or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple fit with early lead in "digital living room"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple fit with early lead in "digital living room" - Page 4

post #121 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

Because 1 in 10 iTunes users want to watch their music on their TV.

PiperJaffray could probably hire chimpanzees who could do a better job of throwing together unrelated facts.

Poor wording on PiperJaffray's part, to be sure. One of the reasons I am getting an AppleTV so I can listen to my music in a simple, convenient manor through my home entertainment system, by far my best place for audio and video.

And before anyone chimes in about listening to 128kbps AAC on an expensive HiFI, don't foget that most iTunes are not comprised of iTS purchases.
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 #122 of 176
Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Computerworld (the website)

With the iPod, it was the Walkman of the 21st century," Rubin said. "That was easy to understand, but with Apple TV, it will take some education."

Another impediment to Apple is that serious competition is starting to shape up, and not just from Microsoft.

"Some companies are building those same capabilities into their televisions," Rubin said. "HP is one company. Sharp has said it will ship such a TV and Pioneer says it will ship TVs that can stream content from PCs. The technology could be embedded [in TVs], so you wouldn't have to be concerned with a separate box.

Zing!

I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #123 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?

Zing!

The Hp, at least, has been out for a while. The receiver is stuck on the back like a hump.
post #124 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

they really should have sold an XServer-like device (stripped down, just storage, doesn't need a ton of RAM or CPU speed) for the home media hub. In fact, this is what the Airport Extreme should have been. Like said above, the AirportServerExtreme should have been a router, usb network printer hub (as it is now), AND include a networked storage volume(s) -- at least on par with what the iTV's puny drive is at 40gb -- that would have not added much price at all, and the attractiveness of the product would have gone sky-high....

I agree that the missing piece in the puzzle is a very cheap network server. However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).

As for using the AirportExtreme + an external Hard disk, vs something more integrated... I don't mind the separate disk. It means I can use Apple for the important part and buy a better value disk. However, if Apple is serious about an "iServer" then maybe we should have 1000/100 network ports.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

Then you can buy iTV "hubs" that use that main central storage repository. In practice, the total price the consumer pays wouldn't be all that much more since the iTV is dumbed down (even more) so it costs less, and the AirportServerExtreme would be a bit more to produce, but make up the price. All in all, they could have upped the price on the package (sold together of course) to even $500 and they'd make an absolute killing. Now THAT would make a captivating product that wouldn't stand a chance at failing. And fills a much-needed gap, intelligently.

I think they are moving to a client-server model. In fact, I think the AppleTV may have once been an example of that - but network latency is especially hard on video, and once you add a caching hard disk and allow syncing you need a bit more brains in the device (so a cheap pentium was added).

We don't know how AppleTV connects to your iTunes if your iTunes is not on. I assume a lite version has to be running continually to stream stuff - we just don't know yet. Perhaps that same simpler iTunes could be made to serve from an Airport Extreme... does it need to do much?
post #125 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTJ View Post

Back in the early days of computing, before wholesale use of PC's, we used dumb terminals hooked up to main frames. These dumb terminals where just little boxes with screens attached and all of the processing was done on the backend. The cool thing about them was that they required zero support and never required upgrading. This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.

And we almost never see dumb terminals anywhere today because???
Quote:
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend.

Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.

Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.

Care to rethink your reasoning?
post #126 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

However, Apple does have the expertise to make the AirportExtreme+HardDisk work as a network server. Not just a remote hard disk - but something that handles your login authentication on every Mac and other server functions. I hope to see that functionality enabled with Leopard (the Airport Extreme already serves separate home directories).


That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.

Why would they limit it like that? If they had to pick and choose for room, cut out a few wired ethernet ports, heck it's an AIRPORT = wireless -- why 3 ethernet ports and only 1 shareable usb port? So it looks like it's impossible to share more than 1 drive at a time; which mean unless you have a single massive drive, that wouldn't be of much use either. I won't even get into the fact of just a USB port, and not a networkable Firewire port for sharing a drive [1 of each would have been perfect at minimum]. I love Apple, but they sure do seem to be releasing some awesomely stupid products lately.
post #127 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.

While bandwidth is an obvious issue, they are still trying to push their movies over the network, so why not from somewhere else [a large drive] other than a darn Mac.

