or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple ready to flick switch on Apple TV revolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple ready to flick switch on Apple TV revolution - Page 3

post #81 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Ummmmm... not to diss you or anything, but the fact that your were wrong with the iPod says nothing at all (e.g., I happened to be right on that, but that was, equally, plain dumb luck).

Also, I have not implied for a nanosecond that it is frivolous in concept. Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance.

The fact that you are willing to generalize from just one data point (your prior experience) does make me wonder.... In any event, I recommend that you read the many insightful posts in this thread, and perhaps you may come to a better understanding.

While I quoted my personal view point, I can go back and find plenty of discussion boards all over that had the same opinion. The original iPod was a nich product, overpriced, an odd ball product, etc. My point was not based upon one data point, but in fact hundreds.
I myself have preordered an Apple TV so I am not dissig it in any way. It will do exactly what I bought it for. I wanted it to be clear that plenty of Apple launches have been met with a healthy dose of negativity and it seems Apple Tv gets a hefty dose and like the original iPod it may turn heads or like the Cube may flop. Simple as that.
post #82 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

When you compare other media extenders with the AppleTV you find that it isn't overpriced at all. Sure, some appliances like the D-Link 320 and 520 series media extenders are a little cheaper. Especially now that the prices have recently been severely reduced, which, in my opinion, is due directly to the impending release of the AppleTV.

However, the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD, a more refined UI, and judging by negative comments about the D-Link DSM-320/520 on Amazon the AppleTV will most certainly be more reliable than those devices. I seems Apple is once again not the first to market with a product type, but the first to market with a seamlessly integrated, stable product type.


PS: only wish is that there will be a way to play my AVIs, even it means I have to create a simple Reference Movie with QT Pro and then importing that file into iTunes.

Two questions:

1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).

2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
post #83 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamuskrat View Post

While I quoted my personal view point, I can go back and find plenty of discussion boards all over that had the same opinion. The original iPod was a nich product, overpriced, an odd ball product, etc. My point was not based upon one data point, but in fact hundreds.

The keynote of Jobs' iPod presentation showed an audience that was far from excited. I can't imagine any of them saw the iPod as the iconic device it is today.

Maybe I'll upload it onto YouTube.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #84 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Two questions:

1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).

2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?

I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
  1. How about using it the way Apple has intended for me to use it: to store my x most recent unwatched videos.
  2. I have no idea how well they are selling. I suspect with the lackluster reviews, the low sales rating on Amazon, and the constantly lowering pricepoint that they aren't doing very well.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #85 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blascock View Post

The appletv is just like the xbox360, because if you have windows media center or new vista you have access to all your computer's movies, pictures, etc. just like apple tv, the only difference the xbox harddrive is for the games, and the internals of the x360 are a lot more advanced and worth the price.

I can't say that there's anything wrong with this, but:

You're posting this on a website named AppleInsider.

I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!

I'd also guess that most people on this board have an iPod, and may have purchased music/TV shows/Movies from the iTunes Media Store. None of those purchases will work with the xBox 360/Media Center solution.

None of the (legally) purchased movies and TV shows can be played back in Mac OS X since Microsoft refuses to port their DRM code.

Add another $100 for the wireless connectivity.

The xBox solution will cost me around $700 minimum and won't be compatible with any of my existing setup nor any of digital downloads I've purchased.
post #86 of 260
From the point of view of someone who is unashamedly an Apple fanatic, I have some reservations about the value of the iTV product when compared to another product available, namely the first gen Xbox with the Xbox Media Center.

