First year Apple TV sales fall below expectations - Page 2

...but the price point keeps pushing me back.

I can easily show my photos on my big screen (60" HD Sony Wega LCD) with my MBP (for that matter, I can stuff a MemoryStick right into the set). I've got Airport Express to stream music, and frankly I'm finding that I'm more interested in listening to new music I don't have than repeats of music I own. Internet Radio sometimes handles this, but I'm considering a portable XM receiver.

My cable company gives me enough on-demand HD content and shows to record on the HD-DVR cable box that I don't find myself wanting to view low-rez recorded content from my computers. And the whole downloading thing is tedious to me -- broadband internet needs to be a whole lot broader; maybe it would be if everyone in my neighborhood wasn't gobbling up on-demand TV content from the cable company and sucking up all the bandwidth.

If Apple could hit $149 for a 40gb AppleTV with todays features, I'd probably buy it. Till then, I'm just not sold on the value. I keep hoping it will get a lot better, or else a lot cheaper. It's a gadget I can easily live without -- rather have another iPod Touch (the wife got the 1st one).

My satellite provider can't even deliver HD that's not so compressed it looks horrible, what makes anyone think that Apple will be able to do so over the internet?

I know there are a few satellite channels that the provider ups the bandwidth on and lowers the compression (ESPN HD and a few others) but even then it's still compressed HD.

Actually before the iTunes Music Store people were just sharing music off of Napster/Limewire/XShare... so Apple could have done nothing and the iPod would still be as popular... And anyone who's read any quotes from a music exec in the last 3 years and doesn't think they're greedy is blind.

I think the public bitching being done by these exec's (like Cory Shields and other Universal bone-heads) shows a desperate attempt to try and rally a revolution against Apple. They don't give a damn about the end user - they simply want to squeeze as much out of their crappy content as possible. I think Apple was right to stick to their guns and certainly NBC is free to stick to theirs.

The product of the FUTURE is exactly what it is. It is NOT the product of the present, except for a small group of people.

You were an early adopter in an area that is taking off slowly (and would take off even more slowly without Apple). You should not have been an early adopter. I sympathize with your mistake in that. You should wait until things ARE the way you want them, and not spend money hoping they will suddenly become that way overnight.

Nobody should buy AppleTV for anything but the content available NOW. Why buy just for future content you hope for? If Apple TV does nothing for you now, why not wait until the content you wish for exists and THEN buy it?

For geeks the issue is all of the above, those that know know. For those that don't know, ie techno retarded, it's a concept thing, just signing up for movies by mail like netflix is a revelation as opposed to going to a video rental store. Then there is the price, $300 is too much. To sway the masses you need to have this set up for movie rentals that are price comparatively to brick-and-mortars, but have a better set up, ie rent for a week or two, and reduce the price of the unit. Apple should plan on just recovering production cost of the unit and plan on making this profitable via movie rentals. Apple should then start to market to movies-by-mail subscribers and create a base, then move to compete against the remaining b&ms. If you think about it from a shoppers perspective, why should I buy an AppleTV when I already have a DVD player and can order movies by mail, go to my local rental store, or just outright buy a movie at walmart with tons of extras. While the idea of convenience has potential, it needs to be sellable to be successful. AppleTV is a completely different model then the iPod+iTunes. I think Apple actually knows this and is why Apple is compromising with other movie studios to allow movie sales to break it's current movie pricing scheme.

Yeah, like I said in the 9th post

Biiiigg 'if'.
If the NBC offering is any indications, Apple has nothing to worry about in the long run.
un-skippable commercials, content blow-up. Yeah, they get it.

I would buy one if iTunes offered BBC comedy programmes

What 'everyone wants' is for the media monopolies to no longer be able to rip off the consumer. Features come and go on hardware... hard-ass Steve IS the feature everyone needs.

Then your beef is with the music industry execs who mandate that DRM be in the music in the first place....

While, I feel the present AppleTV has some great features with respect to photos, YouTube, and iTunes, I think that the dynamics of movie viewing are different. That and the success of the iPhone have delayed Apples focus on the AppleTV. As hayesk said in his post, music is played over-and-over many times, however, movies purchased are not generally not watched with the same frequency. Also iPhone had so much momentum, that I am sure Apple focused its energy there.

With the iPhone doing so well, Apple will now be able to focus more attention to AppleTV and how it fits into the iPod family. There are three features that would greatly affect AppleTV popularity I am sure that the first generation AppleTV is only the beginning.

Internet browsing:
Look at the iPhone & iTouch. Web browsing is a key feature. I believe this will come to AppleTV. It may even be something as easy as a software upgrade. This single feature would bee a boon for families everywhere. Johnny can surf the net on the Mac/PC in his bedroom while Dad surfs on the big screen flat panel in the den simultaneously.

MediaCentre movie based subscription service:
People do not want to buy and store movies on hard drives it gets too expensive and the frequency of watching is not high enough to warrant storing the catalogues of movies in the same way as music at least not on local drives. Also, ripping DVDs has ethical/legal issues with the RIAA.