As for the delay issue, it's more than likely due to crappy software/very-low-end hardware on your DVR, not a bandwidth issue.
post #128 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post

Hmmm ... I have enough issues with the response time on the pause/fast forward/rewind time of my DVR. I cannot fathom what it'd be like over wired Ethernet or even worse, what most people will try to use, wireless.

Inevitably the dumb terminal failed to take ground, especially in the home market, because everyone wants to do everything on the frontend, and it is cost performance effective to do so (i.e. the hardware really isn't that expensive). I can't imagine where this could be more true than CPU/bandwidth intensive A/V media.

Care to rethink your reasoning?

Wireless will have a lag, to be sure. Even Ethernet isn't lagless.

The other day, after I downloaded the 10.4.9 Combo update, and used on my machine, I moved it across the 1 Gb Ethernet to first, my wifes machine, my daughters machine, and then, the next day, my other machine.

The 163 MB file was moved to each machine in under 5 seconds. Not bad. But, it will still take a bit of time to move a 1 GB file, not to mention a 3 Gb file.
post #129 of 176
Streaming video is going to tell us a LOT about the real world speed of our home networks.

It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.

I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.
post #130 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Streaming video is going to tell us a LOT about the real world speed of our home networks.

It's not about being a 3GB file - if the file is 6.5Mbps and my AppleTV can't stream it, it means my network average speed is slower than that. That's a 50MB file in 1 minute. I know currently my 11g wireless is just slower than that when going between 2 wireless devices in the same room. If one device is wired, it can do it fine. Unfortunately, the TV is in a different room and hence slower.

I'll be researching ethernet over power or coax... but it's likely to be cheaper to buy an Airport Extreme 11n.

The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.
post #131 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

That reminds me of another really stupid thing Apple did with the Airport Extreme. They built in a USB port to share a hard disk OR printer -- but not both. Why? I do not have one so I can not verify it but from everything I have read online with other people asking the same thing, the answer has been a definitive no. So you cannot put a USB hub in there and share multiple devices, only 1.

Not so. Per Apple you can do just that. And a Apple Forum posting mentioned a hub with two printers and one hard drive.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...en/ap2108.html
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #132 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered,

huh? It clearly is for 'sync'.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/sync.html

Pretty simple. Its an iPod for your TV. That's how it works.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #133 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau View Post

huh? It clearly is for 'sync'.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/sync.html

Pretty simple. Its an iPod for your TV. That's how it works.

Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.
post #134 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

Do you guys remember I was saying Apple TV 2.0 will be an actual Television from Apple with the Apple TV box inside?

Zing!

I had a think about how Apple could do the whole iPTV thing, and I think it just came to me. What apple should really do is encourage people to hook their wired internet connection into their Apple TV's, and put Airport Extreme capabilities inside the Apple TV. That might make the whole set-up and everyday repetitive use less complicated and frustrating. People wont mind switching on Apple TV (without turning on their TV) to use broadband on their desktops or laptops in other areas of the house, but many wont want to go in and switch on their Airport Extreme to watch TV. The real problem with Apple trying to get into the iPTV game (which I'm convinced they have plans to do) is not the Apple TV, it's the Airport Extreme - too many piece of the puzzle, more complicated and too expensive. If Apple made Apple TV and Airport Extreme one and the same, as in the same product, as in you only have to buy an Apple TV, it would change the ball game considerably.

Apple has taken on a realization that they need to work in a world where not everyone owns Apple hardware. Therefore their devices need to work as good as possible with other systems while excelling at what they do. It would be a shame to force people into the AirPort model if they have and are familiar with a network that is as good or better than what Apple puts out, be it wired or wireless. The same goes for limiting their products to Mac owners by not supporting PC's. The AirPort needs to shine on it's own, and this latest version does just that. Apple should not include it at a higher price to Apple TV just so that you don't have to buy another device. Also, as I understand it and I may be wrong here, you don't need an AirPort Extreme to link another system to a Mac with a built in wireless card, you can set the Mac with a computer to computer connection without a wireless hub. Given this you should be able to connect an Apple TV in one room to the iMac in another which is hooked up to your DSL modem without any other networking hardware other than what is built into the iMac and the Apple TV, therefore there is no need to buy any additional hardware or wires to make the connection. If you have more than the two units to network wirelessly then you may need another solution, and AirPort Extreme is a good solution but not the only one, and not the fastest which is wired ethernet.
post #135 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud.

