or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV hacks, reviews, and trivia roundup
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple TV hacks, reviews, and trivia roundup - Page 3

post #81 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Oops, just realised I didn't properly read what you wrote.

Yes, I do very much deserve to be called on this. It is an opinion of mine that I suspect is the case, rather than have quantifiable evidence of. My opinion is based on the fact that Apple have repeatedly implemented things poorly in QuickTime (both their MPEG-4 part 2 and part 10 (H.264) codecs suck relative to others in the industry*), but Nvidia on the other hand really know what they are doing. I am confident that the decoding, de-interlacing and scaling are better implemented by Nvidia than by Apple.

In other words, you assume that, while Apple doesn't use the GMA 950's decoding acceleration, and doesn't use the X1600's decoding acceleration either, or that of any other recent GPU in an Intel Mac, for that matter, they do use the one in the Go7300, even though *as evidenced by the successful Perian installation, the build numbers, etc. *the QuickTime decoding is virtually the same?
post #82 of 110
While we're on the topic of AppleTV hacks, I had an alternate theory on why the AppleTV doesn't include a DVD drive. As has been noted, dropping a DVD drive into would have added a pretty neglible additional cost to Apple. They already have a DVD player program so the work to actually add DVD playback would have been minimal.

My theory is that it was not implemented to lock out usage of a DVD player and try to steer people to purchase movies from iTunes. It also makes hacking the AppleTV to play DVD image files that much harder with nothing to start from. I know there are free ways to created DVD images, but a program like Flip4Mac's Drive-In makes the process extremely easy and dummy-proof. The idea of ripping the full DVD content to a central storage location is far more attractive to me than using HandBrake to rip just the movie since I lose nothing in the process (quality, extras, audio tracks, subtitles, etc.) although it would require a massive storage source.

Without DVD playback, the AppleTV locks out any such attempt.
post #83 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

My theory is that it was not implemented to lock out usage of a DVD player and try to steer people to purchase movies from iTunes.

You are falling for the very common incorrect assumption that iTunes Store sales are significant for Apple. They never have been; neither in profits nor in revenues. What has been significant is sales of hardware devices: iPods, Macs, and possibly now Apple TVs.
post #84 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You are falling for the very common incorrect assumption that iTunes Store sales are significant for Apple. They never have been; neither in profits nor in revenues. What has been significant is sales of hardware devices: iPods, Macs, and possibly now Apple TVs.

It depends on what you think is small profit, I guess. The artist or label is getting about 42% of each purchase (which is 2% better than standard record store sales), which gives Apple about 58 cents per song. That adds up when you consider apple has sold over 750 million songs now... Of course, they've shelled out a lot of money developing iTunes, and in advertising, but their insanely low overhead on staff, warehouse space, transportation, etc. etc. etc. is vastly lower than your typical record chain. They also don't pay the licensing fee to the good people at Philips who own the patent rights to CDs and DVDs (?), which saves them another 1% against record stores...

It's been something of a mantra that Apple doesn't make significant money from iTunes store sales, but that's a line to develop buzz that it's a great bargain since they're not making so much. The truth is, like any investment, that after the initial amount of money spent investing in the whole system, it's starting to pay off now, and their profit margins have the potential to surpass any traditional record stores, even though they pay a higher percentage to the record company/independent artist...
post #85 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Before you jump off a bridge, you better check to see how deep the water is.

Feh. We used to jump off the county bridges into whitewater below back home. This ain't nuthin.

Quote:
For your information, I used the exact quote from Mossberg in my original comment.

Then I fail to see what he was accused of saying that he didn't. You may disagree about how others interpreted the intent of his words, or the way that they were presented, but he did write those words. But really, that's immaterial at this point, since...

Quote:
My point was simply this, 'you may question what he said, but you needn't call him or imply that he's an frigg'n liar (my interpretation*) because he didn't include any supportive references.'

And that's the crux of the issue - I think your interpretation of 'talking out of his ass' is at odds with the rest of us. If they had said "He's lying" or even "He's just plain wrong", without information to back *themselves* up, I'd be giving them the hairy eyeball too. Instead, I think the rest of us were reading the phrase as most people would - as "where's his evidence? this is a meaningless assertion without it". Which it was. Right, wrong, doesn't matter. It's all about how it's presented. Supporting evidence = good, groundless assertions (even when correct) = lame. That's all this was, as I see it. A minor difference in interpretation.

