Whatever Apple does with their TV thing, all I ask is they (1) make the networking "just work", and (2) get iTunes sync working again.
<rant>
Apple, please. AppleTV networking has earned a special place in computing hell, not far from Windows ME. Good thing AppleTV has been a "hobby" because it would've been a disaster in the mainstream. Apple, if you can't make it "just work" then kill it. If I wanted headaches I'd buy from Microsoft.
</rant>
All better, thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea
No networking issues here. And it is used daily for music and video.
Ditto! The AppleTV syncs fine-- we have 7 Macs and no content on our AppleTV. Everything syncs/streams from a Media Library on a Mini. Once every 3 months, or so, the Mini, AirPort Extreme or AppleTV needs reboot-- but considering the stuff that's going on, number of updates, etc. it is quite acceptable.
I'm sure that solution would work fine. It does today with the Apple TV but the trouble is as successful as these devices not everyone who would buy an iTV would have an iPad, iPod Touch or iPhone. If Apple is going this route they definitely needs to create a remote that ships with the iTV so that everyone has the same access and interface.
yes, Apple may continue its current ATV remote with the option for iTV to run in the current "classic" ATV mode with it. but pairing it with all the other iOS devices for new apps/features would be a great business strategy. current iOS device owners would be much more likely to buy an iTV. and many people would want to buy both.
4A) Rentals. Apple's trying to compete with cable Video on demand when the industry norm now is kiosks. Do you really expect anyone to ditch their DVD or Blu-Ray player when Red Box and the like are charging $1 for 24hr DVD rentals and $1.50 for Blu-Ray when Apple's charging $4 for SD and $5 for HD? Movie rentals are not a Macbook. Users aren't going to pay twice as much here for the Apple logo.
When you factor in the cost of making 2 trips, gas, late return charges, and the inconvenience of must watch or additional charges-- the cost of on-demand when you are ready to watch is quite competitive!
Look for AppleTV, now iTV to be physically integrated with TV's.
you might be right. Apple could finally "partner" with selected TV OEM's to build iTV into the set. with a FaceTime camera too. who doesn't Apple compete with? maybe Panasonic ...
"Multimedia entertainment and network device for recording, archiving, playback, streaming, broadcasting, and controlling all forms of media, namely, digital entertainment system for watching, storing, and sharing digital content on a computer network; electrical controllers for security, lighting, heating, air conditioning, appliances, phones, and irrigation; electrical power conditioners, amplifiers, voltage stabilizers, current stabilizers, electrical surge protectors"
dropping 1080p goes against Apple's philosophy of providing newer, better technologies.
plus, the people that would want an iTV are people with extra money and those people have larger screens and would appreciate the higher quality.
Apple again, driving towards the low end.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Sorry to jump on you, but to my knowledge, the AppleTV is the ONLY home entertainment device(if you don't include iPod) That Apple has made.
If you do include the iPod/iPhone, please explain to me how Apple "doesn't get it". It seems to me that their income/market-share prove just the opposite. Maybe it's the hardcore audio/video-philes who don't get it. Sorry but you're not the majority. If you don't like it, buy something else that's not a $99 device.
When you factor in the cost of making 2 trips, gas, late return charges, and the inconvenience of must watch or additional charges-- the cost of on-demand when you are ready to watch is quite competitive!
.
My local video store is a 8 minute return walk, I would far rather go for the walk and get quality product than watch the poor quality downloads.
As for 1080p most consumers can't even tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and an upscaled DVD.
As it is now only small percentage of HDTV owners have 1080p. And even if Apple were to sell 1080p it wouldn't be true 1080p like Blu-Ray because of the massive size of the files.
I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p using my 56" LED DLP TV ($1,400 3 years ago) from about 12 feet. Even when 720p signals are upconverted to 1080p, I can still notice a fairly distinct difference compared to native 1080p. Detail in hair, clothes, fabric patterns, facial details and certainly high-contrast text. However, I will say that I'd happily buy iTunes 720p videos with Apple TV's upconversion to 1080p -- somehow it looks excellent. iTV limited to 720 would be a problem that likely would prevent me from buying.
Upconverted DVDs? I have an HD-DVD, BluRay and a Toshiba upconverting DVD player all with 1080p upconversion and they all look worse than a native 720p signal and garbage next to 1080p.