I have the XBMC set up at home, and it has the following features:
- Streams all of my movies, music and photos, regardless of format and without conversion, from my iMac in the study to the Xbox under the TV in the living room.
- Gives me movie information from IMDB, and music information from some other place.
- Has many scripts (which are updating all the time thanks to the huge XBMC community), which do things like give you full Youtube video access on your TV, all the Apple Movie Trailers, live TV streams, live music streams, configurable TV guides... the list of what these scripts can do is quite impressive.
- Gives me news headlines (whatever rss feeds I want), as well as weather.
- Can connect to your modem wirelessly via a wireless access point, or wired directly to the modem (possibly the main disadvantage when compared to the iTV)
- Operates via a remote control, either the "normal" shape or in the form of a cordless Xbox controller.
- Looks absolutely gorgeous. The gui interface must be seen to be believed.
- I think you can get it to do HDTV via an add-on cable, although I don't have a HDTV so I can't comment on the specifics, and will stand corrected if I've made a wrong assumption.
- Costs a lot less than the iTV. You need an Xbox (not an Xbox 360), and a mod chip. The software is free on the net.

Anyway, that's just an idea of another product that's out there which might do similar things to what the iTV does.

cheers,
Ian
post #87 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Two questions:

1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).

2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?

The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site. It also might be used to hold a database of the connected computers library and a short preview for viewing with the title, as Front Row does, so that it does not take as long to retrieve those from a connected computer. You can sync some content, since Apple has said you can, but I doubt that they would have put only a 40 GB HD on it if they intended you to keep a large library of media on the hard drive.

As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.
post #88 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.

In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consumer pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
[*]I have no idea how well they are selling. I suspect with the lackluster reviews, the low sales rating on Amazon, and the constantly lowering pricepoint that they aren't doing very well.[/LIST]

If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?
post #89 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site.

Huh? You need 40GB for something like that!?


Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.

See my response to solipsism above.

All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind (and kept getting dissed because I asked some basic questions), but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.

Those of you who think it's great should buy it. It'll make it better for the rest of us six months from now! (Thanks).

And, if I am wrong, I will run out and use the $300 Apple Gift Card that I was recently given to purchase anything Apple!

Either way, I am OK.
post #90 of 260
I've managed to fill my need to have a digital on demand movie storage device and it cost me nothing that what I already had; a series 2 TiVo, and a macbook (or any decent mac).

I encoded my movies into MPEG4 using Handbrake and put them on my NAS drive attached to my Airport 802.11N router. On my MacBook I run a program called Tivo.Net (open source) and it basically takes any file ffmpeg can handle (yes even AVIs) and puts them within an on screen menu on my TiVo. So I can pull shows off of bittorrent or I can rip my dvds to MP4, H.264, AVI, etc. and watch them on my tv when I want to!

If you go to tivocommunity forums you can even find an installer and preference pane I made for this program. Heck this might help some of you avoid a $299 purchase. Only con is no series3 support... yet.
post #91 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consume pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?

The other media extenders' retail prices aren't that much lower than the AppleTV despite the AppleTV having more expensive hardware. It seems obvious how I got from point A to B.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?

Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #92 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The iPhone has at least 4 GB memory to run it in. The stripped down version there still takes 500 MB of memory to hold it, according to Apple.

Also the iPhone runs various programs. This won't.

That would be storage space not memory -- I would be surprised if the iPhone has more than 256MB of memory.

The Apple TV has 40GB of storage space, so wins that one

Amorya
post #93 of 260
Quote:
I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!

That's a good point. Seeing as most of us are likely using Macs, we cannot use the XBox 360, and the option would cost us considerably more than Apple TV.

Quote:
All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind, but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.

A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.
post #94 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?

Yes -- honestly -- I can seriously not see.

Look, I am as passionate about Apple as anyone. But I can't take something "seriously" just because Apple decides to dish it out.
post #95 of 260
An open mind works both ways. People have pre-ordered it and having even see the picture quality yet. Some people are already ripping DVD's in preparation of the Appletv. Doesn't seem like open mind to me.
post #96 of 260
Did a DVR feature get added with the delay? No? Ok, I won't take one, thank you.
post #97 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.

In which case, we all should shut up about any Apple product before it is introduced, and not reasonably speculate based on information and insight provided by tons of intelligent people?