I'd also point out that there is a *GULF* of difference between a professional environment with colleagues, and an online rumor board, as far as what is considered appropriate or acceptable behavior. I frequently disagree with my research colleagues, but I argue with them in a different way than I do on here. Language on here is a more colloquial, and vague. Ya gotta roll with the punches around here, and really, don't take it personally.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #86 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The artist or label is getting about 42% of each purchase

70.

Quote:
which gives Apple about 58 cents per song.

After bandwidth, handling, etc., about 4 cents remain with Apple.
post #87 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

In other words, you assume that, while Apple doesn't use the GMA 950's decoding acceleration, and doesn't use the X1600's decoding acceleration either, or that of any other recent GPU in an Intel Mac, for that matter, they do use the one in the Go7300, even though *as evidenced by the successful Perian installation, the build numbers, etc. *the QuickTime decoding is virtually the same?

This seems to be wanting from me something slightly different than your previous post. This one seems to want proof that Apple is using the GeForce 7300 hardware features.

Here is the proof:

I have a MacBook with 1.83 GHz Core Duo
I downloaded a 1920 x 816 trailer from Apple
I re-compressed this down to 1280 x 720/24p, 5 Mbit/s H.264 (the maximum allowed by AppleTV) with 160 kbps stereo AAC
I downloaded Apple's CHUD tools
I used the CHUD tools to disable one of my Core Duo cores
I tried to play back the file.
It dropped a lot of frames (it went as low as 14 fps at some points).

If the standard QuickTime H.264 codec running on a 1.83 GHz Core Duo core cannot decode 1280 x 720/24p 5 Mbit/s H.264 in real-time, there's no way in hell that it can do it on AppeTV's underclocked Pentium-M. Not only is the CPU running at only just over 1/2 the clock speed of my CPU, it also has a slightly inferior SSE1/SSE2 implementation, and no SSE3 at all. For the AppleTV to be able to play back the H.264 files that it plays back, Apple must either be using the GeForce hardware decode features, or some kind of crazy compsci voodoo magic.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #88 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You are falling for the very common incorrect assumption that iTunes Store sales are significant for Apple. They never have been; neither in profits nor in revenues. What has been significant is sales of hardware devices: iPods, Macs, and possibly now Apple TVs.

Whilst I don't see the point of adding a DVD drive to an AppleTV (it's like adding a CD player to an iPod, and surely folks who are going to buy an AppleTV have a DVD player already). Surely the long-term aim of the AppleTV should be to replace the DVD player just like the iPod has replaced the walkman, and in many homes, the CD player too.

I've been trying to get my head around why Apple haven't done some sort of flip4mac drive-in thing with iTunes + AppleTV, and I don't get it. Maybe it does have something to do with the iTunes store. Whilst it's generally accepted that Apple make pretty much squat on music downloads, perhaps there is the potential there for them to actually make significant profits on the movie downloads?

Having said that, it still doesn't make sense to me. Surely the AppleTV would be more compelling if it (in conjunction with iTunes) offered an easy way to rip (unmodified a-la drive-in) all your DVDs you already own onto a server and then stream those files to AppleTV? Then Apple would sell more AppleTVs. Then, if Apple offered 1280 x 720/24p movies with 5.1 AC3 instead of the 640 x 360 ones with stereo that they do now, priced inbetween DVD and HD-DVD/blu-ray, there would be a compelling reason to buy any new content from the iTunes store rather than elsewhere (higher quality than DVD, but cheaper than HD-DVD/blu-ray).
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #89 of 110
Hey, would someone with an intel mac please email me the sshd binary please (it is in your /usr/sbin/ folder)? I have a PowerPC mac, and therefore don't have access to it. OpenSSH is open source, so distributing the binary is ok (ie, not warez or hacking). If you still don't feel comfortable distributing the binary from your OS X install, then please goto Openssh.com click on one of the mirror links. Then download openssh-4.6p1.tar.gz.

Then do the following in the terminal:

cd to the un-ziped folder
./configure --without-openssl-header-check
make

Then there should be a intel-os-x binary in that folder called sshd. Please email that to me. Thanks!
post #90 of 110
Quote:
On the Mac Mini, all of this is done in software running on the Core2Duo, on the AppleTV all this is done in hardware on the GeForce Go 7300 (for H.264 content). The hardware implementations in the GeForce Go chip of each of these stages are superior, quality-wise, to the algorithms used on the Mac Mini when playing back the same files. Therefore AppleTV has higher picture quality

This seems to be the crux of your point. Which I do understand and should have been said in plain language earlier.