I don't have official statistics, but it seems to me that most HDTVs sold today, particularly above 40", support 1080i/p. Sure, there are exceptions, but thinking about my 9 neighbors not one has a 720p set (all 1080). LOL, one has a 1080p 32" set in the den -- OMG that looks fantastic.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Blu-ray is the best option available for watching movies at home on a big screen. That doesn't mean another optical standard makes sense for a PC, especially Apple's PCs which mostly use 9.5mm drives that cost $500+ for the upgrade according to Dell, HP and Sony's site last time I checked.
But that isn't the first issue that needs tackling. That goes to Apple's lack of interest in adding AACS to Mac OS X so you actually play protected Blu-ray movies. If they aren't even offering that software upgrade for AACS then it's pointless to for anyone to even consider BRDs from Apple.
As for the AppleTV, I don't want to have two Blu-ray players on my HDTV or a really expensive AppleTV just to get the network streaking capabilities. Ir would be waste as many now have BRD players at home and would hurt overall sales if that was the only option.
The fact of the matter is Apple is eliminating optical drives. They are slow, noisy, take up a lot space, have a lot of moving parts, use a lot of power and hold very little data for the size the drive take up. For a home theater it's great, and will be around a long time as the last optical media solution for consumers, but it's not the direction Apple is moving in.
There is nothing wrong with "Whatever-TV" to be able to playback both 720p for streaming, and 1080p for native content, whether internal, external drive or LAN.
Over the weekend I installed for my buddy's B-Day a small media hub like the WDLive (actually an Ellion Labo 110), a device smaller than a Mac Mini for 118,-EUR. The thing plays damn near everything you can throw at it (incl. 1080p!), through USB Stick, SD card, Network/LAN, USB Hard drive, even his Sony camera... everything.
To say the least, I/we are quite happy with this device. The funny thing about it, was that it got me to thinking about the iPad, of which I'm a huge fan, and why it doesn't have a usable USB file/document navigation. The Labo's navigation was easy, forthright, and if it came across a doc it couldn't read, it said so. No big deal.
In this sense, I guess I have to put myself on the side of the "wish-listers" for USB/SDcard on the next iPad, which I think will be seriously interesting to see how it will eventually integrate with the "Whatever-TV".
PS: "Whatever-TV" = I could care less what they call it, it should just work and help send my AAPL stock to the stratosphere
So the Retina display was not just a nice phone feature - it's secret double purpose was to get developers converting their apps to TV resolution without knowing it.
I have a television but it has only been on twice in the last year. Mostly I watch TV shows on my Mac, so I hope whatever advances they come up with here get ported to the Mac.
The 1080P limitation may not be a limitation of the iTV box itself-- rather a limitation of the source from which the iTV is streaming.
I just looked at NetFlix streaming to my iMac 20, and my iPad-- the picture quality is great on both.
I have heard that to notice a difference between 720P and 1080P you need a screen over 50".
Our largest screen is 46" in the family room. We have 27" TVs in 2 of the bedrooms and ATT U-verse.
We also have 2 iPads.
We don't buy anything from U-verse-- just basic Internet and TV.
When NetFlix comes to iTV, I suspect we will buy 3 additional iPads so each family member has one.
The iPad is an excellent device when used as a personal TV.
We have a Mac Mini (2 2-TereByte External Drives) setup as a media server: Ripped DVDs, Ripped CDs, Photos; Home Movies, Podcasts. We can stream these to the AppleTV through iTunes. Also we can stream these to the iPads with StreamToMe.
When NetFlix comes to the iTV, we can cut back on buying and ripping DVDs to store locally-- as NetFlix fleshes out their streaming catalog, it makes more sense to stream most things. Likely, we will always have some ripped DVDs as some of titles will never come to NetFlix-- Old TV series like: Two Fat Ladies, Fractured Flickers, etc.
Last evening I was at a long soccer practice (almost 3 hours). I took my iPad 3G, and over 3G was able to watch:
1) A liveCast over Stickam-- a friend is a singer composer and has a live show every Tuesday
2) part of a NetFlix movie
3) some short (5 min or less) home movies over remote StreamToMe.
Everything worked without a hitch-- that's using the (supposedly) crummy AT&T 3G service in the East San Francisco Bay area.
