or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple Tv with OTA
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple Tv with OTA

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
Am I the only one that thinks this is vital to the success of the AppleTv. I would dump my dish network subscription in a second if apple would put a HD tuner in the appleTv and added a TV icon to the Front row interface.

Come on apple, Please!
post #2 of 26
IPTV might be a better option.
post #3 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nace33 View Post

Am I the only one that thinks this is vital to the success of the AppleTv. I would dump my dish network subscription in a second if apple would put a HD tuner in the appleTv and added a TV icon to the Front row interface.

Come on apple, Please!

How is this different than using the built-in HD tuner on any current HDTV? With an appleTV attached to it?

You're making the appleTV into something it will never be.
post #4 of 26
Where's the content? Or do you think that an OTA and an HD Tuner is all you need to get all those 'Cable' channels? In my area an OTA will get me about four channels, none of which are worth watching. IPTV is a much better option.
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 #5 of 26
Apple TV needs IPTV....
post #6 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Apple TV needs IPTV....

Needs it for what reason? For you to buy it?
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

... Or do you think that an OTA and an HD Tuner is all you need to get all those 'Cable' channels?

The OP is talking about HDTV. In some markets, the cable provider carries all available OTA digital broadcasts. In some it carries none. In others it carries some, but not others. My cable provider carries exactly one OTA digital broadcast, our CBS-HD affiliate. In this college town, it does not carry the local PBS digital broadcasts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

In my area an OTA will get me about four channels, none of which are worth watching. IPTV is a much better option.

As can be inferred from my comments above, four OTA broadcast HD channels are three more than my cable provider carries. For the vast majority of TV viewers, IPTV is not an option. It is available at my brother's house, but the provider carries no HD channels--broadcast or otherwise.
post #8 of 26
Thread Starter 
I would be satisfied with receiving the major four networks OTA in HD. A lot of my programming comes through those channels for free. I am not talking about receiving Cable OTA, although some cable providers do do that.

if the AppleTv added a tuner and DVR software I could get a lot of programming for free and then I can buy the remainder of the shows I watch on the iTunes store (like Stargate, etc..). For me at least it would be a more attractive option than paying 60 bucks for Dish Network a month. I would rather spend $30 on an entire season which lasts for 3-4 months.

I obviously would love on demand IPTV, but right now the content really isn't there. I watch a lot of vidCasts, but those are not true IPTV.

As for receiving OTA HDTV through my TV, I obviously can already do that, but there is no DVR in my TV and no polished interface, like I am sure Apple would provide. If I wanted to watch live Tv i suppose I could get in my time machine and jump back a few years and let the content rule how and when I watch. Yeah, that sounds like an attractive option.

I think the only thing holding the Tuner out of the AppleTv is the possible cannibalization of purchases from the iTunes Store. Personally, if that is the case I think it a bad decision. I am not going to pay for stuff I receive for free OTA.
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nace33 View Post

As for receiving OTA HDTV through my TV, I obviously can already do that, but there is no DVR in my TV and no polished interface, like I am sure Apple would provide.

And there wont be as long as the content providers rule. The whole purpose of HDMI is to allow the content providers to control from beginning to end how the viewer sees, records and distributes HD/Digital signals. A consumer oriented company like Apple is very unwelcome. Especially one that allows the user to choose what they want to do with their own equipment.

I don't think that there will be a good DVR solution for some time to come. Hollywood just now started counting DVR viewers, but only if they view the recorded show within three days of airing. If you wait more than three days it goes uncounted and the network losses add revenue. Plus DVRs allows the viewer to skip over the commercials, this angers the advertisers who are paying the networks for ad viewership, not show viewership. As the advertisers are unwilling to pay for DVR viewers the networks again lose money . The content providers (currently the networks) see DVRs as the bane of their industry, used by a bunch of freeloaders who watch their shows without them (the networks) getting paid for it. Until this money issue gets worked out the content providers are pulling out all the stops to keep DVRs dumb and hard to use. Ensuring that the majority of the viewers watch the shows as they are aired so that they can be counted and paid for by the advertisers who are now happy that their commercials are not being skipped.
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 #10 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

