Even if and when the $99 device is out you will still be able to sell your ATV's more for then $99. People use them as webservers and other items and those uses will not be devalued by the new A4 based ATV.
Hmmm good point I guess... its got a SATA connection and a WIFI cardslot and USB even thi the ATV-OS (stripped down OS X) doesn't utilize it, it works and you can boot from it as any self respecting ATV hacker can attest to...
Yea okay, the ATV has more utility given the proper retrofitting of the boot drive.
Yes, but not all tech companies demonstrate wanton disregard for IP law, or have the opportunity of sitting on the board of companies they hope to steal ideas from.
Right, because Apple never gets sued for violating patents.
Earlier this week, this site had an article on 2 Apple patents that "borrowed" ideas from other companies: 1) Amazon's Whispersync utilized in the Kindle and 2) Song tagging already available in the Microsoft Zune (think some car stereos have it as well).
Please get off the high horse when it comes to Apple. They are just as apt to borrow/steal another company's idea as Google, Microsoft, etc.
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.
Why would anyone assume it would just be another iTunes portal though? Would Apple really miss an opportunity to include an App Store? And what of the rumored iTunes subscription service?
I hope this is also accompanied by an Home Server with at least 3x 3.5" drive bays running ARM and iPhone OS with a local Cocoa app access or WebKit-based UI. I think this would be a popular product as integrated home storage is a growing desire.
That would be nice.
Quote:
I hope that they use the TV's Take 3 UI, not the iPad's UI, for for this device. I also hope they have deals inked this time. I can't imagine they'd get it wrong the second time now that the platform has truly evolved into a specific direction and the tech is there to satisfy Apple's needs. Oh how things have changed in 3 years.
Content will come if you have the user base to make it attractive to do so...with millions of iPhone and iPad eyeballs an TV based on the same ecosystem will get content anyway...sales will be more dependent on what else it can do besides show content.
I have BD and Dish. That pretty much covers my media needs well without much hassle or even cost. I don't really need or want internet streaming in yet another device.
But a $99 TV that can also play my scads of iPhone/iPad games at 720p on my HDTV? Yeah, I'd buy that even if it required me to have an iPhone/iPod Touch or iPad as a controller for many of the titles...since I already have one anyway.
Personally, I think $99 is a bit of a stretch given the Nano is $149 for 8GB. $149 for what is essentially an iPod Touch without screen sounds more likely.
Why would anyone assume it would just be another iTunes portal though? Would Apple really miss an opportunity to include an App Store? And what of the rumored iTunes subscription service?
I am not saying he's right. Just that his point is not wrong. It may not be another iTunes portal (or at least we all hope it won't be). But if it is, then Cory Bauer may not be wrong. Who's going to buy a box that won't let them get rid of their cable box?
That's the thing. For Apple to add any value in this game they have to deliver both a device and a service that let's you ditch your existing setup.
Google on the other hand is taking an incremental approach. They are bringing the internet to the TV. You still have the cable companies however. And over time, they'll probably help the cable cos. to migrate to IPTV and use Google TV spec'd boxes to deliver something akin to an iTunes streaming type of service.
Unless Apple plans on selling boxes through the telcos and imitating Google's approach, they have to go for broke and simply cut out the Cable/Satellite Cos. (for TV anyway). They've got about 2 years to do it, before the Google TV OS starts becoming standard across all the box makers and TiVo starts being replaced by Google TV boxes bought at Best Buy or rented from the local cable/satellite co.
Right, because Apple never gets sued for violating patents.
Earlier this week, this site had an article on 2 Apple patents that "borrowed" ideas from other companies: 1) Amazon's Whispersync utilized in the Kindle and 2) Song tagging already available in the Microsoft Zune (think some car stereos have it as well).
Please get off the high horse when it comes to Apple. They are just as apt to borrow/steal another company's idea as Google, Microsoft, etc.
Perhaps you'd like to ignore the illegal Google Books program? And Schmidt's seat on Apple's board, where he obviously had direct, insider access to Apple plans? It's entirely relevant to bring these issues up as they represent a corporate disregard for right and wrong orders of magnitude more serious than the "patent squabbles" most companies get involved in. Just because it's uncomfortable to hear doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, nor is it "BS". (And we haven't even touched on any of Google's other illegal activities.)