You also talk about the mini using the CPU to decode video when we just went through the whole thing where I said the mini is using the CPU for video in response to you complaining about the lackluster GMA950, you asserted I had no idea what I was talking about.

Quote:
My opinion is based on the fact that Apple have repeatedly implemented things poorly in QuickTime (both their MPEG-4 part 2 and part 10 (H.264) codecs suck relative to others in the industry*), but Nvidia on the other hand really know what they are doing. I am confident that the decoding, de-interlacing and scaling are better implemented by Nvidia than by Apple.

And now you admit much of this is your opinion and nothing you have empirical proof of. This sounds like technical nitpicking to me. In the long run when Joe and Jane Consumer are watching video on their computer will they care if the video is being decoded on superior Nvidia GPU hardware or on less optimal Quicktime in the CPU? Nope.
post #91 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Whilst I don't see the point of adding a DVD drive to an AppleTV (it's like adding a CD player to an iPod, and surely folks who are going to buy an AppleTV have a DVD player already). Surely the long-term aim of the AppleTV should be to replace the DVD player just like the iPod has replaced the walkman, and in many homes, the CD player too.

I've been trying to get my head around why Apple haven't done some sort of flip4mac drive-in thing with iTunes + AppleTV, and I don't get it. Maybe it does have something to do with the iTunes store. Whilst it's generally accepted that Apple make pretty much squat on music downloads, perhaps there is the potential there for them to actually make significant profits on the movie downloads?

Having said that, it still doesn't make sense to me. Surely the AppleTV would be more compelling if it (in conjunction with iTunes) offered an easy way to rip (unmodified a-la drive-in) all your DVDs you already own onto a server and then stream those files to AppleTV? Then Apple would sell more AppleTVs. Then, if Apple offered 1280 x 720/24p movies with 5.1 AC3 instead of the 640 x 360 ones with stereo that they do now, priced inbetween DVD and HD-DVD/blu-ray, there would be a compelling reason to buy any new content from the iTunes store rather than elsewhere (higher quality than DVD, but cheaper than HD-DVD/blu-ray).

The problem is that they are trying to attract the very studio's that sold you those DVDs to sell their content on iTMS and there is a lot more resistance to this with video than there was with audio, plus a lot of competition beginning to crop up. Apple needs the content, so they need to get the studios and broadcasters to let them distribute it, and do so at a price that Apple feels it's customers will buy. Not $20/movie when you are not getting the physical media or the extras, but $14.99 for a new release. Apple needs that price low to attract customers to iTMS and add the value to Apple TV that will make it a success.
post #92 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

If the standard QuickTime H.264 codec running on a 1.83 GHz Core Duo core cannot decode 1280 x 720/24p 5 Mbit/s H.264 in real-time, there's no way in hell that it can do it on AppeTV's underclocked Pentium-M. Not only is the CPU running at only just over 1/2 the clock speed of my CPU, it also has a slightly inferior SSE1/SSE2 implementation, and no SSE3 at all.

You do realize that the OS X in the Apple TV has much, much less to do than the Mac OS X in your Mac mini? No. That would be too easy to consider. I'm sure you receive e-mails on your Apple TV all the time. Or compile ports in DarwinPorts. Yep. Gotta keep the machine busy. While watching 720p video.

The H.264 component on the Apple TV is indeed different. But your conclusions are still quite a stretch.
post #93 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

And now you admit much of this is your opinion and nothing you have empirical proof of. This sounds like technical nitpicking to me. In the long run when Joe and Jane Consumer are watching video on their computer will they care if the video is being decoded on superior Nvidia GPU hardware or on less optimal Quicktime in the CPU? Nope.

Some users will care if it results in poorer picture quality. I freely admit that I shouldn't have been nearly as unequivocal as I was in my first post to this thread. Hopefully I have demonstrated that there are plenty of reasons why the picture quality of a Mac Mini and AppleTV will not necessarily be equal. I'm really trying to point out that people shouldn't assume that the picture quality of all devices are equal. There are many factors that affect it.

When it comes to Joe and Jane Consumer, they have demonstrated often that they don't care all that much about quality, given that they buy 128 kbps audio downloads in huge quantities, and purchase some iTunes Movies. So for them I'm sure this debate doesn't matter.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #94 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

You do realize that the OS X in the Apple TV has much, much less to do than the Mac OS X in your Mac mini? No. That would be too easy to consider. I'm sure you receive e-mails on your Apple TV all the time. Or compile ports in DarwinPorts. Yep. Gotta keep the machine busy. While watching 720p video.