And, in getting to your 1300+ posts, I assume you have done only that?

Give me a break. That sounds like sheer oldtimer arrogance.
post #98 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

Did a DVR feature get added with the delay? No? Ok, I won't take one, thank you.

Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. That isn't to say that the AppleTV can't be used to play your DVRed content. In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #99 of 260
Since I know a few replies will be coming saying you won't *need* a DVR with Apple TV, since you can just buy the episodes you want.......no, I can't.

I just pay for basic cable right now for less than $25/month. With that I get over 160 channels of 24/7 programming. I'm free to channel surf all day, record my favorite shows at night, and grab whatever at 3:00am - which I'd absolutely NEVER pay for if it was separate.

Unless the iTunes store will offer a subscription option for like $20/month for access to every TV show [which I highly doubt is likely to happen], I'd be racking up hundreds of dollars a month. If I just wanted to see one segment on some Discovery channel show, oh wait, that'll be another $3.99 [or whatever]. I think not.

When I'm relaxing in my home theater watching TV, the last thing I want is extra stress. With Apple TV, every time I'd watch a show I would be like oops that was $3.99. Click. $3.99. Click. $3.99 [my prices may be off but you get the point]. How damn stressful would that be?! I don't want to be sweating it each time I want to watch a TV show, knowing I'm racking up enormous charges for each show. My god, seriously, how does this box make any sense for a TV viewer?
post #100 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. .

Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).

DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?

Have you used one?
post #101 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.

That's an extra few hundred dollars on top of the already high price of the iTV alone. And what features would I gain from these extra steps besides a larger electricity bill from keeping my Mac Pro on 24/7 to stream TV from, after waiting for the 2 step encode process that really gains nothing. My Tivo series 2 is a DVR, streams all of my music from iTunes, streams all my iPhotos, built in internet radio and podcast features, can transfer shows from any other Tivo in my house, dual tuners, and so much more. I am still totally clueless on what this thing has to offer? Plus, a Tivo is basically free with 1 year of service.
post #102 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yes -- honestly -- I can seriously not see.

Look, I am as passionate about Apple as anyone. But I can't take something "seriously" just because Apple decides to dish it out.

I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about. It's like we aren't aren't talking about the same thing: I post other media extenders on the market for comparison and you rebuttal with a question about the hard drive?

If you have no desire to stream your media from your computer to you home entertainment center then the AppleTV is not for you. I'll be glad to finally get rid of the Mac mini connected to my entertainment center as it's definitely overkill. The only reason I may keep is if I can't get the AppleTV to play my AVIs in some way shape of form the way that FrontRow for OS X can with the right codecs in QT.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #103 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

That's an extra few hundred dollars on top of the already high price of the iTV alone.

Oh yeah? Then someone should tell Elgato that there prices are too low. Funny how a TiVo plus subscription service plus XBOX is many times the cost of my USB 2.0 DVR and (soon to be delivered) AppleTV.


Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).

DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?

Have you used one?

You really think the AppleTV would make a good DVR in its current configuration, yet you say that your TiVo was a whooping 40GB 5 years ago. *sigh* You probably keep expecting Apple to add DVRs to the default builds of their computers, too. It amazes me how you can't see how this is counterintuitive to iTS TV Show sales.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #104 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

One of Apple's goals with Apple TV is to get you to buy one of these instead of a HD DVD or Blue Ray player.

Really? I didn't know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @homenow View Post

They figure that most people that would buy one already have a DVD player hooked up to their TV, so they don't really need one in the Apple TV unless it was HD DVD which they don't want you to buy so why include it in the Apple TV when it would just make it more expensive than the HD DVD player?

Actually, I'll stop being coy. I just think you're wrong. While I don't claim to know what's going on inside Apple, I'll go out on a limb and say that Apple is not trying to compete with HDDVD players or BR players. Why? Because Apple doesn't offer any HD content. And if the only reason to get an HDDVD or BR player is to get HD content, well then Apple hardly seems a real competitor. That would be like someone who wants wine buying grape juice on the chance that it'll ferment at some point in the future.