So why not develop a subscription based model that is part Netflix, part DVDpedia (a cataloging software program) and have a monthly fee for movies that gives total access to Movie collections from all the major studios, but in a slick interface like a media centre. I believe this is coming Already there are movie rental clues on the iPhone & iTouch that have been uncovered. I know there are bandwidth issues to overcome, but perhaps one could choose their movies ahead of time and have the downloaded while at work etc.

The movies could stay on your local drive for a month, two months, or longer... and iPod versions of those Disney flicks could be synced for that road trip to Florida. Also, Canadians, or any other countries would likely have less hurdles because rental or subscription based models do not have the same restrictions TV shows may be another issue, however but perhaps not those already released on DVD could be available (in Canada).

Game Console link to networked Mac/PC:
I am not sure how they could pull this off, but wouldnt it be great to be able to play your Mac or PC version of Age of Empires, Need for speed, World of Warcraft, etc. through AppleTV on your large screen TV in 720/1080p even while someone else is using the same game on a Mac/PC elsewhere in the house.

I am sure the first two are on the way. The third item would be a bonus perhaps rental of games on the subscription model could work and be tied in to the MediaCentre.

AppleTV is just beginning, but I am not sure the name will remain the same. I think it will be so much more.

Oh, I don't know about that. The HD content would take up quite a bit of space so I would have to burn a copy to DVD. I could store them on an external HD but that and the wires look geeky and cluttered so I hide away my external HD. A 40GB Playstation 3 goes for $399, does HD, has wi-fi, comes with Spider-Man 3 plus 5 more HD movies. Now that is sweet even though I really don't do games.

I think you mean the iTunes store content is missing HDTV. The aTV does output 720p.

There are some major dealbreakers with the aTV. Only supporting HDTVs (yet only 720 and not 1080) but only selling SD content. Surround sound is a HUGE one, that will kill it for most people right off the bat. No streaming internet radio?? Even the airport does that for cheaper. Why can't you buy content from the TV?

Price is too high for what it does. If an iPod can play video for $149, they should be able to leverage that same hardware, just add a small hard drive and wifi.

I don't think it needs a DVD player (especially with DVD on the way out and two competing HD formats with no clear winner) or DVR, I'd much rather see them just drop the price and keep those out. Especially when handbrake and eyeTV are easy to use and well integrated with aTV.

And while apple would hate to support it, they'd sell way more of these boxes if they could play streaming video from other sources, such as the NBC and other network programming with ads. Those will get more and more traffic, but a way to play them on a TV instead of a computer screen would help the networks and aTV sales.

A rental plan similar in price and functionality to Netflix could give a huge boost to aTV sales as well.


While I think there are quite a few pointless mac bashing stories that are worth ignoring, I have to agree with this one. Does anyone really dispute that aTV hasn't sold well and so far has been a missed opportunity for apple?

I think right now the only thing working in apple's favor is that nobody else has really shipped a box that's a better alternative for watching internet video on a TV screen. Is there anything else out there that is selling better than aTV?


So have you figured out a solution to ripping DVDs with 5.1 surround and playing that back on your aTV? Or are you just watching your movies on a big HD screen but only stereo (or Pro Logic, which is just decoded from stereo and not discrete surround)?

My late two cents. Mimicking most other post here.

TV Needs

• HD content from iTunes!!
• DVD Drive. (option)
• DVR capability (two tuner)
• Ability to stand on its own. (DL content)
• If it has the ability to play YouTube, then it should be able to play any internet content.

Apple, its not that hard! And from all these post, it appears we are willing to pay for it.

You don't know which of us own one, unless it was stated. I do have one, but don't use it much.

The problem is that Apple always wants to do things its way. sometimes that doesn't work out so well.

If it's so great that so many people you know bought one, then more people overall should have bought one, from word of mouth. That clearly hasn't happened.

Apple needs more content. And, by the way, ripping DVD's isn't legal. If that's why you think it's so great, then you can understand why most people, who, by the way do NOT rip DVD's, don't think so.

touche. But I know that for myself. If iTunes gets 720p content at MacWorld, I'll be far less likely to plop any money down on a BluRay or HD-DVD player.

We understand what it's not.

What we're saying, is that it should be.

It's partly a pox on Apple too. While Apple is required to have some form of DRM, it's also Apple that decided to make their own and to license it.

As far as nobody buying them goes. There's two major reasons for that that I can see.

1. Only works on HD TVs, like it or not, there's still a huge majority of people with CRTs.
2. No HD content.

It's illegal to eat chicken with a fork in Gainesville, GA ( Link ), that doesn't mean it can be enforced.

RIAA is not breaking down doors of people who use handbrake; P2P - now that's a different story

Yes, Apple does need more content. but that does not make AppleTV a failure.

Agreed it needs HD and stand alone store. But it absolutely does not need a DVD drive, that's old school thinking. That's not the way forward. And it doesn't need a DVR either, nor will it ever have one.

I think it could benefit from a click wheel remote though!