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.
I'm saying he *may* be wrong, because 100 bucks is basically nothing nowadays relative to the intended market.
Apple doesn't keep products on sale that lose money or don't make money and they haven't ever broken out AppleTV sales, so all the stuff you hear about how "unpopular" AppleTV is really just wild speculation. Everyone I know that has an AppleTV and everyone I have ever seen post about it here or on any other forum enjoys it, and finds it both useful and a "good deal."
Despite the often heard "tech wisdom" from those that don't even own one that they "suck," you don't see hordes of folks who bought them, posting to forums about how crappy they are or anything like that. Mostly it's like the MacBook Air in that all those that don't own one, make fun of them, forcing the people who actually bought one, to come to the forum to defend them. People generally like MacBook Air's and AppleTV's. Customer satisfaction is quite high on the products. The tech blogs are just filled with folks that give them unrealistic slanted reviews based on nothing more than smugness and some kind of misguided tech elitism.
If the next model does nothing more than reduce the price to a hundred bucks then it will be one third the price of the current model. Changing nothing and reducing the price by 60% is not a "tough sell" by any stretch of the imagination.
Anything they *add* to the feature set on top of that is gravy.
Very insightful. And yes, Nintendo should be worried.
Yes, I have a Wii and frankly it's gathering dust except when we have parties. I'm more likely to buy 5 $4.99-$9.99 games for my iPhone before I pony up $50 for a Wii title...
This doesn't make sense. iPhone OS is designed for a touchscreen, TVs are clearly not touchscreens. I call bullshit.
Another way to look at it is that iPhone OS is simply a slimmed down version of Mac OS X, designed to run on ARM processors. The UI/event layer (i.e., CocoaTouch) is easily replaceable with another.
I live in a Country that gets me 1000Mbps FTTH for less then $30.
So yes, Local Streaming of Blu-Ray will work here.
I don't know about US though...... 3Mbps just simply wont do 1080P. ( At least in Decent quality )
What's interesting though is that in many places where FTTH or some similar service is being rolled out (say FTTC), cable cos are bundling TV with internet to subscribe to the service. In Canada, Bell has started rolling out its Bell Entertainment Service, an IPTV service. It's a cable service which comes with internet. You can't get just internet without cable. If that's the case, Apple has to either cut a deal with cable cos. to sell its box through them or watch as companies like Bell slowly migrate to Google TV boxes as they look for boxes with a better UI.
Fair enough, I didn't go back far enough to see what your purchasing intentions were, but the iPad is selling like hotcakes. I do suspect things like printing support will come though.
The point of that thread is there are a handful of software-based limitations of the iPad that severely limit its potential market; how well its currently selling within its limited market is rather irrelevant, as eventually sales will level off unless Apple addresses said software limitations. Multitasking is on the way, and like you said printing will probably come too.
What's interesting though is that in many places where FTTH or some similar service is being rolled out (say FTTC), cable cos are bundling TV with internet to subscribe to the service. In Canada, Bell has started rolling out its Bell Entertainment Service, an IPTV service. It's a cable service which comes with internet. You can't get just internet without cable. If that's the case, Apple has to either cut a deal with cable cos. to sell its box through them or watch as companies like Bell slowly migrate to Google TV boxes as they look for boxes with a better UI.
Keep in mind that cable cos. aren't going to simply let Apple make them irrelevant (and kill half their business) in one go.
Comcast, the largest cable provider in the US, allows internet w/o tv. actually, you need to get at least two of their three services - phone, internet and television. i have phone and internet for $55 a month. and an antenna on my roof for free HD tv.
Omg, finally. I will use apps like Airvideo which can stream about any file format from my netdrives, so you will be able to bypass itunes and its strict file format.
And Iphone OS means its also a game console, an internet browser and the possibility to subscribe from something else than itunes.
I'm saying he *may* be wrong, because 100 bucks is basically nothing nowadays relative to the intended market.
