I was really tempted to pick up an Apple TV when I was in the UK last month. However, the fact that it was 99 Pounds, and the fact that there seemed to be an update on the horizon stopped me.
But then again, I really don't think I will find much use for the Apple TV, given that I have no access to the iTMS. I still think a Mac Mini is the ideal way to go. I already have a Time Capsule and with the added storage on the Mac Mini, I should have instant access to my files on my TV. I don't even have to worry about converting stuff to iTunes compatible versions and can use any player to play the files.
I have an external Blu-ray drive from Sony and can hook that up to the Mini and I should have a pretty versatile HT system.
Put differently, if the networks and other channels can make money from selling to cable providers, after cable providers take their cut, then they should be happy to make the same pro-rata $$ from me via iTunes. They shouldn't be bilking me for more than that.
Of course networks and content providers shouldn't be bilking you, but as long as enough people are willing to pay it, they will though. Even Amazon doesn't tell you that they have the item you chose cheaper elsewhere in their store. It's a buyer beware market place.
Apple will sell you a product when they know it'll be upgraded soon. They won't tell you to wait a week or two. And they will upgrade this upcoming ATV3 with only one new feature without blinking an eye. iTunes sells HD content at a higher price but most buyers can't tell the difference after compression. These companies exist to maximize profit. They aren't altruistic.
If you don't like a price, feature, or business practice, speak out with your wallet. That's what makes them listen.
What I was meaning here is that if a movie was in the VHS bargain bin for 3.99 in 1985, I shouldn't have to pay 20 dollars for it (or even 10), in iTunes today.
Over Xmas, I saw many movies (not even that old either) in BluRay no less, for $3.99 and $4.99 in giant bargain bins in physical stores. Then I go home and go to the iTunes virtual store and the same movie is $29.99 in SD format.
The production costs of a lot of the older content has long since been paid for and the current "owners" of the rights to it paid essentially nothing for the privilege. None of the money we pay to iTunes for such content will ever go to those that actually produced it, starred in it or created it for us it's just an (immoral IMO) money grab. Most of this content is content we already bought several times over in other formats as well.
When music moved to digital the price dropped by roughly 50% and rightly so. Movies and TV shows have (so far), moved to digital at exactly the same price points or in some cases higher ones. The consumer is being purposely shafted here and it's worth standing up and mentioning it from time to time IMO.
See my post above for the answer to why. But I'm you already know and yours is just a rant
I could see streaming still being the main schtick but it would be nice to have the option of using the thing without having to fire up the computer as well.
I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
A netbook makes a very good low-power iTunes server. Mine running Windows 7, actively streaming content from its internal HDD using iTunes consumes just under 5 watts
My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
AirCapsules should come with iTunes server capabilities built-in.
That I'd love to have. I download bootlegs from concerts quite often, and bought a Mini for that. But I need to copy it over to have it on my Mac Pro. All this copying, backing up gets to be tiresome. A single point for store would simplify my setup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You'd think they'd have added a "Aake on AppleTV" in System Preferences Of course, this likely wouldn't work with notebooks with the lid close and being their biggest Mac seller that make it a moot point.
I don't have a laptop to try it out on, but OSX has WoL for WiFi, and I believe I read somewhere that it works on all Macs. Certainly works on my desktop (Wake On Wireless, or WoW)
Edit; seems there is indeed an issue with closed lid WoW, see KB
"Portable Macs: About "closed clamshell" mode and Wake on Demand
If you use a portable Mac and closed clamshell (closed display) mode, you may be unable to register with the Sleep Proxy Server in order to use Wake on Demand.
To allow use of Wake on Demand with your portable Mac, attach its MagSafe power adaptor and an external display, close the lid, then wake it up via an external USB keyboard. Next, close the lid again, then wake it again with the external keyboard, but do not open the lid. Your Mac should now register with the Sleep Proxy Server and be able to participate in Wake on Demand."
An upgraded Apple TV processor could allow for greatly expanded functionality with the set-top box, namely the ability to stream and play back true high-definition 1080p content. Currently, the Apple TV is restricted to 720p resolution for high-definition content.
The current Apple TV also has computing resource issues when playing high-resolution lossless audio. The display stutters while scrolling long song titles, and scrolling through lists (e.g., artists) stutters and slows. There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.
So, a higher processor capability looks to be needed. Indeed, the current Apple TV seems to be rather underpowered for its current list of tasks. Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.
The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16
Quote:
Originally Posted by camper
Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
No.
720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.
I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.
My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.
aTV2 w/XBMC + uPNP/DLNA NAS does what you want. The Synology DS212j seems like a nice little box for $199 diskless. Do RAID 1 on a pair of 3TB drives and you have a nice little backup and media server. I believe it can run as an iTunes server for music. It should also do airplay for music as well.