The H.264 component on the Apple TV is indeed different. But your conclusions are still quite a stretch.

The AppleTV is running OS X 8N5107, so actually it bears a very striking resemblance to the OS on my MacBook (10.4.8 Intel was 8L2127, 10.4.9 Intel is 8P2137). Sure, there are lots of extra bits and pieces installed in my OS, but extra frameworks and the like take up no extra CPU resources just by being there. You have to be using them for that to happen. I should have said in my post that QuickTime and Finder where the only applications running when I did my test. There was nothing sucking up CPU cycles in the manner that you suggest.

Try this:

Quit all apps apart from Activity monitor, QuickTime and Finder.

On my MacBook, Activity monitor and pmTool (a utility that activity monitor uses) together take up <3% cpu, and various other components such as Window Server and the kernel take up a total of <1.5% CPU between them. This means that without Activity monitor or pmTool running, at least 98.5% of the CPU cycles are available.

Now, open up a 1280 x 720/24p 5 Mbit/s H.264 file in QuickTime and play it back. On my MacBook (with one core disabled), the WindowServer, kernel and QuickTime CPU usages all increase. The usages vary quite a bit, the peak seems to be around 4% for WindowServer and 3% for the kernel. So, without Activity Monitor running, there would be at least 93% processor power available to QuickTime. It is without Activity Monitor running that I performed my test that demonstrated a heavy rate of dropped frames. And this on a Core Duo core with improved (over the Pentium-M in the AppleTV) SSE1/2 and SSE3 (which the Pentium-M doesn't have at all) running at almost twice the clock speed.

How exactly do you propose that the OS on the AppleTV is structured? Even if you drive the WindowServer and kernel CPU usages down to zero, there still isn't anywhere near enough CPU power available for QuickTime to decode a 1280 x 720/24p 5 Mbit/s H.264 stream in real-time. The AppleTV must be using the GeForce hardware-decode features.

If you think the AppleTV is doing it all on the CPU, why do you think Apple put a GeForce in there? Wouldn't it have been much cheaper to use a GMA950? And if Apple in the process of developing the AppleTV worked out how to reduce the CPU usage of their QuickTime H.264 decoder by a factor of something like 4, why didn't they deliver that improved codec with the release of QuickTime 7.1.5?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #95 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

The AppleTV is running OS X 8N5107, so actually it bears a very striking resemblance to the OS on my MacBook (10.4.8 Intel was 8L2127, 10.4.9 Intel is 8P2137).

I'm quite aware.

Though, technically, your build numbers are misleading. It's running 10.4.7 with Darwin 10.4.8 and a build between 10.4.8 and 10.4.9.

Quote:
Sure, there are lots of extra bits and pieces installed in my OS, but extra frameworks and the like take up no extra CPU resources just by being there. You have to be using them for that to happen. I should have said in my post that QuickTime and Finder where the only applications running when I did my test. There was nothing sucking up CPU cycles in the manner that you suggest.

Aside from dozens of agents and daemons, not to mention many additional kernel extensions.

Quote:
If you think the AppleTV is doing it all on the CPU,

I don't. I do think that you need to stop jumping to conclusions, as you have just done yet again.
post #96 of 110
Seems like Mr. H is just detailing the reasoning for what he believes to be the most likely scenario. This isn't jumping to conclusions in my book. If anything, his thorough reasoning is the exact opposite of jumping to conclusions.

Other than not speculating at all, there isn't a more reasonable avenue for discussion. But then again, not speculating would mean no discussion either.
post #97 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

Aside from dozens of agents and daemons, not to mention many additional kernel extensions.

You must have missed the bit where I detailed the CPU usage of 10.4.9 running on my MacBook with one core disabled. Yes, there are lots of agents and daemons resident in memory, no, they weren't using any measurable CPU time during my tests. Quit all your GUI apps, launch Activity monitor and see for yourself what the CPU usage at idle is like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

I don't [think the AppleTV is doing it [decoding H.264] all on the CPU]. I do think that you need to stop jumping to conclusions, as you have just done yet again.

My statement was that there was "no way in hell it can do it [decode H.264] on AppeTV's underclocked Pentium-M." You then quoted this statement, and called it "quite a stretch". I'm sorry, but you are just contradicting yourself. If the AppleTV can't use its CPU to decode the H.264, where else is it going to do it?
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #98 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Seems like Mr. H is just detailing the reasoning for what he believes to be the most likely scenario.