Apple doesn't keep products on sale that lose money or don't make money and they haven't ever broken out AppleTV sales, so all the stuff you hear about how "unpopular" AppleTV is really just wild speculation. Everyone I know that has an AppleTV and everyone I have ever seen post about it here or on any other forum enjoys it, and finds it both useful and a "good deal."
Despite the often heard "tech wisdom" from those that don't even own one that they "suck," you don't see hordes of folks who bought them, posting to forums about how crappy they are or anything like that. Mostly it's like the MacBook Air in that all those that don't own one, make fun of them, forcing the people who actually bought one, to come to the forum to defend them. People generally like MacBook Air's and AppleTV's. Customer satisfaction is quite high on the products. The tech blogs are just filled with folks that give them unrealistic slanted reviews based on nothing more than smugness and some kind of misguided tech elitism.
If the next model does nothing more than reduce the price to a hundred bucks then it will be one third the price of the current model. Changing nothing and reducing the price by 60% is not a "tough sell" by any stretch of the imagination.
Anything they *add* to the feature set on top of that is gravy.
Sure. Everybody that has one at the moment is happy. I am sure they are. It's an Apple product after all. However, that does not necessarily translate into mass appeal, which is what I think Corey was getting at. The current Apple TV is great but hardly a resounding sales success for Apple (hence why they call it a "hobby"). Nobody has disputed the quality of the current platform itself. He never said, "Apple TV sucks." He merely said that if it remains an iTunes portal, it won't sell well, even if it's $100. And really, is it that hard to comprehend this point?
You may like iTunes. But let's face it, the vast, vast majority of people out there aren't going to give up their cable box for an iTunes solution unless its as easy to use, as easy to understand (pricing structure wise), and can access the same content, in the same timely manner as a cable box.
Just keep in mind that would be a subsidized price with a two year contract.
$99 isn't out of the realm of possibility... Dropping the A4 into a pin package that is cheaper to mount for non-mobile devices, dropping the battery/touchscreen/mic/camera/speakers/etc... Basically just an A4, flash, power conversion, DisplayPort, and Wifi.... Hmmmm. They probably don't even need to include IR and a remote... You can just load a remote app on your iPod/iPhone/iPad.
Ok, sign me up. Well, put a HD camera back in for video conferencing...
Oh ok, forgot about the plan. Out of curiosity, if you wanted to buy an iPone 3Gs at Walmart to use as an iPod (just for example) what would they charge, i.e. without a plan?
I think you are right about Apple being able to make a stripped down one for retailing at $99. They also get a scaling up of the use of the same components which no doubts reduces costs across the board.
Comcast, the largest cable provider in the US, allows internet w/o tv. actually, you need to get at least two of their three services - phone, internet and television. i have phone and internet for $55 a month. and an antenna on my roof for free HD tv.
Same in Canada. But that's not for services like BES where they are installing fibre. That's my point. You can Bell ExpressVu which is satellite or Rogers cable and not subscribe to Bell DSL or Rogers cable internet. However, when it comes to services like fibre they seem to be going to an all or nothing package. You want the speeds that come with fibre? Then you get the IPTV service too.
Is Comcast fibre or is it just conventional satellite/cable?
I have been holding off on an Apple TV waiting for a refresh so I welcome this. At $99 dollars I can forgive it for whatever it can't do. I assume there will be a list of things it can't do (flash Hulu) compared to a more expensive Mac Mini home theatre.
As far as 1080 vs 720, I have Fios which broadcasts in 720 and a Blu Ray player for the 1080 and both look great to my bifocal clad eyes. I like older movies anyway and HD shows the grain.
I really like the concept of streaming instead of buying. Keep all movies and TV shows up in the cloud and let me pay as I go, or subscribe.
Looks like a winner if the content providers are happy and have their assurances met regarding piracy protection. But Apple needs to advertise this product. Most people I know are not even aware of the existence of the Apple TV.
Comments
Even if and when the $99 device is out you will still be able to sell your ATV's more for then $99. People use them as webservers and other items and those uses will not be devalued by the new A4 based ATV.
Hmmm good point I guess... its got a SATA connection and a WIFI cardslot and USB even thi the ATV-OS (stripped down OS X) doesn't utilize it, it works and you can boot from it as any self respecting ATV hacker can attest to...