The only way the @TV becomes a vehicle in the near future for HD content is if Apple has figured out some way to tap into the huge potential of MMC (the policy of allowing owners of HDDVDs or BRDs to make legitimate digital copies of their private collection of disks). In that case, Apple would not only want you to buy an HDDVD or BR player, they'd bank on the fact that you had one.

Anyone hoping for Apple to offer 720p movies at even remotely the same price they charge right now has no clue about several things (bandwidth costs, broadband penetration in the US, movie studio politics, etc.). Hell, I'm just hoping for actual DVD resolution from the iTS.
post #105 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Very nice desk setup.

Thanks! It's a custom workspace designed and assembled by SMED (now Haworth).
post #106 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

It amazes me how you can't see how this is counterintuitive to iTS TV Show sales.

I do see how in fantasy land this would help sales for iTV, but in reality it is not practical for 98% of the TV watching population. If you watch more than 2-3 shows, you'll blow your budget - and for what....for the same price of that I could've had a full 150+ cable channels 24/7.

Without a full-time subscription service for iTunes's TV shows, which would basically be just Apple Cable, it's totally illogical to think that this will happen. On the other hand, they could've made it coexist with cable -- at least until they get an affordable and useful TV strategy and infrastructure in place. Being a fictional futurist is one thing, living on Earth is another. In theory it would all be great. In practice, there's no way it is cost effective and no way the majority of users are going to start paying that much money for a single TV show, if that is their only source of TV. If they have cable to supplement it, then that's the DVR philosophy. But it's missing, and sorry but Apple/iTunes isn't going to take over flat-fee cable anytime soon [unless they go the Apple Cable subscription route as mentioned].
post #107 of 260
Quote:
In which case, we all should shut up about any Apple product before it is introduced, and not reasonably speculate based on information and insight provided by tons of intelligent people?

Its fine to speculate, as long as we don't delude ourselves into thinking its anything more than speculation. Apple has long term plans with the ATV, none of us have access to that knowledge, therefore none of us can really know what is going to happen.

I haven't really had much of an opinion on the Apple TV. Other than I can see it serves a purpose and it is possible it can build a market. I don't know if it will be successful or not. I don't know if I will buy one or not. We'll have to be patient and see.
post #108 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCQ View Post

Really? I didn't know that.



Actually, I'll stop being coy. I just think you're wrong. While I don't claim to know what's going on inside Apple, I'll go out on a limb and say that Apple is not trying to compete with HDDVD players or BR players. Why? Because Apple doesn't offer any HD content. And if the only reason to get an HDDVD or BR player is to get HD content, well then Apple hardly seems a real competitor. That would be like someone who wants wine buying grape juice on the chance that it'll ferment at some point in the future.

The only way the @TV becomes a vehicle in the near future for HD content is if Apple has figured out some way to tap into the huge potential of MMC (the policy of allowing owners of HDDVDs or BRDs to make legitimate digital copies of their private collection of disks). In that case, Apple would not only want you to buy an HDDVD or BR player, they'd bank on the fact that you had one.

Anyone hoping for Apple to offer 720p movies at even remotely the same price they charge right now has no clue about several things (bandwidth costs, broadband penetration in the US, movie studio politics, etc.). Hell, I'm just hoping for actual DVD resolution from the iTS.

There was a quote the other day, I believe from Apple's CFO, stating that they saw the competition for the Apple TV as the DVD and not the DVR. It is a little hard for them to compete today with a $299 device against DVD players that sell for $49 or less so I assume that he was talking about the newer HD DVD and Blue Ray devices. Based on that and the specs for Apple TV I would guess that 720p content is coming very soon to iTMS, and they are banking on successful sales of that content to help them gain leverage to get more content just as they did with music and TV shows. Given Apple's model with activating content on a limited number of computers and linking to an Apple TV the average consumer does not need to make copies of the file other than for back up since it can be activated on a number of computers and viewed on Apple TV remotely without the hassle of burning a copy of the disk.
post #109 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?