So, this idea of "anything you want to watch-- wherever, whenever" is becoming practical on a personal device. You can take it with you, and it dutifully resumes where you were-- regardless that others are "viewing their own thing" at the same time.
I also see great potential for games on the iTV with satellite iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.
Say, you have Scrabble: Monopoly: Clue; Yahtzee-- where the main board is on the big screen, and each player has his own device to play his turn.
MultiPlayer action games ala Wii, should be Fun and inexpensive.
.
So basically what you're trying to say is you live in fan boy heaven....?
Get over it everyone.... 1080 is better than 720 and as far as we know apple is not going to provide the best format.... Typical apple. My xbox already does all this, better than an iTV will.
It wouldn't be the first time Apple copied another product's name.
This isn't a 'product' it's the second largest broadcaster in the UK after the BBC, with four channels under the ITV umbrella. No way the ITV name would be allowed in the UK.
So basically what you're trying to say is you live in fan boy heaven....?
Get over it everyone.... 1080 is better than 720 and as far as we know apple is not going to provide the best format.... Typical apple. My xbox already does all this, better than an iTV will.
maybe they will pitch this as being much more internet focused with streaming and such. hence go back to iTV
No, no, no!! The reason Jobs tripped over the name so frequently at the Apple TV announcement was that HE wanted it to be called iTV, Apple had assumed it could get the trademark, but had been absolutely blasted out of the water by a 50 year old trademark held by a TV broadcaster in the UK. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY ITV are going to roll over and allow Apple to steal their trademark. NO WAY! There are 4 ITV channels now, so it's not like they are a bit player. Apple obviously changed the name at the 11th hour, else Jobs would have never tripped over the name so many times. Apple is not known for using multiple names in different regions, not in recent times.
The CDMA iPhone is more likely to happen than this name change!!
Comments
Whatever Apple does with their TV thing, all I ask is they (1) make the networking "just work", and (2) get iTunes sync working again.
<rant>
Apple, please. AppleTV networking has earned a special place in computing hell, not far from Windows ME. Good thing AppleTV has been a "hobby" because it would've been a disaster in the mainstream. Apple, if you can't make it "just work" then kill it. If I wanted headaches I'd buy from Microsoft.
</rant>
All better, thank you.
No networking issues here. And it is used daily for music and video.
Ditto! The AppleTV syncs fine-- we have 7 Macs and no content on our AppleTV. Everything syncs/streams from a Media Library on a Mini. Once every 3 months, or so, the Mini, AirPort Extreme or AppleTV needs reboot-- but considering the stuff that's going on, number of updates, etc. it is quite acceptable.
.
I'm sure that solution would work fine. It does today with the Apple TV but the trouble is as successful as these devices not everyone who would buy an iTV would have an iPad, iPod Touch or iPhone. If Apple is going this route they definitely needs to create a remote that ships with the iTV so that everyone has the same access and interface.
yes, Apple may continue its current ATV remote with the option for iTV to run in the current "classic" ATV mode with it. but pairing it with all the other iOS devices for new apps/features would be a great business strategy. current iOS device owners would be much more likely to buy an iTV. and many people would want to buy both.
It'll be interesting to know what apps developers could come up for iTV.
4A) Rentals. Apple's trying to compete with cable Video on demand when the industry norm now is kiosks. Do you really expect anyone to ditch their DVD or Blu-Ray player when Red Box and the like are charging $1 for 24hr DVD rentals and $1.50 for Blu-Ray when Apple's charging $4 for SD and $5 for HD? Movie rentals are not a Macbook. Users aren't going to pay twice as much here for the Apple logo.
When you factor in the cost of making 2 trips, gas, late return charges, and the inconvenience of must watch or additional charges-- the cost of on-demand when you are ready to watch is quite competitive!
.
Look for AppleTV, now iTV to be physically integrated with TV's.
you might be right. Apple could finally "partner" with selected TV OEM's to build iTV into the set. with a FaceTime camera too. who doesn't Apple compete with? maybe Panasonic ...
ITV is not copyrighted in the United States. sorry.