Yea okay, the ATV has more utility given the proper retrofitting of the boot drive.
Yes, but not all tech companies demonstrate wanton disregard for IP law, or have the opportunity of sitting on the board of companies they hope to steal ideas from.
Right, because Apple never gets sued for violating patents.
Earlier this week, this site had an article on 2 Apple patents that "borrowed" ideas from other companies: 1) Amazon's Whispersync utilized in the Kindle and 2) Song tagging already available in the Microsoft Zune (think some car stereos have it as well).
Please get off the high horse when it comes to Apple. They are just as apt to borrow/steal another company's idea as Google, Microsoft, etc.
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.
Why would anyone assume it would just be another iTunes portal though? Would Apple really miss an opportunity to include an App Store? And what of the rumored iTunes subscription service?
So yes, Local Streaming of Blu-Ray will work here.
I don't know about US though...... 3Mbps just simply wont do 1080P. ( At least in Decent quality )
I hope this is also accompanied by an Home Server with at least 3x 3.5" drive bays running ARM and iPhone OS with a local Cocoa app access or WebKit-based UI. I think this would be a popular product as integrated home storage is a growing desire.
That would be nice.
I hope that they use the TV's Take 3 UI, not the iPad's UI, for for this device. I also hope they have deals inked this time. I can't imagine they'd get it wrong the second time now that the platform has truly evolved into a specific direction and the tech is there to satisfy Apple's needs. Oh how things have changed in 3 years.
Content will come if you have the user base to make it attractive to do so...with millions of iPhone and iPad eyeballs an TV based on the same ecosystem will get content anyway...sales will be more dependent on what else it can do besides show content.
I have BD and Dish. That pretty much covers my media needs well without much hassle or even cost. I don't really need or want internet streaming in yet another device.
But a $99 TV that can also play my scads of iPhone/iPad games at 720p on my HDTV? Yeah, I'd buy that even if it required me to have an iPhone/iPod Touch or iPad as a controller for many of the titles...since I already have one anyway.
Personally, I think $99 is a bit of a stretch given the Nano is $149 for 8GB. $149 for what is essentially an iPod Touch without screen sounds more likely.
Why would anyone assume it would just be another iTunes portal though? Would Apple really miss an opportunity to include an App Store? And what of the rumored iTunes subscription service?
I am not saying he's right. Just that his point is not wrong. It may not be another iTunes portal (or at least we all hope it won't be). But if it is, then Cory Bauer may not be wrong. Who's going to buy a box that won't let them get rid of their cable box?
That's the thing. For Apple to add any value in this game they have to deliver both a device and a service that let's you ditch your existing setup.
Google on the other hand is taking an incremental approach. They are bringing the internet to the TV. You still have the cable companies however. And over time, they'll probably help the cable cos. to migrate to IPTV and use Google TV spec'd boxes to deliver something akin to an iTunes streaming type of service.
Unless Apple plans on selling boxes through the telcos and imitating Google's approach, they have to go for broke and simply cut out the Cable/Satellite Cos. (for TV anyway). They've got about 2 years to do it, before the Google TV OS starts becoming standard across all the box makers and TiVo starts being replaced by Google TV boxes bought at Best Buy or rented from the local cable/satellite co.
Right, because Apple never gets sued for violating patents.
Earlier this week, this site had an article on 2 Apple patents that "borrowed" ideas from other companies: 1) Amazon's Whispersync utilized in the Kindle and 2) Song tagging already available in the Microsoft Zune (think some car stereos have it as well).
Please get off the high horse when it comes to Apple. They are just as apt to borrow/steal another company's idea as Google, Microsoft, etc.
Perhaps you'd like to ignore the illegal Google Books program? And Schmidt's seat on Apple's board, where he obviously had direct, insider access to Apple plans? It's entirely relevant to bring these issues up as they represent a corporate disregard for right and wrong orders of magnitude more serious than the "patent squabbles" most companies get involved in. Just because it's uncomfortable to hear doesn't mean it shouldn't be said, nor is it "BS". (And we haven't even touched on any of Google's other illegal activities.)