Portable digital players were a relatively small market until the iPod came along. It has been said numerous times over the years that the iPod, and later iTunes, legitimized the field.

The same can be said for the video playback of the 5G. Handleld video players sold slowly. The 5G legitimized that as well.

The fact that the MPC's haven had much impact, or that the media extenders haven't either, isn't a good predictor of ATv sales.

If you've ever used an MPC or a media extender, you would see that it isn't for everyone. The setup is still confusing. There are still many incompatibilities. You have to download software, scripts, and other nonsense.

While some of that may be fine for some people here, it isn't for the general public. They want to plug it in, and use it. The same way they now use a Tv, or audio system.

Ot seems that people are forgetting that most people couldn't program their VCR's. That's why TIVO sprang up, as well as the other digital set-top boxes that make it simple.

That's what theis product will offer. Most people don't give a crap about 720p yet. They arte used to watching most of their shows in 480i on their Hd Tv's.

Truhtfully, high quality 480p content looks fine properly upscales to 720p, and even 1080p. I do it all the time with DVD's, which have only a bit more vertical rez. Most people who watych it think they are looking at Hi Def.

Unless you sit much closer to the Tvthan you are used to, you can't see the difference anyway.

Check this site, It's very good. Bookmark it if you are interested in HD and other video issues.

The home page is here:

http://www.carltonbale.com/

Hi def viewing charts are here:

http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006...vs-resolution/

Test your own acuity:

http://www.carltonbale.com/blog/2006...-for-yourself/
post #110 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

I do see how in fantasy land this would help sales for iTV, but in reality it is not practical for 98% of the TV watching population. If you watch more than 2-3 shows, you'll blow your budget - and for what....for the same price of that I could've had a full 150+ cable channels 24/7.

I don't know where you live, but I wish I was living in your neighborhood. Where I live in San Diego, it would cost me approximately $55 a month for that many stations. (The lowest digital package available.) Adding DVR Service would bring the monthly cost to $65 month.

I receive all the local broadcast networks in HD for free OTA. Here's the list of shows that I would actually pay to watch:

19.99 Aqua Teen Hunger Force (per season)
34.99 Battlestar Galactica (per season)

For my girlfriend:
22.99 Project Runway (per season)
23.99 America's Top Chef (per season)

Nonseasonal fees:
9.99 Daily Show (per 16 episodes)
9.99 Colbert Report (per 16 episodes)

I figure there are probably 150-160 episodes per year taking into account vacations and reruns.

Seasonal shows come to $102/year which is less than $10/month.
Nonseasonal fees will be around $16/month

That's $26/month-- much less than $65/month for the same 6 shows (with DVR capability). I've saved approximately $480 dollars and the AppleTV has already paid for itself. Every year after that is just icing on the cake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

Without a full-time subscription service for iTunes's TV shows, which would basically be just Apple Cable, it's totally illogical to think that this will happen. On the other hand, they could've made it coexist with cable -- at least until they get an affordable and useful TV strategy and infrastructure in place. Being a fictional futurist is one thing, living on Earth is another. In theory it would all be great. In practice, there's no way it is cost effective and no way the majority of users are going to start paying that much money for a single TV show, if that is their only source of TV. If they have cable to supplement it, then that's the DVR philosophy. But it's missing, and sorry but Apple/iTunes isn't going to take over flat-fee cable anytime soon [unless they go the Apple Cable subscription route as mentioned].

Truthfully there's no reason to be interested in AppleTV if you already have cable and a DVR. But if you're in a position like me (hardly a fictional futurist) it can be cost effective. I could subscribe to 5 additional television seasons and STILL break even.