The content providers (currently the networks) see DVRs as the bane of their industry, used by a bunch of freeloaders who watch their shows without them (the networks) getting paid for it. Until this money issue gets worked out the content providers are pulling out all the stops to keep DVRs dumb and hard to use. Ensuring that the majority of the viewers watch the shows as they are aired so that they can be counted and paid for by the advertisers who are now happy that their commercials are not being skipped.

isn't it amazing how advertisers think commercials are going to survive. As the word turns more ADD surely they see that we are too impatient to watch a forced ad. Looks like it's time for a new model. Sell ad placement in the program your watching itself.

is there less money in that? Probably, but perhaps they have been getting too much for too long and now that the consumer has "power" the equation is balancing just a little bit.
post #11 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nace33 View Post

...I think the only thing holding the Tuner out of the AppleTv is the possible cannibalization of purchases from the iTunes Store. Personally, if that is the case I think it a bad decision. I am not going to pay for stuff I receive for free OTA.

That's the only thing? How about there's no reason for Apple to do so? The appleTV was designed to get content from a computer to a TV; it's not a DVR or an OTA receiver.

Buy a TiVo HD and add an OTA antenna to it.
post #12 of 26
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by k squared View Post

That's the only thing? How about there's no reason for Apple to do so? The appleTV was designed to get content from a computer to a TV; it's not a DVR or an OTA receiver.

Buy a TiVo HD and add an OTA antenna to it.

k-Sqaured, why do you have to be so critical. Last time I checked this is in the "future Products" forum. I am merely expressing my desire for a future product.

As for the Tivo, I don't want to pay 13 bucks a month. I am trying to get away from the subscription thing.
post #13 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nace33 View Post

isn't it amazing how advertisers think commercials are going to survive. ...and now that the consumer has "power" the equation is balancing just a little bit.

We humans are a very conservative lot and resist change as much as we can. We are on the cusp of a major change in how we get our media and the gatekeepers are running scared. Both on the money side (how do the gatekeepers make a living?) and how the entertainment industry is organized (are the gatekeepers even needed?).

The easiest solution is to ignore the problem. And despite 20+ years of talk about media convergence this is what the media industry has done, ignore the problem. And now that the hardware convergence is here (or nearly so) the media industry is unprepared. Thus we see the music industry (RIAA), movie industry (MPAA and DVD Forum), television industry (National Broadcasters) and the content producers (the studios) all fighting to keep the same rules and methods in place. Outlawing change or refusing licenses permission when they are able to. Or otherwise forcing the consumer into excepting the rules that they themselves generate whenever they can.

We the media consumer must keep up the pressure or we will never have the "power" to balance the equation. Election year is coming, we must do what the media has been doing for decades. Vote people into power that represent the media consumer, not the media industry.
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 #14 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

We humans are a very conservative lot and resist change as much as we can.

I beg to differ. With respect to new media and content distribution, the consumer has shown a hunger for new and improved content, not a reluctance. Years before Direct TV and the Dish Network made cheap small satellite dishes popular, the countryside was dotted by big dishes at $5,000+ a pop. Blu-ray was a commercial product in Japan for years before it was available in the US. The complaints about its price didn't come from the buying public, but from the MPAA, the DVD forum, and their fellow travelers. We don't yet have Blu-ray burners because these interests see us a Blu-ray pirates rather than Blu-ray customers.

Almost every element of the communications revolution is being usurped by powerful corporate interests that foot-drag and delay the deployment and distribution of the new technology. We will win in the end, but it is taking entirely too long.
post #15 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

And there wont be as long as the content providers rule. The whole purpose of HDMI is to allow the content providers to control from beginning to end how the viewer sees, records and distributes HD/Digital signals.

I think as long as Apple incorporates HDMI into any hardware the content providers would be perfectly happy. Apple has already created new revenue streams for the studios via iTunes. HDMI isn't as draconian as you make it sound, the main purpose is to provide unauthorized duplication of copyrighted material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Especially one that allows the user to choose what they want to do with their own equipment.

