Mossberg confirms: Apple TV runs Mac OS - Page 2

What about live programming?

Wow, pmjoe really hit a nerve

You make it sound like he had a good point.

Yes, I would be out for the rare occasions when I might like some live programming, or something that iTunes doesn't offer. But I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means saving money. All I watch is Law and Order, SG-1, Atlantis...... MythBusters... a few other things here and there. Assuming 30 bucks for an iTunes season pass, and 50 bucks a month for Dish, all of that would cost me about 120 bucks. And that's a little less than 3 months of Dish. So I could save around 400 bucks a year that I can put towards an iPhone =)

my bad

So, if you agree with the quote you agree that Apple made the right design choice from a business perspective, they went after the larger market (than the game consoles and computer geeks). This was his point here.

in which case it DOES!

You're forgetting the $300 investment int the AppleTV which makes your first year savings only $100.

And assuming this thing takes off, by this time next year AppleTV 2 might be out so you might shell out another $300 for that version so you're still at only $130 in savings (I factored out SG-1 since this is the last season).

This all presumes, of course, that you already have a widescreen TV otherwise you'll be back in the red.

As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:



Why would you buy an AppleTV if it's not to get a better quality video, DVD film, TV program or photo slideshow?



In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.



Wishfull thinking. You get what you pay for, and nothing else. Am I the only one to be impatient with analysts and journalists who report their own speculation, not facts?



Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.



How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?


Apple is back to the good ol' days, prior to 1995, when:

1- it didn't feel that it had to give consumers what they want;

2- it believed that it could overcharge consumers for the "privilege" of buying a product stamped with the Apple logo. Apple directors were fools then and now. Sad.

dont forget to factor in electricity and sofa/couch wear and tear....

Actually he stated nothing of the sort. What he did say is that the market it's aimed at is larger than the markets that want/need these things to which you refer. As I quoted earlier


I think he gets it.

You twisted everything he said into something he wasn't saying.

He said AppleTV is fine for everyone except videophiles and auiophiles. People who need prestine quality are an extremely small number. 99% of the consumer market will prefer convenience over quality. Pristine quality does not allow for wireless streaming or media portability. For this convenience you need some degree of compression.

DVD's and CD's are not lossless they are very compressed formats. Many audiophiles prefer vinyl records over CD's.

You haven't read the AppleTV spec page. It clearly says AppleTV will play unlocked H.264 or MPEG-4 files. That means it will play more than only iTunes content. MS does not make a WM player for the Mac, or allow Macs to play WM-DRM, why should Apple support their format.


Its not that unusual that you have a different remote for different consoles. Many times people's DVD remote control can not adjust the volume of their television.

But it should not be that big of a deal for Apple to add firmware that allows AppleTV to control TV volume.


That depends on what type of hard drive they are using. A larger HD will use more power and create more heat.

May I have a vote? Is it me or is this guy just a dork?

I would like to add pmjoe to the 'd' list.

Video version of the review at:


http://wsj.com/mossbergvideo

So are you saying it's going to be huge in the techie market, which is extremely small (i.e. big fish in small pond?) Maybe I'd buy that. But, its not going to be "Huge" (unless your concept of Huge is different then mine). This will be a blip on the overall home TV/theater market.

8) I can pull facts out of my ass as well as Mossberg can. And do it for free rather than get paid by the WSJ for it. That was the intent anyhow.

What people missed here is that it's just a bunch of rhetoric. He's creating a market segment out of nothing. Basically he's saying, "hey all you non-geeks and gamers, tired of watching your downloaded movies on that tiny movie screen, well now with AppleTV, you can watch them on your TV!" But the people here turn it into some kind of "factoid". Oooh, I'm in a market segement, and I don't want to be seen as a techie geek or gamer, and those losers still watching movies on a lame computer screen. Please, it's shameless marketing ... like you were so discontent before watching those movies on your computer; like if you ask someone watching downloaded movies on their computer if they'd like to also be able to watch it on their TV they'd say "no"? He hasn't defined some "much larger group of people", he's telling the same group of people to be discontent. It's not like he's basing this on some kind of factual marketing data that we don't have.

So, do I want to watch my downloaded videos on my TV? Yes. Do I think this device likely runs some variant of OS X? Yes. Do I even think Apple will likely enable some kind of direct Internet content content streaming/buying/etc. from AppleTV? Yes. Do I believe some guy from the WSJ when he tells me what I want or what it'll do? No way! I don't fall for rhetoric, and I won't believe unannounced specs on this device unless they come from Apple, or until some reviewer rips the device apart.

No wonder people think they have to buy this stuff. Oh you poor discontent people, get your AppleTVs and be happy.

Mossberg is a friend of Steve Jobs, but he is not blind to the faults of AppleTV, at least in its first installment.

Compare Mossberg's measured appreciation with euphoric statements from stock analysts who confidently predict sales of over 1.5 million units before the end of fiscal year 2007 (or is it calendar year 2007 ?).

Euphoric statements serve to reward overpaid Apple directors and vice-presidents through the ownership of stock options with an inflated value.

Analysts should be more careful when attempting to evaluate the potential of new products from a "secretive company" like Apple.

And yes, confusing hopes and speculation with facts doesn't sit well with me. Sorry.

Could you point to a reference that confirms Mossberg's is an 'analyst'?

Does it really matter what OS it uses?

couldnt agree more with your post. IN January Netgear had some kind of AppleTV-like product at the expo and it looked everthing AppleTV should be. If Apple spent as much time and effort on this as Netgear and used their OS for GUI it'd be killer product.