With local television stations broadcasting digitally, there's no reason to pay my cable company to re-broadcast them down the cable network. The cable company doesn't even carry all of them in HD.
post #111 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

That would be storage space not memory -- I would be surprised if the iPhone has more than 256MB of memory.

The Apple TV has 40GB of storage space, so wins that one

Amorya

That's true. I was thinking more of the running room in RAM that the OS requires rather than the HD storage. I suspect that the OS in the iPhone requires much more of that than does whatever is in the ATv. The iPhone, no matter what Jobs may say, is far more of a computer than the ATv is, and so needs a more complex OS to run it. As we know, a Mac needs at least 1 Gb to run well. The iPhone can do with less, but needs more than the ATv. I suspect that the 4 GB FLASH can be used as virtual RAM much better than the HD in the ATv. OS X requires a good virtual memory model to work well.
post #112 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

That's a good point. Seeing as most of us are likely using Macs, we cannot use the XBox 360, and the option would cost us considerably more than Apple TV.

Of course, this product is aimed at the PC user as much, or even more so, than us.

Seeing the MPC-X Box combination at work at a friends home, didn't give me much of a feeling of the ease and sophistication that the average user will need.

Apple feels that this product will.
post #113 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).

DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?

Have you used one?

I see no reason why both can't exist at the same time, in the same system.

My DVR gets me my cable. The ATv might be able to stream whatever I'm getting from the internet.

Perhaps, I can go to the CNN website and view it from my HD Tv, and watch the videos it offers. We'll see.

At this point, we know some of what it will do. But do we know all that it will do? Jobs was somewhat nebulous about some of that. Perhaps, as they were having software problems even to the last minute, he couldn't mention features that weren't as yet set in stone.

I also get the feeling that some other software might be able to be downloaded to this device. It's just a feeling from what I've been reading of what various Apple officials have said. But it's intriguing.
post #114 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Oh yeah? Then someone should tell Elgato that there prices are too low. Funny how a TiVo plus subscription service plus XBOX is many times the cost of my USB 2.0 DVR and (soon to be delivered) AppleTV.

HD Tivo - $800.

Plus monthly fee of $12.95 to $15.95.

On top of cable costs.
post #115 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco Underpants View Post

I don't know where you live, but I wish I was living in your neighborhood. Where I live in San Diego, it would cost me approximately $55 a month for that many stations. (The lowest digital package available.) Adding DVR Service would bring the monthly cost to $65 month.

I receive all the local broadcast networks in HD for free OTA. Here's the list of shows that I would actually pay to watch:

19.99 Aqua Teen Hunger Force (per season)
34.99 Battlestar Galactica (per season)

For my girlfriend:
22.99 Project Runway (per season)
23.99 America's Top Chef (per season)

Nonseasonal fees:
9.99 Daily Show (per 16 episodes)
9.99 Colbert Report (per 16 episodes)

I figure there are probably 150-160 episodes per year taking into account vacations and reruns.

Seasonal shows come to $102/year which is less than $10/month.
Nonseasonal fees will be around $16/month

That's $26/month-- much less than $65/month for the same 6 shows (with DVR capability). I've saved approximately $480 dollars and the AppleTV has already paid for itself. Every year after that is just icing on the cake.



Truthfully there's no reason to be interested in AppleTV if you already have cable and a DVR. But if you're in a position like me (hardly a fictional futurist) it can be cost effective. I could subscribe to 5 additional television seasons and STILL break even.

With local television stations broadcasting digitally, there's no reason to pay my cable company to re-broadcast them down the cable network. The cable company doesn't even carry all of them in HD.

I'm amazed that some people can actually say that they only watch two or three series a year. It's actually unbelievable.

So, you watch no news, no specials. Don't get the itch to see whats on that's different. Never check out other channels. That amazing. Such restraint!

What a limited field of interest! As I said, it's unbelievable.

The average American watches 4 and one half hours of Tv a night. That's from a recent NYTimes article.