It might be clear as mud to you, but it's clear as water to me:

The AppleTV can be synced with iTunes just like an iPod. Once material is on the HDD, it can be viewed with your PC/Mac off.

The AppleTV can also stream from iTunes any content that is not already stored on the internal HDD. In that case, the PC/Mac needs to be on and iTunes needs to be running.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #136 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Like everyone else, I've read that. But it's clear as mud. Why do you have to sync up files to be stored on the ATv, when you can stream from the computer? If you can run it with the computer off, fine, but it doesn't make that clear either.

It does it so you can run it with your computer off, and so you can watch movies with someone else using the computer, and not cause problems for the two (ie, they access the hard disk, and it locks up for a few seconds, stopping your movie and whatever they're doing).

Live streaming is only for watching iTunes movies and shows that you just bought and are still downloading, or if your friend brings over her laptop. Syncing is the preferred method of using AppleTV.
post #137 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

The problem is that we don't quite know how this thing works yet. What is the HD for? That hasn't been answered, though we come up with a lot of theories. What if, as has been pondered in some earlier threads, the file must be moved to the ATv before being viewed? That's why I mentioned Ethernet in response to the concern that it might have delays in response.

I'm not sure why there's confusion, Apple has explained it on their website.

1) You can stream if your network is fast enough
2) You can put content on the HD and watch it from there
3) You can sync content to the HD and start watching it immediately - if your network is inconsistent or not fast enough, you just need to give it a head start but you don't need to wait for the whole thing to copy over.

The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.
post #138 of 176
Thanks for your replies.

While I understand what all of you are saying, and that's what it says on their site as well, I just can't help the feeling that what they are saying, and what they intend, aren't quite the same thing. I know it's just a feeling, but I've seen it before with Apple, and it just seems to me that something here is lacking from their explanation.
post #139 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

The hard drive is basically a buffer for content that your streaming bandwidth can't keep up with.

I wonder if it'll work like watching Quicktime trailers does now.

ie: Click on the film you want to watch, the iTV shows that it is downloading it but waits (a few seconds/minutes??) before it starts playing, to ensure uninterrupted playback.
post #140 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

it just seems to me that something here is lacking from their explanation.

Something like what? It makes sense to me, I don't see where the explanations are lacking. Can you elaborate?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #141 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Something like what? It makes sense to me, I don't see where the explanations are lacking. Can you elaborate?

No! If I could have, I would have. I'm not shy. It's just a feeling I have. I think they have something in mind, though they aren't yet saying.
post #142 of 176
Arriving late to this thread and won't finish it before responding
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribulation View Post

The main problem I have with having my Mac + Elgato + iTV is that it seems rather pointless. For one, as I said before I don't want to leave my G5 on all the time -- it sucks up way too much electricity. Having it shut down using energy saver would be ok I guess except I never know what random show I want to record until the day of when I look. That would mean I'd have to constantly be changing the energy saver shutdown time every day to make sure it's on to get my program(s). Seems like a big hassle and kind of defeats the purpose of being 'easy'.

EyeTV software will automatically wake up a sleeping Mac a couple minutes before a scheduled recording. Works fine here, except if the "Require password to wake this computer from sleep or screen saver" Security preference is enabled the system can go back to sleep when the login dialog times out before recording has started. I work around that by FUSing to my wife's account since it'll reactivate its login without a password after sleeping. It's primarily her Mac anyway so sometimes that FUS is unnecessary, or it's become second nature to FUS back after temporarily switching to my account for doing EyeTV-related or other tasks. Sometimes I'll manually sleep it; others times I just leave it run and let it sleep whenever it feels like it (which is mysteriously unpredictable).

I'm conscious about electricity usage with rates being relatively high here. I've been surprised how little difference certain changes make on a monthly bill, and how doing nothing obviously different sometimes "causes" a significant increase/decrease. I don't over-attempt to ultra-conserve now that I've seen how it basically averages out regardless what I do. I'll reevaluate if/when I get a Mac Pro or other energy-hungry system(s).

