipping, [random japanese site] will tear one open and find a "mystery port" inside the AppleTV appropriate for a scrapped tuner card.

I was a little curious about the 4.5 hours a week statistic. I don't know _ANYONE_ that watches that much television—none of my friends, not my parents or siblings, none of our family friends... That's probably about what people in my family watch in a week.

So I looked it up. Sure enough, the statistic comes from Neilsen.

In other words, a self-selected, self-reporting group of people, that have been known to actually over-report the amount of TV they watch, claimed that they watch 4 hours of television daily.

Not that I have any better information, but that 4 hours is almost certainly off.

JeffDM: It's officially 4+ hours per person a day, and 6 hours and 47 minutes per household.

Interesting points different people are making. I think it's clear that for most people, AppleTV can't replace your cableTV. That's not saying it's bad - just that it won't replace cableTV.

It'd be good to hear from all the DVD purchasers out there - the people who buy movies & tv series regularly. Are they happy to buy online instead?

If the answer to that is 'no', then Apple will either have a small niche, or have to change their product.

Personally, if the AppleTV could be a PVR from FTA, and sold me series, that would be enough for me to replace my cable. Alternatively, if they rented movies and series I could replace cable. I watch alot of series but they're mostly on FTA. And I won't buy movies that I only watch once (or pay for the storage space to keep it).

Great post.

The the biggest problem Apple will have with this approach is getting original programming to sell. Right now iTunes has older television series, new series that people (like me) can't get OTA, and the Sundance short films, but not much else.

I suppose they could go the iTunes originals route with video-- additional shows for exisiting television series that you can only get on iTunes. I can't see that many original series unless Apple is willing to front some major cash...

As I mentioned before, a series 2 Tivo is free with a year's subscription, far from $300-$1000 (not sure where you got the number from. Maybe the series 3? that's a true HD DVR, far superior to what the iTMS has to offer on quality if that's what you need).

When I mentioned the cable/DVR support part, of course the coolest option would be to have a cablecard slot. But like you mentioned, they're still pretty -iffy and non standard. An extremely cheap 2nd option would have been for Apple to just add a simple Video/Audio in (even composite RCA, hell just something), and an IR wand, just like a basic Tivo does.

No cablecard, no tuner, no nothing of that sort. Just an A/V input and some way for it to control a separate cable box provided by your cable company. This would cost near to nothing, and would only require them to a) license a guide or such from Tivo, or b) use one of the open source-ish guides like (I think) Elgato uses.

So all the iTV would be doing is recording the A/V coming into the box to the HD. The normal cable box provided by your cable company would do all the actual receiving work. This method has been used for years by various devices. Remember back in the VCR+ days - it controlled your vcr just the same. Tried and true approach.

Cost wise, those of you that ONLY want to buy from the iTMS would loose nothing. Those of us who want more cable are free to get any service we want and use that tuner. The iTV only handles the recording. We gain a ton with very little effort on Apple's part.

For storing synched content, basically explained in Apple TV - Sync with iTunes.

$99.99 + 1 yrs prepaid plan according to Tivo's site for an 80hr TiVO Series 2 DT.

$278 total 1 year for a SD Tivo vs $120 total 1 year for a comcast HD-DVR. Oooh...after a year you own a Series 2 DVR that makes surfing even MORE painful than just using a cable box and still doesn't do HD or handle encrypted digital channels.

But yes, I was thinking of the Series 3 when I was writing that. $978.99 1st year costs + cable card rental.


Slow, prone to error with some cable/sat boxes, poor integration with VOD services, yet another remote, etc. I have a series 1 TiVo that's just sitting around gathering dust. Why do I want a DVR that is not integrated with PPV/VOD and other advanced cable and sat services?

Versus just getting the "free" one from the cable or sat company for lower monthly service rates?

Does Apple really want to do an IR blaster solution? I don't think so when the final user experience is worse than that offered by sat and cable companies.


Tired and true suck approach that makes your TV experience even more sluggish.

Again, why bother when a HD-DVR from comcast is $0, cost $10/month and offers better user experience because it understands VOD, PPV, etc?