Off topic, but this grammar is grotesque -- "the user" is obviously singular, and "they" is obviously plural. If you want a gender-neutral sentence just make the whole thing plural: "Especially one that allows users to choose what they want to do..."
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by nace33 View Post

Am I the only one that thinks this is vital to the success of the AppleTv. I would dump my dish network subscription in a second if apple would put a HD tuner in the appleTv and added a TV icon to the Front row interface.

Come on apple, Please!

I agree with the sentiment. Apple TV is only really useful if it replaces existing DVR, DVD, set-top boxes and all the other junk in the living room. If not, it's just another box with yet another remote to keep track of, except that to do anything useful with it you need to pop into the next room and fiddle with your PC.

But if this article is right, maybe Apple is playing the long game. Traditional broadcasts and cable/satellite TV are rapidly heading towards obsolescence. Internet TV will eventually replace them all with a much more elegant solution, and at that point Apple could clean up if they have a solution in place already.
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance" - Steve Ballmer
Reply
post #17 of 26
If you have an HDTV with a firewire port then all you need is your Mac and the FireWire developers kit to get OTA HDTV signals over to your Mac. Sure the software is not full blown software but it works. You should also be able to request a cable box with an active firewire port is you have HTDV cable, and federal rules say that the cable provider has to give you one, though they might be reluctant to do so from what I have read.

I have hooked up a G4 tower to my TV and it works, though the software is a bit touchy. I don't have an HDTV cable box so I can't say how well that works. I think that the copy protection schemes limit your ability to record this way, but they do with most other solutions as well since the cable providers broadcast very few unencripted channels as I understand it. If they didn't then the HDHomeRun with eyeTV software would be a great solution.
post #18 of 26
If you just want IPTV, go with XBOX360 or better yet get AT&T's Uverse service.

I thought Apple's long term goal was to get into living rooms to eventually start folks buying ITMS content directly from their sofa, as soon as real broadband (not that crap you get in DSL and cable) is in enough regions to facilitate the transfer of 720p video. Seems like the prize has always been to sell content through ITMS, not to provide a tuner.

But i think the OP is showing the frustration of many of us with the Apple TV. Jobs aimed very low with this product. In the best case, it could have been a box that replaced our DVD players, our HD Cable boxes, our DVRs, our telephones, and our gaming systems. He settled for a itunes/iphoto content streamer designed not for home theater enthusiasts, but rather for people who crave simplicity and/or cool stuff. But there will be firmware updates. I doubt they will make dramatic improvements to the level we would like to see, but they will make the AppleTV better.
post #19 of 26
I've often opined the day will come when the web (in some version yet to be known) and traditional TV will merge into one.

Yeah I know, call me Nostradamus!

What I mean is that we all know that it is coming, in some fashion. Apple TV is not it. IPTV REALLY is not it, at least not yet. The pipes are not big enough, and may not be for years to come.

To butcher a phrase "...think outside the pipes..."

We all need to be watching with great scrutiny what is happening to the analog OTA bandwith that we all use now. It is the 700 mHz spectrum and Congress is fixin' to auction it off in parcels (read channels) to the highest bidders. Didn't ya ever wonder why digital broadcast (which is not the same thing as HD) is being federally mandated? But I digress...

I sincerely hope that Cupertino is going to play their cards right and jump into this auction properly. If they do, and do it right, the concept of copper or fibre as the main portals for internet will be a memory.

You don't want IPTV. None of the people in the industry are putting any real capital behind it. It is a neat toy, but not worth much else.

FOXPhotog
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOXPhotog View Post

...

We all need to be watching with great scrutiny what is happening to the analog OTA bandwith that we all use now. It is the 700 mHz spectrum and Congress is fixin' to auction it off in parcels (read channels) to the highest bidders. Didn't ya ever wonder why digital broadcast (which is not the same thing as HD) is being federally mandated? But I digress...

...

There is no secret here. The Congress has been very clear that the bandwidth freed-up by getting TV broadcasts off Channels 2-6 will be converted primarily to commercial data communications.

Oh, here's one for you. Did you know that politicians often do the bidding of the money-interests that finance their campaigns rather than the people who voted them into office? Yes, it's true!
post #21 of 26
Why can't HDTV be broadcast over IP instead of OTA or coax?
post #22 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by killerapp View Post

Why can't HDTV be broadcast over IP instead of OTA or coax?