If you really want WOL then the DS212 has that at $299 and a slightly beefier CPU.
The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16
No.
720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.
OK, so it resamples to 48/16. That's pretty much irrelevant as the CPU still doesn't have enough power to handle that resampling and concurrently do simple tasks like scrolling a song title, or scrolling down the list of artists.
Do you really think that Apple sets a limit like 720p arbitrarily? Or did they not have enough confidence in the capability of the CPU to make the leap to 1080?
The A4 and A5 SoC use PowerVR graphics but also Imagination VXD decoding which have handled higher resolutions for years. The limit is most likely arbitrary.
Intriguing? How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.
Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.
Intriguing? How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.
Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.
That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.
That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.
Except you can't use a low-wattage NAS with Apple TV* because Apple TV uses iTunes Home Sharing protocol which is proprietary to Apple and as far as I know hasn't been licensed to anyone else. Also, as far as I know all NAS devices use desktop HDDs which have higher power consumption than laptop HDDs.
* unless you jailbreak and install XBMC
Hence, a netbook running iTunes from its internal HDD would be an even lower-power solution, as I already mentioned. iTunes running on my netbook (bought for the sole purpose of iTunes sharing) takes about 1% cpu and the power consumption is 5 watts. I imagine Tallest Skil couldn't bring himself to buy a netbook, even if it is the best solution \.
Yep, jailbroken is how i'm using xbmc from an atv2 to a low wattage NAS. It is an excellent solution but admittedly the jailbreak process is too convoluted for many people.
I'll be buying an atv3 the moment it is released, probably two actually. My fingers are crossed that new hardware is immanent. With 1080p output and a bit more processing power, it would quickly become one of, if not the top choice as an xbmc box.
Comments
But then again, I really don't think I will find much use for the Apple TV, given that I have no access to the iTMS. I still think a Mac Mini is the ideal way to go. I already have a Time Capsule and with the added storage on the Mac Mini, I should have instant access to my files on my TV. I don't even have to worry about converting stuff to iTunes compatible versions and can use any player to play the files.
I have an external Blu-ray drive from Sony and can hook that up to the Mini and I should have a pretty versatile HT system.
Put differently, if the networks and other channels can make money from selling to cable providers, after cable providers take their cut, then they should be happy to make the same pro-rata $$ from me via iTunes. They shouldn't be bilking me for more than that.
Of course networks and content providers shouldn't be bilking you, but as long as enough people are willing to pay it, they will though. Even Amazon doesn't tell you that they have the item you chose cheaper elsewhere in their store. It's a buyer beware market place.
Apple will sell you a product when they know it'll be upgraded soon. They won't tell you to wait a week or two. And they will upgrade this upcoming ATV3 with only one new feature without blinking an eye. iTunes sells HD content at a higher price but most buyers can't tell the difference after compression. These companies exist to maximize profit. They aren't altruistic.
If you don't like a price, feature, or business practice, speak out with your wallet. That's what makes them listen.
The name isn't ringing a bell.
If I remember it, you must have forgotten it. Rolo, blast from the past...
What I was meaning here is that if a movie was in the VHS bargain bin for 3.99 in 1985, I shouldn't have to pay 20 dollars for it (or even 10), in iTunes today.
Over Xmas, I saw many movies (not even that old either) in BluRay no less, for $3.99 and $4.99 in giant bargain bins in physical stores. Then I go home and go to the iTunes virtual store and the same movie is $29.99 in SD format.
The production costs of a lot of the older content has long since been paid for and the current "owners" of the rights to it paid essentially nothing for the privilege. None of the money we pay to iTunes for such content will ever go to those that actually produced it, starred in it or created it for us it's just an (immoral IMO) money grab. Most of this content is content we already bought several times over in other formats as well.
When music moved to digital the price dropped by roughly 50% and rightly so. Movies and TV shows have (so far), moved to digital at exactly the same price points or in some cases higher ones. The consumer is being purposely shafted here and it's worth standing up and mentioning it from time to time IMO.
See my post above for the answer to why. But I'm you already know and yours is just a rant
my guess is Apple is going to introduce, wait for it,
The first High High Definition TV, capable of more than 1080p.
Won't their competitors kick themselves...
They might die laughing, but that's about it.
I could see streaming still being the main schtick but it would be nice to have the option of using the thing without having to fire up the computer as well.
I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.
A netbook makes a very good low-power iTunes server. Mine running Windows 7, actively streaming content from its internal HDD using iTunes consumes just under 5 watts
My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.
AirCapsules should come with iTunes server capabilities built-in.