And his scenario happens to be correct as well.
post #99 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by palex9 View Post

this is apples big chance to again achieve cult status or blow it big time. should jobs decide to plug all the holes and make hacking this machine impossible or really hard, it will be like shooting yourself in the foot. if, on the other hand, they will allow the chip to fall where they may, this could be the start of a fantastic machine-running all codecs, using it as a ultra mini mac, whatever! let;s see what happens...



-----------
the count
http://thecountsworld.blogspot.com/

Word! It could be like Xbox Media Center -- except that, rather than modding your *existing* Xbox, folks'd *purchase* this device in order to mod it. With a larger HD and wider codec support, I'd be all over this! It seems like a device with a high Wifey Approval Factor. As it is, the Mac Mini in our bedroom pisses off my wife (and me) because FrontRow likes take a long time to scroll our Movies. The X360 MCE in our living room is great for streaming music -- but suck-ass video codec support (who wants to convert all their avi to wmv -- and don't tell me to transcode, that's a 0 on the WAF scale).

Anywho, all that to say this. If I can get unlimited video codec support on a fast Apple interface and not have my wife roll her eyes at me as I explain how to use it, I'll put one of these boxes on each of 3 different TVs around my house. How 'bout *that*, Mr Jobs?
post #100 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Seems like Mr. H is just detailing the reasoning for what he believes to be the most likely scenario. This isn't jumping to conclusions in my book. If anything, his thorough reasoning is the exact opposite of jumping to conclusions.

Other than not speculating at all, there isn't a more reasonable avenue for discussion. But then again, not speculating would mean no discussion either.


Ditto that.

And I'd like to add, on balance, I think Mr. H is contributing useful technical arguments, hardware tests, and his thoughts to this thread. Many of the other contributors seem more concerned about his sentence anatomy rather than presenting their own detailed analysis for peer review.


Mr. H earnestly stuck out his neck to present even-toned thoughts and analysis. And naturally, they ought to be open for discussion. But why not present an equally long neck in response? Instead, it seems to me that on balance the collective retort to Mr. H is built on unconstructive critique (in a few instances, inflammatory critique) and small details of sentence nuance.

As we all know, snipper fire is easy work in anonymous fora.
post #101 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterO View Post

Ditto that.

And I'd like to add, on balance, I think Mr. H is contributing useful technical arguments, hardware tests, and his thoughts to this thread.



Mr. H earnestly stuck out his neck to present even-toned thoughts and analysis. And naturally, they ought to be open for discussion.

Thanks. I would say that I didn't help all that much right at the beginning. I was a bit too forthright.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #102 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Thanks. I would say that I didn't help all that much right at the beginning. I was a bit too forthright.

OK... I think you are now being a bit too self-effacing....

Thanks for the informative posts.
post #103 of 110
Disclaimer: I'm not an expert on the topic so some of my terminology might be a bit off

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Did you know, for example, that many of the latest GPUs feature H.264 encoding with much, much higher performance than the CPU-based QuickTime encoder.

Is that "real-time" hardware H.264 encoding, which I've read still can't touch the quality of multi-pass software encoders?

How might GPU H.264 encoding benefit Apple TV? Could that essentially obsolete software currently being used to convert others formats to H.264 by doing the encoding it directly on Apple TV after its received? What's a good example of when it make sense for a GPU encoder to be used rather than just a decoder?

My EyeTV 200 does MPEG-2 encoding in hardware. Exporting to H.264 for Apple TV compatibility would be impractical. MPEG-4 (part 2) exports are faster, but quality significantly suffers (because of QuickTime's lousy codec?). Eye200 also supports MPEG-4 encoding but I wasn't impressed with its quality either when testing about a year ago.

Does it make sense that near-future DVR products from Elgato and/or Miglia will support direct H.264 encoding or is that still further off than I'd hope, or maybe not a worthwhile at all?

Shortage of H.264 content for Apple TV is the general issue. The iTunes Store isn't enough (for much-discussed reasons) and my hunch is Apple will face increasing pressure to extend Apple TV format support by enough customers eventually frustrated that it won't work with other sources of content. Re-encoding existing content can't be anything but a short-term solution, which most people don't have time and patience for. And there's some quality lost in that process, similar to converting between different lossy audio formats. I'm trying to get a better idea where the content for Apple TV might be coming from.
post #104 of 110
Oh, is there any good reason why some people seem obsessed with adding a larger HD to Apple TV? It's not intended for permanent storage but I get the feeling people expect to use it that way. It's certainly more cost-effective to buy a larger drive for the media hosting Macs/PCs, which also doesn't void the Apple TV warranty. Am I overlooking something?
post #105 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

Oh, is there any good reason why some people seem obsessed with adding a larger HD to Apple TV? It's not intended for permanent storage but I get the feeling people expect to use it that way. It's certainly more cost-effective to buy a larger drive for the media hosting Macs/PCs, which also doesn't void the Apple TV warranty. Am I overlooking something?