Cost wise you have to add a tuner, additional connectors increasing size and possibly beef up the hardware (probably okay since the XBox can manage as a DVR) or add encoding hardware for a very small number of folks that don't use a DVR provided by their cable or sat company.

Tivo is only in the black in because they successfully sued EchoStar (under appeal but I would expect TiVO to win). Presumably they'll get more licencing fees in the future from everyone else.

Which would include Apple if they include DVR capability in the aTV...for $1 a month/aTV using the DirecTV model. That's not "loose nothing" for me.

Vinea

Agreed. I don't see Apple fronting money for this kind of thing but independents now have another viable path to the market and niche markets can be somewhat served efficiently.

I would pay $49.99 for a half season of FireFly. With a HHR equivalent of 1.0 that would be enough to cover the $2M average production costs and profit. BSG with ever slipping ratings might end up in the same boat of needing another venue.

Vinea

That could be an understatement.

There must be some reason why my local Apple Store hasn't stopped selling competitors to Apple Hi-Fi. Perhaps it is because they are cheaper and many of them have more features?

That doesn't mean the Hi-Fi isn't itself profitable. It would be stupid for Apple to not sell other iPod gadgets. To use them you need an iPod which benefits Apple either way.

What features are you talking about? A clock radio? The Hi-Fi sounds better than most of the other stereos.

I have 2 40 hour boxes and 1 80, all series 2 and they work perfectly. Setup took all but 5 minutes, minus a few more to click through a couple menus. Not a pain by any standards. The IR wands are a tad slow, yes, but have been reliable.

And that's what I'm saying, you pointed it out exactly:

"yet another remote"
Yep. I don't want **another** remote. I want my iTV remote that does it all, including DVR functions. I don't want that 1 little extra stupid Apple remote that has 4 buttons on it.

"Why do I want a DVR that is not integrated with PPV/VOD and other advanced cable and sat services?"
Again, my point exactly. I don't want another box. Less is better. If I want to hook it up through my tuner, let me. The PPV/VOD part is what I would be getting through the (current) iTV --> the iTMS stuff, much better than my cable's PPV if that's what you mean?

For the interface part, I would LOVE to have the Apple way. I 100% agree that they would do it a million times better than Tivo ever could. The iTV interface, with just another TV section would be perfect. 1 box = everything logical.

See that is what I want to avoid, all the people using a separate DVR with horrible interfaces. The ones you get, which you rent and pay for monthly anyways, are awful. And like you said -- it's another remote. That's what I want to avoid, to completely get rid of. I don't want another box. There shouldn't be a need for another totally separate and totally isolated device like that. A DVR and current iTV offering device fit together under the same category. And if most people have to choose, they're not going to pick iTV -- I can guarantee you that. An all in one solution, with a perfectly fluid interface would be ideal.

Like I said before, they don't need to add a whole tuner in there. You said the XBox had can do it, I have no idea on this one -- does it have an RF jack with full tuner? Or just RCA/composite inputs that control a normal cable box?

I'm not arguing that a few people don't watch much Tv, or go to the movies (when have I done that last, except with my daughter?).

But, I'm again talking about a strategy that depends on what the majority do.

And it isn't just Americans that watch a lot of Tv. Europeans watch almost as much. South Americans as a group do also. The Japanese watch a lot of Tv as well. I haven't seen figures for anywhere else for a while, so I can't comment on it.

Why I'm irked by some people who think this is going to save people meney, is because they all seem to be people who watch very little Tv, or say they intend to.

They are the ones ignoring the reality. This will save money for THEM, but not for anyone else. If it does, it will because those others will feel as though they can no longer continue with their watching habits because of this new expense.

You aren't using them with Dish boxes then. Comcast it worked slow but more or less reliable unless the IR wands got disturbed.


True, you have another remote but at least its not playing the SAME role as a Tivo remote + Cable/Sat remote. Its more in line with having a DVD remote. NOT two remotes that both can change the channel except one is the correct one and the other is the wrong one to use and could screw up recording.


No, I mean that Apple can't control the user experience to give you a DVR solution that doesn't suck without cable cards and they can't give you a DVR solution today that doesn't suck WITH cable cards. Its like the iPhone...you can't get the "Apple experience" without integrating with a partner like Cingular.

aTV MIGHT be able to give you a solid DVR user experience with IPTV (which AT&T is offering) though one wonders if you NEED a DVR with IPTV.