In theory it may be possible, but the compression required for over IP (right now) would degrade the signal WAAAAY too much.

Keep in mind that you standard HD channel takes up, IIRC, the equivalent bandwidth of three regular analog channels. Trying to get that much data thru IP with the same quality, not there yet.

Sling Media is doing a decent job.

FOXPhotog
post #23 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOXPhotog View Post

You don't want IPTV. None of the people in the industry are putting any real capital behind it. It is a neat toy, but not worth much else.

FOXPhotog

Eh what? MS is putting money into IPTV as is AT&T...which is sinking a ton of money into FTTN deployment to support IPTV. They still claim 18M homes by end of the 2008 roll out.

And U-verse is doing HD over IP today.

http://www.att.com/gen/sites/iptv?pid=8695

Compression is a bit high but likely not THAT much worse than satellite. If Verizon steps up to the plate and moves FiOS TV to IPTV they can do much better because FTTP is much better than ATT/SBC's FTTN. FTTP is a lot more future proof but also a lot more investment.

Vinea
post #24 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

Eh what? MS is putting money into IPTV as is AT&T...which is sinking a ton of money into FTTN deployment to support IPTV. They still claim 18M homes by end of the 2008 roll out.

Ok. The telecoms can do that, fine. Regarding the 18M homes; If we know anything we know that companies never inflate their estimates. But until the final product is as good as or better quality than OTA or cable not many are going to migrate.

Quote:
And U-verse is doing HD over IP today.

Yep, wow it sure is. And the images are filled with more artifacts than the Smithsonian.

Quote:

Compression is a bit high but likely not THAT much worse than satellite.

Huh?!? Satellite delievers the closest to native resolution available today, short of Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or OTA. Satellite may be many things, but highly compressed ain't one of 'em. Sorry to burst your bubble.

FiOS is the best and most reasonable tech to date for delivery of such content. Even it has a LONG way to go. Copper, eh not so much...

FOXPhotog
post #25 of 26
I understand why many folks want Apple TV to be all-in-one companion for your TV, but that's not what it's for.

I am sorry if your HDTV is old and lacks ATSC tuner, but all recent HDTV models have one built-in. If your's don't have it, there will be cheap tuners on the market soon. And the fact is, majority watch TV from providers like cable, satellite, and IPTV. Supporting all is not yet practical and ATSC tuner on Apple TV will serve minority.

Before tackling areas like DVR, Apple needs to iron out Apple TV as a media extender: (1) aside from few podcasts and trailers, no legitimate HD contents, (2) no rental option which is what majority wants, (3) no official multi-channel audio support, (4) no subtitles, and (5) missing 1080p support.
post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOXPhotog View Post

Huh?!? Satellite delievers the closest to native resolution available today, short of Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or OTA. Satellite may be many things, but highly compressed ain't one of 'em. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hmmm...I was comparing Dish to Comcast side by side and Comcast was doing HD better but had fewer channels but did have OnDemand.

Cancelled Comcast in favor of FiOS and Dish anyway because there was a couple must have international channels not on Comcast (or FiOS TV) for the wife and...well...I wanted fiber to the house.

Here are some numbers from AVS as measured between cable, E* and D* (D* = DirectTV E* = Dish).

Robots HD cable:

File Size Processed: 7.09 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:42s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.93 fps Telecine), 25.00 Mbps (10.46 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 51.23 KB/Frame, 0.20 Bits/Pixel.

Robots E*:

File Size Processed: 6.73 GB, Play Time: 01h:30m:00s
1920 x 1080, 29.97 fps (24.89 fps Telecine), 18.00 Mbps (10.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 49.16 KB/Frame, 0.19 Bits/Pixel.

Robots D*:

File Size Processed: 6.10 GB, Play Time: 01h:29m:57s
1280 x 1088, 29.97 fps (24.68 fps Telecine), 65.00 Mbps (9.02 Mbps Average).
Average Video Quality: 44.60 KB/Frame, 0.26 Bits/Pixel.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=301

Cable wins.

Vinea
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple Tv with OTA