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

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.

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.

The Hp, at least, has been out for a while. The receiver is stuck on the back like a hump.

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.


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?

And we almost never see dumb terminals anywhere today because???

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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).


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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


I didn't notice that, but the manual does confirm this.

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.

And cyber squatters are often kicked out if a court rules they are infringing on someone's right to their Trademarked Marks.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!