And no, I'm talking about the VOD and PPV services that come with cable (and to a much lesser degree sat) that the DVR provided by the cable company already knows how to work with. Something neither Apple nor TiVO can do for the same reasons Apple wouldn't be able to get the iPhone to work well on Verizon without Verizon playing ball.


Only if Apple licensed the aTV to Comcast, Cox, etc. And why would the cable companies license it given they're trying to sell their own services and not iTunes? The cable and sat providers have little interest in making it any easier for any third party DVRs work well on their networks than the minimum required by law. They want to control their user experiences their own way to funnel traffic and consumers to their own revenue generating schemes.

Besides Apple IS giving you TV...in the only way it can control the user experience. Via iTunes. The cost is high with the current pricing scheme but if it were far less and there was more content an al la carte vs buffet is of little difference.

Vinea

No, you're twisting my words. You get ONE remote from the cable company. It handles all the DVR, navigation, VOD, etc stuff and sometimes even your TV (if its a common brand anyway). Going with TiVO OR any other 3rd party DVR gives you two remotes unless you just chuck the VOD or PPV services.

The DVR provided by the cable company is ONE integrated box.


aTV isn't a DVR so why would anyone choose it over a DVR? Should the cable box also include a DVD/CD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray player? Apple is positioning aTV against the DVD player...not a DVR.

Vinea

PS The XBMC Xbox media center or MythTV acts as a front end for playback of PVR material (typically a MythTV backend) from a PC.

You are too sensitive. I wasn't talking about you when I mentioned what some people might do. I was pointing out that people do whatever they do when they are not at home watching Tv. It wasn't directed towards you. I did mention positive things as well, so you could have assumed them instead. The point was that while some people might have good reasons not to watch much Tv, others might not, as so we can't assume they do.

If I offended you, I apologize. That was not my intention.

As far as comments on viewing habits goes, yes I was being sarcastic. I have found on threads here, and on other sites, that those who think that paying for individual shows rather than having a subscription, or cable with a DVR, is much cheaper, always seem to think that their viewing habits mirror that of the population. They don't.

You didn't seem to be upset with your first response to me. When I later said that ""You aren't average, which should please you." I was stating what seems to be true. You aren't average, and that should please you. I'm not either, and it pleases me, just like most others on this board. None of us are average, and it pleases us to be that way.

As far as your payment for shows, I was just going by what you had said in an earlier post regarding that. > 110

As one third of people in the US have problems receiving over the air broadcast, they rely on cable or satellite. For the number of shows they watch, paying for them would be much more expensive. That's why I suggested earlier that Apple also have subscriptions, and that only having the ability to buy shows was not a good idea for the vast majority out there.

Whether aTV saves anyone money depends on Apple's pricing. If they maintain current movie pricing and bump movies to 720p then iTunes becomes a value proposition for owning HDTV content at a resolution most folks can't tell from full HD because of seating distances but looks much better than SD.

Likewise for TV shows, if they drop prices for season subscriptions then it COULD become a cost savings. Not as likely though. Still, given that AT&T is partnered with Microsoft in their IPTV offering it is possible, but unlikely, to see some partnering between Apple and one of the FTTH providers. The iTunes/aTV model is less bandwidth intensive than straight IPTV streaming since there is more caching involved.

The only place it really breaks down is with sports and other live events.

Vinea

The article said person. With many households having more than one Tv, everyone can watch their own shows.

Believe it or nor, that's still a small minority of Tv watchers around the world. Outside the US and parts of the other industrial countries, most people simply watch Tv, not check the bit torrents for it.

I think it's better to be here, sparing with people, rather than to sit watching what others produce. But, I do like Tv as well.

I agree with most of that.

But, I would still like to see Apple offer more than purchase to buy.

Neilsen's numbers are pretty respected. They've been doing this a long time.

A number of people here have commented on Hi Def programming. The ATv is a Hi Def device.

The corresponding Tivo is the Hi Def model, which costs $800 to purshase, plus the monthly fee.