Why is he wrong? Apple TV is basically an iTunes portal today and it's not selling spectacularly. He's totally right. If it's just another iTunes portal, it's going to be tough sell even if it's $99.
Say what you will but conventional cable is deady easy to use and consumers like the idea of a flat price for a bunch of channels. Paying for individual shows is not going to have mass market appeal over conventional TV.
I'm saying he *may* be wrong, because 100 bucks is basically nothing nowadays relative to the intended market.
Apple doesn't keep products on sale that lose money or don't make money and they haven't ever broken out AppleTV sales, so all the stuff you hear about how "unpopular" AppleTV is really just wild speculation. Everyone I know that has an AppleTV and everyone I have ever seen post about it here or on any other forum enjoys it, and finds it both useful and a "good deal."
Despite the often heard "tech wisdom" from those that don't even own one that they "suck," you don't see hordes of folks who bought them, posting to forums about how crappy they are or anything like that. Mostly it's like the MacBook Air in that all those that don't own one, make fun of them, forcing the people who actually bought one, to come to the forum to defend them. People generally like MacBook Air's and AppleTV's. Customer satisfaction is quite high on the products. The tech blogs are just filled with folks that give them unrealistic slanted reviews based on nothing more than smugness and some kind of misguided tech elitism.
If the next model does nothing more than reduce the price to a hundred bucks then it will be one third the price of the current model. Changing nothing and reducing the price by 60% is not a "tough sell" by any stretch of the imagination.
Anything they *add* to the feature set on top of that is gravy.
Very insightful. And yes, Nintendo should be worried.
Yes, I have a Wii and frankly it's gathering dust except when we have parties. I'm more likely to buy 5 $4.99-$9.99 games for my iPhone before I pony up $50 for a Wii title...
That would be nice.
Content will come if you have the user base to make it attractive to do so....
not if google v. viacom is any indication. a guaranteed $500 million couldn't buy google/youtube the content it wanted.
content owners are *very* wary of Apple at the moment, and have been since the inception of the iTunes Music Store.
This doesn't make sense. iPhone OS is designed for a touchscreen, TVs are clearly not touchscreens. I call bullshit.
Another way to look at it is that iPhone OS is simply a slimmed down version of Mac OS X, designed to run on ARM processors. The UI/event layer (i.e., CocoaTouch) is easily replaceable with another.
I live in a Country that gets me 1000Mbps FTTH for less then $30.
So yes, Local Streaming of Blu-Ray will work here.
I don't know about US though...... 3Mbps just simply wont do 1080P. ( At least in Decent quality )
What's interesting though is that in many places where FTTH or some similar service is being rolled out (say FTTC), cable cos are bundling TV with internet to subscribe to the service. In Canada, Bell has started rolling out its Bell Entertainment Service, an IPTV service. It's a cable service which comes with internet. You can't get just internet without cable. If that's the case, Apple has to either cut a deal with cable cos. to sell its box through them or watch as companies like Bell slowly migrate to Google TV boxes as they look for boxes with a better UI.
http://entertainment.bell.ca/en/package.html
Keep in mind that cable cos. aren't going to simply let Apple make them irrelevant (and kill half their business) in one go.
Ouch.
+1
Fair enough, I didn't go back far enough to see what your purchasing intentions were, but the iPad is selling like hotcakes. I do suspect things like printing support will come though.
The point of that thread is there are a handful of software-based limitations of the iPad that severely limit its potential market; how well its currently selling within its limited market is rather irrelevant, as eventually sales will level off unless Apple addresses said software limitations. Multitasking is on the way, and like you said printing will probably come too.
What's interesting though is that in many places where FTTH or some similar service is being rolled out (say FTTC), cable cos are bundling TV with internet to subscribe to the service. In Canada, Bell has started rolling out its Bell Entertainment Service, an IPTV service. It's a cable service which comes with internet. You can't get just internet without cable. If that's the case, Apple has to either cut a deal with cable cos. to sell its box through them or watch as companies like Bell slowly migrate to Google TV boxes as they look for boxes with a better UI.
http://entertainment.bell.ca/en/package.html
Keep in mind that cable cos. aren't going to simply let Apple make them irrelevant (and kill half their business) in one go.