Not it's not. You're right. But it is a registered trademark
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...003:otadfk.2.1
It's not in the same category but it's arguable that it's apt to confuse.
and what about this one:
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield...03:otadfk.2.17
Monster owns the trademark in respect of:
"Multimedia entertainment and network device for recording, archiving, playback, streaming, broadcasting, and controlling all forms of media, namely, digital entertainment system for watching, storing, and sharing digital content on a computer network; electrical controllers for security, lighting, heating, air conditioning, appliances, phones, and irrigation; electrical power conditioners, amplifiers, voltage stabilizers, current stabilizers, electrical surge protectors"
dropping 1080p goes against Apple's philosophy of providing newer, better technologies.
plus, the people that would want an iTV are people with extra money and those people have larger screens and would appreciate the higher quality.
Apple again, driving towards the low end.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Sorry to jump on you, but to my knowledge, the AppleTV is the ONLY home entertainment device(if you don't include iPod) That Apple has made.
If you do include the iPod/iPhone, please explain to me how Apple "doesn't get it". It seems to me that their income/market-share prove just the opposite. Maybe it's the hardcore audio/video-philes who don't get it. Sorry but you're not the majority. If you don't like it, buy something else that's not a $99 device.
When you factor in the cost of making 2 trips, gas, late return charges, and the inconvenience of must watch or additional charges-- the cost of on-demand when you are ready to watch is quite competitive!
.
My local video store is a 8 minute return walk, I would far rather go for the walk and get quality product than watch the poor quality downloads.
My local video store is a 8 minute return walk, I would far rather go for the walk and get quality product than watch the poor quality downloads.
At least we can all agree on you going for a walk.
As for 1080p most consumers can't even tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and an upscaled DVD.
As it is now only small percentage of HDTV owners have 1080p. And even if Apple were to sell 1080p it wouldn't be true 1080p like Blu-Ray because of the massive size of the files.
I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p using my 56" LED DLP TV ($1,400 3 years ago) from about 12 feet. Even when 720p signals are upconverted to 1080p, I can still notice a fairly distinct difference compared to native 1080p. Detail in hair, clothes, fabric patterns, facial details and certainly high-contrast text. However, I will say that I'd happily buy iTunes 720p videos with Apple TV's upconversion to 1080p -- somehow it looks excellent. iTV limited to 720 would be a problem that likely would prevent me from buying.
Upconverted DVDs? I have an HD-DVD, BluRay and a Toshiba upconverting DVD player all with 1080p upconversion and they all look worse than a native 720p signal and garbage next to 1080p.
I don't have official statistics, but it seems to me that most HDTVs sold today, particularly above 40", support 1080i/p. Sure, there are exceptions, but thinking about my 9 neighbors not one has a 720p set (all 1080). LOL, one has a 1080p 32" set in the den -- OMG that looks fantastic.
Yeah.. but then again Apple hasn't adopted BluRay either and it's past being newer. Apple is starting to release crap when it comes to home entertainment. They simply don't get it.
Blu-ray is the best option available for watching movies at home on a big screen. That doesn't mean another optical standard makes sense for a PC, especially Apple's PCs which mostly use 9.5mm drives that cost $500+ for the upgrade according to Dell, HP and Sony's site last time I checked.
But that isn't the first issue that needs tackling. That goes to Apple's lack of interest in adding AACS to Mac OS X so you actually play protected Blu-ray movies. If they aren't even offering that software upgrade for AACS then it's pointless to for anyone to even consider BRDs from Apple.
As for the AppleTV, I don't want to have two Blu-ray players on my HDTV or a really expensive AppleTV just to get the network streaking capabilities. Ir would be waste as many now have BRD players at home and would hurt overall sales if that was the only option.
The fact of the matter is Apple is eliminating optical drives. They are slow, noisy, take up a lot space, have a lot of moving parts, use a lot of power and hold very little data for the size the drive take up. For a home theater it's great, and will be around a long time as the last optical media solution for consumers, but it's not the direction Apple is moving in.
At least we can all agree on you going for a walk.
Wow, how long did it take you to think of that?
There is nothing wrong with "Whatever-TV" to be able to playback both 720p for streaming, and 1080p for native content, whether internal, external drive or LAN.
Over the weekend I installed for my buddy's B-Day a small media hub like the WDLive (actually an Ellion Labo 110), a device smaller than a Mac Mini for 118,-EUR. The thing plays damn near everything you can throw at it (incl. 1080p!), through USB Stick, SD card, Network/LAN, USB Hard drive, even his Sony camera... everything.