That I'd love to have. I download bootlegs from concerts quite often, and bought a Mini for that. But I need to copy it over to have it on my Mac Pro. All this copying, backing up gets to be tiresome. A single point for store would simplify my setup.
You'd think they'd have added a "Aake on AppleTV" in System Preferences Of course, this likely wouldn't work with notebooks with the lid close and being their biggest Mac seller that make it a moot point.
I don't have a laptop to try it out on, but OSX has WoL for WiFi, and I believe I read somewhere that it works on all Macs. Certainly works on my desktop (Wake On Wireless, or WoW)
Edit; seems there is indeed an issue with closed lid WoW, see KB
"Portable Macs: About "closed clamshell" mode and Wake on Demand
If you use a portable Mac and closed clamshell (closed display) mode, you may be unable to register with the Sleep Proxy Server in order to use Wake on Demand.
To allow use of Wake on Demand with your portable Mac, attach its MagSafe power adaptor and an external display, close the lid, then wake it up via an external USB keyboard. Next, close the lid again, then wake it again with the external keyboard, but do not open the lid. Your Mac should now register with the Sleep Proxy Server and be able to participate in Wake on Demand."
If I remember it, you must have forgotten it. Rolo, blast from the past...
Remember when we'd get so excited about potential mac speedbumps they had to create a special forum for the Temporary Insanity?
Macs! Imagine that. It seems so long ago now before the iPhone.
The current Apple TV also has computing resource issues when playing high-resolution lossless audio. The display stutters while scrolling long song titles, and scrolling through lists (e.g., artists) stutters and slows. There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.
So, a higher processor capability looks to be needed. Indeed, the current Apple TV seems to be rather underpowered for its current list of tasks. Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
No. Filler.
There doesn't seem to be enough CPU power to resample down to the 44.1/16 that the Apple TV seems to prefer.
The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16
Wasn't it originally released with 1080 capability, and that had to be removed via a software "fix" because of problems keeping up with the data for that higher resolution?
No.
720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.
I fully agree, and is the reason I also have an AppleTV first gen attached to the TV.
My Mac Pro consumes 600W which can go up to 1kWh when it's really busy, so yes, I prefer an Apple TV with HDD. Or have the USB port open for all to use.
aTV2 w/XBMC + uPNP/DLNA NAS does what you want. The Synology DS212j seems like a nice little box for $199 diskless. Do RAID 1 on a pair of 3TB drives and you have a nice little backup and media server. I believe it can run as an iTunes server for music. It should also do airplay for music as well.
If you really want WOL then the DS212 has that at $299 and a slightly beefier CPU.
The AppleTV 2 resamples all audio to 48/16, even 44.1/16
No.
720p is an arbitrary limit imposed by Apple. XBMC running on AppleTV can output 1080p.
OK, so it resamples to 48/16. That's pretty much irrelevant as the CPU still doesn't have enough power to handle that resampling and concurrently do simple tasks like scrolling a song title, or scrolling down the list of artists.
Do you really think that Apple sets a limit like 720p arbitrarily? Or did they not have enough confidence in the capability of the CPU to make the leap to 1080?
No, you just have to think about wasting electricity and making sure you have your computer on and iTunes open for absolutely no reason.
low wattage NAS.
low wattage NAS.
Intriguing? How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.
Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.
Intriguing? How? Do you really think that Apple's getting into the NAS world? Maybe they can just shove a terabyte of NAND into the next Apple TV and call it a day.
Our goal is to have Apple TVs connected to each of our televisions and our iTunes content stored on a JBOD connected to our AirPort Extreme. If we can have that, we'd be fine.
That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.
That was a response to a concern about storageless ATVs needing a computer to be constantly running with iTunes. Personally I prefer playback devices without storage. A low wattage NAS solves the power consumption issue for serving on the home LAN.
Except you can't use a low-wattage NAS with Apple TV* because Apple TV uses iTunes Home Sharing protocol which is proprietary to Apple and as far as I know hasn't been licensed to anyone else. Also, as far as I know all NAS devices use desktop HDDs which have higher power consumption than laptop HDDs.
* unless you jailbreak and install XBMC
Hence, a netbook running iTunes from its internal HDD would be an even lower-power solution, as I already mentioned. iTunes running on my netbook (bought for the sole purpose of iTunes sharing) takes about 1% cpu and the power consumption is 5 watts. I imagine Tallest Skil couldn't bring himself to buy a netbook, even if it is the best solution
I'll be buying an atv3 the moment it is released, probably two actually. My fingers are crossed that new hardware is immanent. With 1080p output and a bit more processing power, it would quickly become one of, if not the top choice as an xbmc box.