Quote:
Also if I'm downstairs watching TV I don't want to think about having to go back up to restart my Mac, only to go back down to watch a show that's on my Mac [upstairs]...again, not worth the trouble day in and day out.

Not being able remotely wake a sleeping Mac downstairs to watch EyeTV recordings upstairs (via EyeHome) is an issue though the occasionally bit of stair exercise to do it has never bothered me; I'll often do it as quickly as possible without tripping or clobbering some body part on a wall.

I had a workaround using my old iBook to remotely log in wirelessly to my iMac that typically runs 24x7, then running wakeonlan to wake up the eMac over a wired connection. I also used to remotely control iTunes/AirTunes with that iBook before its display stopped working last year.
post #143 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

I'm conscious about electricity usage with rates being relatively high here. I've been surprised how little difference certain changes make on a monthly bill, and how doing nothing obviously different sometimes "causes" a significant increase/decrease. I don't over-attempt to ultra-conserve now that I've seen how it basically averages out regardless what I do. I'll reevaluate if/when I get a Mac Pro or other energy-hungry system(s).

Totally off-topic I know, but you need to determine the devices in your home that use the most energy. These are likely to be:
  • Cooker
  • Heating (if electric)
  • Air conditioning
  • Washing machine
  • Tumble dryer
  • Kettle/coffee maker
  • Iron
  • Large flat-screen TV or projector

It is the use of these items that will produce noticeable differences on a month to month basis.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #144 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Totally off-topic I know, but you need to determine the devices in your home that use the most energy. These are likely to be:
  • Cooker
  • Heating (if electric)
  • Air conditioning
  • Washing machine
  • Tumble dryer
  • Kettle/coffee maker
  • Iron
  • Large flat-screen TV or projector

It is the use of these items that will produce noticeable differences on a month to month basis.

To that you can add:

Dishwasher, mine heats the water itself.

Toaster, if it's used every day.

Microwave, for the same reason.
post #145 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

To that you can add:

Dishwasher, mine heats the water itself.

Toaster, if it's used every day.

Microwave, for the same reason.

Ooo, good ones.

I think that toasters, irons, and kettles/coffee-makers are the devices that people are most likely not to think of when trying to work out where all their electricity is going.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #146 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyTJ View Post

This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.

[]

I think Apple is really on to something with this dumb frontend/smart backend solution.

Whenever possible (technology and budget permitting) I've always preferred "thin" media clients in my living room and other places appropriate for audio/video reception where their media servers and permanent storage really don't belong. I'm surprised how few people seem to acknowledge that strategy, still clinging to the idea that "fat" (and sometimes noisily distracting) computers, hard drives, and other components should be tightly coupled with corresponding media viewing/listening devices.
post #147 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gugy View Post

Who are you expecting to buy such a domain name?

You don't own or buy domain names, you're only renting them.
post #148 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

It is the use of these items that will produce noticeable differences on a month to month basis.

Good points, but a Mac Pro might make a noticible difference though, and a Power Mac G5 machine might too. I think the number for MacPro was about 175W at idle. Assuming $0.10/kWh, that looks to be about $12.60 a month to run it constantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

Arriving late to this thread and won't finish it before responding

EyeTV software will automatically wake up a sleeping Mac a couple minutes before a scheduled recording.

I didn't notice that, but the manual does confirm this.
post #149 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Totally off-topic I know, but you need to determine the devices in your home that use the most energy. These are likely to be:

[]

It is the use of these items that will produce noticeable differences on a month to month basis.

I'm including those types of devices with certain usage patterns having unexpected results. For example, running my office air conditioner more frequently and expecting an increased bill, yet it drops $20. Or I've made an extra effort to converse usage and the bill jumps $30. I'm not concerned enough (yet) to fastidiously monitor the most power-hungry devices, just aware of how the payment fluctuation is more counter-intuitively unpredictable here than in previous places I've lived. I've eliminated the possibility that my wife is primarily responsible.
post #150 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

You don't own or buy domain names, you're only renting them.

And cyber squatters are often kicked out if a court rules they are infringing on someone's right to their Trademarked Marks.
post #151 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Good points, but a Mac Pro might make a noticible difference though, and a Power Mac G5 machine might too. I think the number for MacPro was about 175W at idle. Assuming $0.10/kWh, that looks to be about $12.60 a month to run it constantly.