To say the least, I/we are quite happy with this device. The funny thing about it, was that it got me to thinking about the iPad, of which I'm a huge fan, and why it doesn't have a usable USB file/document navigation. The Labo's navigation was easy, forthright, and if it came across a doc it couldn't read, it said so. No big deal.
In this sense, I guess I have to put myself on the side of the "wish-listers" for USB/SDcard on the next iPad, which I think will be seriously interesting to see how it will eventually integrate with the "Whatever-TV".
PS: "Whatever-TV" = I could care less what they call it, it should just work and help send my AAPL stock to the stratosphere
I have a television but it has only been on twice in the last year. Mostly I watch TV shows on my Mac, so I hope whatever advances they come up with here get ported to the Mac.
The 1080P limitation may not be a limitation of the iTV box itself-- rather a limitation of the source from which the iTV is streaming.
I just looked at NetFlix streaming to my iMac 20, and my iPad-- the picture quality is great on both.
I have heard that to notice a difference between 720P and 1080P you need a screen over 50".
Our largest screen is 46" in the family room. We have 27" TVs in 2 of the bedrooms and ATT U-verse.
We also have 2 iPads.
We don't buy anything from U-verse-- just basic Internet and TV.
When NetFlix comes to iTV, I suspect we will buy 3 additional iPads so each family member has one.
The iPad is an excellent device when used as a personal TV.
We have a Mac Mini (2 2-TereByte External Drives) setup as a media server: Ripped DVDs, Ripped CDs, Photos; Home Movies, Podcasts. We can stream these to the AppleTV through iTunes. Also we can stream these to the iPads with StreamToMe.
When NetFlix comes to the iTV, we can cut back on buying and ripping DVDs to store locally-- as NetFlix fleshes out their streaming catalog, it makes more sense to stream most things. Likely, we will always have some ripped DVDs as some of titles will never come to NetFlix-- Old TV series like: Two Fat Ladies, Fractured Flickers, etc.
Last evening I was at a long soccer practice (almost 3 hours). I took my iPad 3G, and over 3G was able to watch:
1) A liveCast over Stickam-- a friend is a singer composer and has a live show every Tuesday
2) part of a NetFlix movie
3) some short (5 min or less) home movies over remote StreamToMe.
Everything worked without a hitch-- that's using the (supposedly) crummy AT&T 3G service in the East San Francisco Bay area.
So, this idea of "anything you want to watch-- wherever, whenever" is becoming practical on a personal device. You can take it with you, and it dutifully resumes where you were-- regardless that others are "viewing their own thing" at the same time.
I also see great potential for games on the iTV with satellite iPads, iPhones and iPod touches.
Say, you have Scrabble: Monopoly: Clue; Yahtzee-- where the main board is on the big screen, and each player has his own device to play his turn.
MultiPlayer action games ala Wii, should be Fun and inexpensive.
.
So basically what you're trying to say is you live in fan boy heaven....?
Get over it everyone.... 1080 is better than 720 and as far as we know apple is not going to provide the best format.... Typical apple. My xbox already does all this, better than an iTV will.
It wouldn't be the first time Apple copied another product's name.
This isn't a 'product' it's the second largest broadcaster in the UK after the BBC, with four channels under the ITV umbrella. No way the ITV name would be allowed in the UK.
So basically what you're trying to say is you live in fan boy heaven....?
Get over it everyone.... 1080 is better than 720 and as far as we know apple is not going to provide the best format.... Typical apple. My xbox already does all this, better than an iTV will.
Why are you here??
maybe they will pitch this as being much more internet focused with streaming and such. hence go back to iTV
No, no, no!! The reason Jobs tripped over the name so frequently at the Apple TV announcement was that HE wanted it to be called iTV, Apple had assumed it could get the trademark, but had been absolutely blasted out of the water by a 50 year old trademark held by a TV broadcaster in the UK. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY ITV are going to roll over and allow Apple to steal their trademark. NO WAY! There are 4 ITV channels now, so it's not like they are a bit player. Apple obviously changed the name at the 11th hour, else Jobs would have never tripped over the name so many times. Apple is not known for using multiple names in different regions, not in recent times.
The CDMA iPhone is more likely to happen than this name change!!