That's all very true. But, I don't believe that Apple will drop those costs much, if at all. Do you?

While your assesment is in itself very true, I'm highly convinced that this exact small minority has a large overlap with another small minority: the people considering an apple TV...

I wouldn't be so sure. The Bit Torrent crowd isn't into paying for their content. Who would expect them to want to pay $300 for the ATv? They would then have to convert all of their DivX to a supported format, as it's not likely that the ATv will support DivX. What would be the advantage to them?

First, the non-US bit torrent crowd isn't into paying simply because outside of the States you can't buy these tvseries online. I strongly disagree with labeling this 'crowd' as cheap, 'free beer' people

Secondly, the advantage would be the general point of the apple-TV: getting content (moving image, pictures and music) easily from your computer to your TV/living room.

Third point: divx/xvid (simply meaning non-h264 mpeg4) is every bit as much a standard as mp3 is. Apple supports mp3. The iPod took off thanks to mp3 support. If they want the apple tv to really take off they need to support the most common format for downloadable video content.

That's my point exactly. I simply want to watch my content encoded in DivX/XviD because that is the dominant codec of choice in downloadable video. I run a 12" powerbook, I'm not about to start re-encoding everything I own.

Can you imagine how successful the iPod would have been if it came out and said we're only supporting AAC? End of the day this isn't a technical oversight for them to not include the codec when every standalone DVD player already supports it. This is most likely the movie industry's attempt to stall pirate movies and to push forward DRM. And for that reason Apple won't get my £200. Gimme a device that can stream any video content to my high def tv and I'll buy it, otherwise I'm content getting films and tv shows in 20 mins, in 720p and burning to an RW.

If the content is available for the right price from iTMS with reliable download times then people will use it to purchase it legally through Apple, and those people are going to be more likely to get an Apple TV, or another iTunes supported way to get that content to their TV's. This becomes more of a reality the longer the video content is available and the larger the iTMS video library becomes. The main thing Apple has that BitTorrent does not is a reliable download time on everything that they sell, no need to wait until someone signs on with that last 2 minutes of the torrent that you are trying to download to complete.

Sure it would be great if they supported DiviX/XviD, but in reality they don't even support those with QuickTime. To get the support you have to download those codecs. Sure Apple could bundle them with every computer but they don't. What we assume, but don't really know yet, is that Apple TV will not have a way to add additional codecs to the system above and beyond what it natively supports. They might, the software is most likely a stripped down version of OS X with a quicktime framework, Core Video/Animation/Image, and Front Row. If this is the case adding a new codec might be as easy as mounting the HD to your computer and dropping in a codec to the proper library just as you do on a Mac and then Front Row can recognize the video. I'm just speculating here, but if you look at the Quicktime specs they do not list DiviX support and MPEG-2 is listed as needing an additional component. You can get support for both of these and more, but I think to include them Apple might have to pay licensing fee's which would increase the cost and cut into the profit margin. I don't know if Apple TV will allow this, and don't believe that they will. Then again look at all the 3rd party hardware products for the iPod.

Also let's not forget the "hidden" market for Apple TV, people who want to get their iTunes music library into the living room with complete access to their music library on all the computers in their house. People spend $100-300 for iPod speakers, the iPod AV kit comes in at $99. $50-100 to for a car audio FM transmitter to listen to your iPod in the car. Want a better quality connection for the car, have a new stereo installed with the additional iPod connectivity kit for $230+. If you take this into account there are probably a lot of people out there, Mac and PC alike, who might think that $299 i not such a bad price to get their iTunes music the their stereo in the other room, have a remote control, and as a bonus you can hook it up to your TV and download the latest episode of Lost commercial free for only $2. There are probably enough people who would be willing to spend $199 on a networked appliance to get their iTunes to the living room (I forget the products names), complete with iTMS purchased music, and will look at the extra $100 to add video a good value. Between these consumers who purchase it mainly as an audio device that happens to do video, and those who see it as a video device that also does audio Apple will probably to a little better than break even on Apple TV. If they adapt to market demands and work to eliminate the weaknesses of the device then they could have another iPod success. Apple TV is already a lot more capable than the iPod was when it was released for a similar price.