I dont consider myself videophile or audiophile but i dont see why i'd downgrade to AppleTV.

I think so, the fact that it is a variant on OS X means that IF Apple opens the platform up to third party developers to extend the capabilities of this then it should be easy to port over any QuickTime codec that is available for OS X, which would close the gap on one of the major limitations on this device with little or no work from Apple. This would also make it more appealing to consumers. Now we don't know that Apple will open the platform up to developers, and based on the iPod the likelihood of this happening is small. However this is not an iPod, and Apple will not be able to provide all the content that people want, and most likely won't provide some content that a lot of people would like to use with this device. There is an opportunity for Apple to gain a lot of ground by opening the platform up a bit more than the iPod, even if it means competition for iTMS in the video arena.

The real potential for a revolution here is not the Apple TV itself, but changing the way people get content to their TV's by opening up the internet as a delivery platform for both streamed and downloaded content. If they want to limit the product and it's potential then they will keep tight control over it. If they want to gain the broadest appeal to the mass market then they will open it up to allow competition in one way or another.

Maybe because you want something you can actually use. See the Pogue review here. It includes a review of the Netgear 'offering'

Pogue Apple TV Review

Or a product reviewer either. Like Netgear? Go for it. But I suggest you do a little more background before you give any more opinions.

For sure I am glad Apple didn't spend as much time or effort as Netgear and used their OS for GUI. I admit however that it would have been a killer product.

Netgear or Apple? Mossberg or wally007? Anyone?

[QUOTE=
In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.

Read the specs, it will play ANYTHING that itunes will play, imported cd's and any movie you could be bothered formatting in the proper specs.

I have never watched a movie in itunes. How do you format a movie in itunes?

That's a non-sequitur. You get it to view/listen to content in your living room that otherwise resides in your office.


No, not period. It's restricted to anything that's either already compatible with AppleTV, or anything you can convert to any of the AppleTV-compatible formats, which is, well, everything.

So then, it's not necessarily Mac OS (X) as this story's headline claims. Mossberg doesn't really say how he knows what it is, he may very well be assuming it without any means to back it up.


Why does every Apple device have to be powered by (Mac) OS X? iPods don't. The iPhone does a greater variety of things and it's OS is simply called "OS X", no Mac. The functionality is so limited that it can easily be its own custom platform not derived from Mac OS X.


I don't know about the others, but only a half-season of Mythbusters is up, out of (I think) five seasons. They look like old episodes too (2004), certainly none of the latest shows are in that list. Only a total of about ten Discovery shows (of eight available Discovery channels) are on the list.

iTunes can import and play content that's incompatible with Apple TV (according to its specs).

Btw, I thought Pogue's article was more interesting and informative than Mossberg's.

If you want internet access, you could throw in a Mac Mini instead of the iTV. The Apple TV is to simply the downloading process and content management. It would be very difficult to do it with a remote control. There are many good reason to leave the content management and conversion to the computer...................if you not think out loud.

um...what else would it be running???

Prior to this news I thought AppleTV was running Windows Vista

Per Mossberg's claim, it is OS X, not Mac OS X. Just like on the iPhone.


Correct.


In this case in particular, it would allow third-party developers to provide their own codecs.


Chances are they eventually will. At the time, OS X wasn't exactly mature, so Pixo was a much better choice.


A third-party embedded OS, like the iPod's.

That's really the key to it all. BTW, it's not *just* downloaded movies/tv/music....don't forget about home movies or video clips from your digital camera. Those things often sit on your computer unless you burn to DVD. Watching photo slideshows on TV is also nice, though I admit it's a rather expensive option if that's the only thing you're going to use it for.

Not that this device is without issues: the inability to expand storage capacity might be an issue, but if the streaming works properly, then I suppose you can add the extra storage to your computer and access that way.

Stupid logic

factoring out the costs of using Apple TV. It's a pretty good deal to only use iTunes *IF* the content is available and *IF* you're not a heavy TV watcher.

It's amazing how many people claim certainty about a product which virtually nobody has used. Heck, even mossberg has seen it and he's talking out of his ass about certain things.

This thread is mostly informative about the social skills of us forum geeks. If anything, I'd say reading this thread makes one less informed about AppleTV and related markets. Yes, I'm guilty too; for spouting off about what AppleTV _should_ be.

One thing is for sure, there is tremendous interest in networked video players and none of them seem to be perfect. My bet is, that while the AppleTV has shortcomings, it will be a wildly successful product. The world is clamoring for an easy to use network video player...

The majority of which will require conversion to the limited video formats Apple TV supports, which is unnecessary with similar products like the Netgear EVA8000 Pogue mentions in his article:

(emphasis added)

Even if Apple TV could at least access the ~/Movies folder it probably wouldn't find much compatible content there.

Interesting that Gizmodo's First Video: Setting Up Apple TV shows 480i in the TV Resolution setup, but the Tech Specs don't mention it. I'm sure we'll know soon enough whether or not it's really supported.

Can you name *any* sources of legally downloaded video content that this doesn't support? besides WMV. (honest question)

A pretty good strategy is to see what the teenage boys on the internet say about a product, and then it's a pretty good bet that whatever they say will be the opposite of what actually happens. The iPod was supposed to be a complete flop according to the internet boys because it was only 128 AAC, etc. etc.

I think you are mixing them up. iPod was supposed to flop because it had less space than a Nomad and didn't have wireless, and thus, lame. iTunes was supposed to flop because it only sold 128kbps AAC.

Could you enlighten me on what Mossberg said that drew you to such a conclusion?