Don't forget the 980 watt power supply. When the machine is cookin', it's REALLY cookin'.
post #152 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

I'm including those types of devices with certain usage patterns having unexpected results. For example, running my office air conditioner more frequently and expecting an increased bill, yet it drops $20. Or I've made an extra effort to converse usage and the bill jumps $30. I'm not concerned enough (yet) to fastidiously monitor the most power-hungry devices, just aware of how the payment fluctuation is more counter-intuitively unpredictable here than in previous places I've lived. I've eliminated the possibility that my wife is primarily responsible.

Two reasons could be responsible for that.

The first, of course, is that other devices are running more often, or at higher levels than you realise.

The second is that the power company may be changing the kilowatt/hr rates they are charging, depending on the spot pricing they are paying that month.
post #153 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

I'm including those types of devices with certain usage patterns having unexpected results. For example, running my office air conditioner more frequently and expecting an increased bill, yet it drops $20. Or I've made an extra effort to converse usage and the bill jumps $30. I'm not concerned enough (yet) to fastidiously monitor the most power-hungry devices, just aware of how the payment fluctuation is more counter-intuitively unpredictable here than in previous places I've lived. I've eliminated the possibility that my wife is primarily responsible.

Go by the average per day or per hour usage, not he cost as the read dates are never consistant, at least where I have lived.
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 #154 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Don't forget the 980 watt power supply. When the machine is cookin', it's REALLY cookin'.

Yeah, I'd hope that's running for limited periods. Counting the input conversion inefficiency, that's nearly a hair dryer assuming it is loaded all the way. The stock unit was tested to take a max 300W though, and that's the wall-socket power. I'm not sure what it would take to triple that. A couple of Clovertowns, five Raptors, two nVidia Quadros? I suppose that would get close.
post #155 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Yeah, I'd hope that's running for limited periods. Counting the input conversion inefficiency, that's nearly a hair dryer assuming it is loaded all the way. The stock unit was tested to take a max 300W though, and that's the wall-socket power. I'm not sure what it would take to triple that. A couple of Clovertowns, five Raptors, two nVidia Quadros? I suppose that would get close.

Think of a weekend rendering job. That's full speed all the time. I've done it often enough over the years. It was worse though. I had to run my older machines all week just to get an hour of 3:1 compressed 601 standard video out.
post #156 of 176
wouldn't the greatest irony of all this be that intead of people buying a Mac to add DVR backend capability to their ?tv, they buy a cheapo PC to do it. A lot of people here are complaining that they don't want to buy another $3000 mac or bog down their current $3000 mac with ?tv content. Fine, build a crappy $300 PC and let its sole purpose be to Tivo, encode, and stream content to the ?tv.

On a side note, I will not be getting an ?tv until I know I can watch any codec VLC can currently use on it.
post #157 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post

On a side note, I will not be getting an ?tv until I know I can watch any codec VLC can currently use on it.

Do you seriously think that'll ever happen?
post #158 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

Do you seriously think that'll ever happen?

I have no trouble watching films with Quicktime (with the current codec support, of course) that I haven't used VLC on a Mac for a couple years now. Since it's apparently confirmed that AppleTV uses OS X and, presumably, Quicktime frameworks this may be a reality already.
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 #159 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Since it's apparently confirmed that AppleTV uses OS X and, presumably, Quicktime frameworks this may be a reality already.

I don't think it uses the QuickTime frameworks. The CPU is an under-clocked celeron, I suspect that Apple are using the hardware-decode features of the NVIDIA GPU onboard the AppleTV to do the heavy-lifting work of video-track decoding. I can't really see how the QuickTime framework running in OS X on a 1 GHz Celeron could possibly decode Main Profile 1280x720/24p H.264 in real-time.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #160 of 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I don't think it uses the QuickTime frameworks. The CPU is an under-clocked celeron, I suspect that Apple are using the hardware-decode features of the NVIDIA GPU onboard the AppleTV to do the heavy-lifting work of video-track decoding. I can't really see how the QuickTime framework running in OS X on a 1 GHz Celeron could possibly decode Main Profile 1280x720/24p H.264 in real-time.

Bingo!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple fit with early lead in "digital living room"