Because apple doesn't have to send the data real time. Speed depends on the user's connection, but I think if people are willing to wait 3+ days for Netflix to arrive in the mail, they'd be willing to start an HD video download early. Particularly if iTunes does a good job of informing what the estimated download time is and makes that obvious to the user before they buy.


But oddly enough, without 5.1 surround sound (which has been around for what, 10 years or more) and 1080i or p, it's a product of the PAST. That's part of apple's problem. They could get away with a "product of the future" if it was consistently that. Right now, it's too advanced for some users while not advanced enough for others - instead of making something that would appeal to one segment of the marketplace, they ended up with something that doesn't fully cater to any part of it.


But the real question is are people watching it? For free programs on demand, people may be willing to forgive the commercials and expiring content.

It can't be easily enforced against individuals, but Apple can't promote that as a feature, who could easily be prosecuted for incitement of infringement if they promote it as a use for AppleTV.


Wrong organization.

But there is 1080p content available. Why would you say otherwise?

I haven't bought one, but depending on how things shake out over the next 6 months or so (Macworld announcements, etc) its still a might do.
I've owned a Slimserve Squeezebox2 for a couple of years, and have essentially stopped using it. Wireless is 'iffy' and I can't hard-wire. I'm the only one in the household who can (often with 20 minutes of futzing) get it working properly, and at that its still an inferior interface experience on just about every level to the AppleTV.
It does internet radio, which is nice sometimes, but not what I live for.

Apple TV gives me...
- 160 GB local storage
- 802.11n
- seamless integration with an interface that everyone in the family knows well
- Access to video
- plenty of potential, even in its current form.


My only restraint is that at this point in the product cycle, I'm anticipating some sort of move on Apple's part fairly soon. iPhone has sucked up the oxygen in '07. We'll see what '08 brings.

As an aside, I think that DVR may not always bee the panacea everyone seems to think.
I have Comcast DVR and while looking forward to the Tivo software if it ever comes, my whole family is firmly addicted to it.
But looking at the deals Tivo is cutting with the networks (reporting your viewing habits by the second) I think we're going to be seeing some changes.
Primarily, I'm willing to bet that commercial skipping will be a fond memory within a couple of years. Tivo, struggling to stay alive, agrees to honor a no-skip signal embedded in the commercials, and the feature is history.

Tried skipping through trailers on a CD recently?

Nevermind, I was being a smart-alek. I appologize.

As others have pointed out, Apple TV failed because it did not target home theater enthusiasts. When it comes to home theater, it is these enthusiasts that drive the majority adoption. HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray format war has opened up huge opportunity for Apple. Sadly, Apple ignored home theater enthusiasts by omitting HD contents, 1080p capability, built-in multi-channel audio, subtitles, video rental, and support for additional codecs. While 400,000 Apple fanboys are not insignificant, Apple TV could've been huge.

The aTV does support 1080i and 720p... but you're right about the 5.1 deal.... when I handbrake'd my DVD's I encoded them as h.264 mv4's with discrete channels from the 5.1 source... even though aTV only supports Dolby II, my hope is that it will eventually support true 5.1 in the future... since their preferred format (mv4) supports discrete audio channels...

==fingers crossed==

An Apple DVD/DVR with iTunes would be a great product. Who here wouldn't mind owning an Apple DVD player? If it had Blue-Ray, I'd be in line for it on release day.

In June, "NOW" had NBC shows- hello??? Apple has less now than it had then!!! Are you clueless??

What has been released in 1080p? Doing a quick search in google, I'm not even sure where I'd find any.

Satellite and cable companies are limited as to bandwidth. Internet providers are not. They can easily get more. It costs $500 million to send up another satellite, similar heavy costs to increase cable bandwidth. Much cheaper for the internet.

1) The most flexible DRM I've seen (can you even rip to CD with other DRMs?
2) and they were supposed to do what then? Not get the biggest concessions from the labels ANYONE to that point was able to get? Not provide any content other than your own collection.

People will eat Soylent Green if that's all that's offered.

And how do you know this? You don't. You hope it's true.

People have been watching Tv with commercials for 50 years without being able to skip except by leaving the room. It's amazing what people will accept if it's free.

And ripping is a pain. It takes so long and so much room on the hard drive. I ripped 2 movies for my kid's iPod nano and I said that's it, no more, watch it on DVD or don't watch it.

That wouldn't have helped. If you want an "adoption" you need to target the masses like the iPod did. Home theater enthusiasts who are willing to plunk down thousands for a couple of B&W speakers are far from the "masses" who buy based on convenience and affordability.

I can't see an internet provider streaming 1080P uncompressed to all the households in NYC. I don't think it's technically possible and even if it were it would be financially inviable. Who's going to pay for all this extra bandwidth that the internet can magically make appear?

What everyone wants is to view their content in peace.

jobs should let them try it their way. If it then fails, then fine, they tried, and it didn't work.

But, if somehow it did work, then Jobs would be wrong. The consumer will have spoken either way.

Either way, Apple wins.

Apple and Microsoft provides 1080p trailers and teasers. Most Blu-Ray and HD DVD movies are 1080p.