While you may be a Tv hermit, few others are. Watching Tv the way you would want to, would cost far more than cable would ever charge.
post #116 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What a limited field of interest! As I said, it's unbelievable.

The average American watches 4 and one half hours of Tv a night. That's from a recent NYTimes article.

Now that's what I consider to be two extremes. 4.5 hours a night is such a staggering number, and that's supposed to be an average?
post #117 of 260
The problem with this box isn't that it COULD be useful, it is that there is not the cohesion that there was with CDs, .mp3, iTunes, and the iPod.

If I could rip my DVDs and have them "on demand" queued up on my desktop/laptop pc or in an external drive on my Airport basestation, plus augmentation of the impulse buy from the iTunes store, this could be useful. Unfortunately, right now we can do everything except for one important aspect of the chain. It's the ripping of the DVDs onto a digital medium that is easily stored and accessed! If it was not for the DMCA preventing ANY sort of ripping including into another format I would LOVE to get an AppleTV ASAP. Unfortunately, the product is missing a key feature that made the iPod so popular, the ability to use your old format on the device in a convenient way!

In the future, when there is a universal high-def video format that is available to store the digital media in I can imagine this kind of product doing very well. This is not the case today, people have physical media and some digital downloads. If you can not put both of these formats in an accessible device it is going to be hard to justify buying either this device or a large number of digital downloads just for putting your digital media on the TV.

At least that's what I think.
post #118 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Now that's what I consider to be two extremes. 4.5 hours a night is such a staggering number, and that's supposed to be an average?

Yes, average. Some people watch as much as seven hours a day, though, to be fair, that could be more than one person in the household.

But for payment purposes, it's the same thing.

It's not much worse than spending the several hours a day on these things that we do.
post #119 of 260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferazel View Post

The problem with this box isn't that it COULD be useful, it is that there is not the cohesion that there was with CDs, .mp3, iTunes, and the iPod.

If I could rip my DVDs and have them "on demand" queued up on my desktop/laptop pc or in an external drive on my Airport basestation, plus augmentation of the impulse buy from the iTunes store, this could be useful. Unfortunately, right now we can do everything except for one important aspect of the chain. It's the ripping of the DVDs onto a digital medium that is easily stored and accessed! If it was not for the DMCA preventing ANY sort of ripping including into another format I would LOVE to get an AppleTV ASAP. Unfortunately, the product is missing a key feature that made the iPod so popular, the ability to use your old format on the device in a convenient way!

In the future, when there is a universal high-def video format that is available to store the digital media in I can imagine this kind of product doing very well. This is not the case today, people have physical media and some digital downloads. If you can not put both of these formats in an accessible device it is going to be hard to justify buying either this device or a large number of digital downloads just for putting your digital media on the TV.

At least that's what I think.

There are programs to do that, but, of course, I would never recommend such a thing.
post #120 of 260
Quote:
Of course, this product is aimed at the PC user as much, or even more so, than us.

This is true, but I think people mentioned the XBox so much it was being forgotten that most of us are using Macs and the XBox isn't an option.

Even in the PC world I wonder how many people are actually actively using Media Center, own an XBox, and actually use the XBox as a media extender. I bet the number is pretty small.

Quote:
Truhtfully, high quality 480p content looks fine properly upscales to 720p, and even 1080p. I do it all the time with DVD's, which have only a bit more vertical rez. Most people who watych it think they are looking at Hi Def.

Unless you sit much closer to the TV than you are used to, you can't see the difference anyway.

Yes when we were all discussing iTunes movie resolution. There was a lot of argument from those with HDTV's that they deplored SD resolution. I said HD broadcast is better but you are still watching highly compressed video. Ultimately what broadcast HD gives you is the ability to have larger television screens.

You really haven't seen HD until you've watched it uncompressed from the source. A lot of the luster is gone by the time its broadcast or on DVD.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple ready to flick switch on Apple TV revolution