Not to be cruel in any way (and I'm also targetting myself here!) - but syncing a subset of your content involves thought and planning. If iTunes can anticipate your needs perfectly then it's not an issue - but nothing is perfect.

When I'm an Apple TV user - I'll want to have full access to ALL my computer's TV shows etc from the AppleTV. I'll sync, and I'll stream. What I'd prefer is for the Apple TV to pre-cache 30GB from any iTunes it streams from (using the same anticipatory needs that syncing would use!)

I think the management of photos and music on a home network is getting really messy. I'm hoping iLife 07 has a new way of helping us do that, including how the AppleTV integrates with it.
post #106 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post

Not to be cruel in any way (and I'm also targetting myself here!) - but syncing a subset of your content involves thought and planning. If iTunes can anticipate your needs perfectly then it's not an issue - but nothing is perfect.

That doesn't seem cruel to me at all.

Quote:
When I'm an Apple TV user - I'll want to have full access to ALL my computer's TV shows etc from the AppleTV. I'll sync, and I'll stream. What I'd prefer is for the Apple TV to pre-cache 30GB from any iTunes it streams from (using the same anticipatory needs that syncing would use!)

My preference would be to use streaming and minimize synching as much as possible, avoiding the need for a larger-than-40GB synching drive cache. I haven't followed the exact details for syncing vs. streaming; might be that Apple TV requires syncing more than I'd want it to. Isn't it possible to randomly access all iTunes content via Apple TV, then select which you'd like to stream?

I'm capable of finding sufficient answers by checking the manual and/or looking for others discussions so don't feel obligated to respond.

Quote:
I think the management of photos and music on a home network is getting really messy. I'm hoping iLife 07 has a new way of helping us do that, including how the AppleTV integrates with it.

Yeah, Apple really hasn't offered any solutions for managing large media libraries with scalability in mind, especially for average folks. I think making too many things dependent on iTunes is a mistake.
post #107 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

That doesn't seem cruel to me at all.

Yeah, I think I was stronger in my original comment about mankind but toned it back (long day). Basically people don't want to _think_ about the best way to make the AppleTV work - they just want it to work the best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

My preference would be to use streaming and minimize synching as much as possible, avoiding the need for a larger-than-40GB synching drive cache. I haven't followed the exact details for syncing vs. streaming; might be that Apple TV requires syncing more than I'd want it to. Isn't it possible to randomly access all iTunes content via Apple TV, then select which you'd like to stream?

You can stream everything except slideshows. While streaming, your limitations are your network speed and the need to have your computer connected & on (with iTunes on?) - so syncing is good for laptops.

If you've got a desktop and good network connection then streaming seems much more useful (I assume they'll fix slideshows). If the AppleTV could anticipate your streaming needs and pre-cache, or do some sort of hybrid of stream/sync, then even better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk View Post

Yeah, Apple really hasn't offered any solutions for managing large media libraries with scalability in mind, especially for average folks. I think making too many things dependent on iTunes is a mistake.

I'd rather have a separate program for media management to the program which actual plays and displays that media.

The management of large media libraries is a similar problem to the management of large amounts of files (sometimes from multiple people and stored on multiple machines with different access privileges). Problems with duplicate files, lost (or hard to find) files, and backup to name a few. It's not easy to solve - and if this was the only top-secret feature of Leopard I'd be more than happy.
post #108 of 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker View Post

70.



After bandwidth, handling, etc., about 4 cents remain with Apple.

More important... Apple becomes the hardware + software company of choice driving content producers to buy and use Apple's hardware+software to make content (which in turn becomes content that gets sold back to the public through iTunes).

Content providers make sales with high margins, which drives virtuous circle of buying and selling...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 110
This site has a good collection of hacks: http://applehacks.blogspot.com
post #110 of 110
Woot! Someone got Super Mario Bros. running on an AppleTV

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/s...deo-250551.php

I was kinda planning on getting a Mac mini to do this kid of thing, but if I can dump all my emulators on an AppleTV that might be easier.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV hacks, reviews, and trivia roundup