Comcast, the largest cable provider in the US, allows internet w/o tv. actually, you need to get at least two of their three services - phone, internet and television. i have phone and internet for $55 a month. and an antenna on my roof for free HD tv.
And Iphone OS means its also a game console, an internet browser and the possibility to subscribe from something else than itunes.
99$, sold big time, for all my TV?s
I'm saying he *may* be wrong, because 100 bucks is basically nothing nowadays relative to the intended market.
Apple doesn't keep products on sale that lose money or don't make money and they haven't ever broken out AppleTV sales, so all the stuff you hear about how "unpopular" AppleTV is really just wild speculation. Everyone I know that has an AppleTV and everyone I have ever seen post about it here or on any other forum enjoys it, and finds it both useful and a "good deal."
Despite the often heard "tech wisdom" from those that don't even own one that they "suck," you don't see hordes of folks who bought them, posting to forums about how crappy they are or anything like that. Mostly it's like the MacBook Air in that all those that don't own one, make fun of them, forcing the people who actually bought one, to come to the forum to defend them. People generally like MacBook Air's and AppleTV's. Customer satisfaction is quite high on the products. The tech blogs are just filled with folks that give them unrealistic slanted reviews based on nothing more than smugness and some kind of misguided tech elitism.
If the next model does nothing more than reduce the price to a hundred bucks then it will be one third the price of the current model. Changing nothing and reducing the price by 60% is not a "tough sell" by any stretch of the imagination.
Anything they *add* to the feature set on top of that is gravy.
Sure. Everybody that has one at the moment is happy. I am sure they are. It's an Apple product after all. However, that does not necessarily translate into mass appeal, which is what I think Corey was getting at. The current Apple TV is great but hardly a resounding sales success for Apple (hence why they call it a "hobby"). Nobody has disputed the quality of the current platform itself. He never said, "Apple TV sucks." He merely said that if it remains an iTunes portal, it won't sell well, even if it's $100. And really, is it that hard to comprehend this point?
You may like iTunes. But let's face it, the vast, vast majority of people out there aren't going to give up their cable box for an iTunes solution unless its as easy to use, as easy to understand (pricing structure wise), and can access the same content, in the same timely manner as a cable box.
Just keep in mind that would be a subsidized price with a two year contract.
$99 isn't out of the realm of possibility... Dropping the A4 into a pin package that is cheaper to mount for non-mobile devices, dropping the battery/touchscreen/mic/camera/speakers/etc... Basically just an A4, flash, power conversion, DisplayPort, and Wifi.... Hmmmm. They probably don't even need to include IR and a remote... You can just load a remote app on your iPod/iPhone/iPad.
Ok, sign me up. Well, put a HD camera back in for video conferencing...
Oh ok, forgot about the plan. Out of curiosity, if you wanted to buy an iPone 3Gs at Walmart to use as an iPod (just for example) what would they charge, i.e. without a plan?
I think you are right about Apple being able to make a stripped down one for retailing at $99. They also get a scaling up of the use of the same components which no doubts reduces costs across the board.
Comcast, the largest cable provider in the US, allows internet w/o tv. actually, you need to get at least two of their three services - phone, internet and television. i have phone and internet for $55 a month. and an antenna on my roof for free HD tv.
Same in Canada. But that's not for services like BES where they are installing fibre. That's my point. You can Bell ExpressVu which is satellite or Rogers cable and not subscribe to Bell DSL or Rogers cable internet. However, when it comes to services like fibre they seem to be going to an all or nothing package. You want the speeds that come with fibre? Then you get the IPTV service too.
Is Comcast fibre or is it just conventional satellite/cable?
As far as 1080 vs 720, I have Fios which broadcasts in 720 and a Blu Ray player for the 1080 and both look great to my bifocal clad eyes. I like older movies anyway and HD shows the grain.
I really like the concept of streaming instead of buying. Keep all movies and TV shows up in the cloud and let me pay as I go, or subscribe.
Looks like a winner if the content providers are happy and have their assurances met regarding piracy protection. But Apple needs to advertise this product. Most people I know are not even aware of the existence of the Apple TV.