I like the idea of iTV replacing the AV receiver. Not replacing its same complex functionality but replacing it with something much simpler. Televisions themselves are capable of directly connecting the cable box, DVD player, and Playstation. Televisions themselves can output an amplified surround sound signal.
In the very near future their will be less need for the complexity and multiple inputs of an AV receiver. Because of digital signals the inputs are being simplified down to the necessary few and much of the hardware functionality can be done in software.
It looks more like the TV is absorbing what you need a reciever to do than the iTV replacing the reciever. The amplifier and A/V switcher would be moved into the TV. What the iTV might be do is replace the CD player, DVD player, radio (podcasts, streaming internet radio), cable/satellite (if iTV works with an IPTV service).
Yah the 30inch is a good screen, never said Apple wouldn't have to make changes to get it optimized for a tv environment.
Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.
Also Onkyo was just a suggestion, and I didn't know they were owned by whatever that Japanese company was. Also they don't make the BEST home entertainment stuff. They do make some pretty nice things though, and I have one in my basement hooked up to my 360. Really my point was that if Apple could buy a nice audio company like Onkyo Apple would already have a name for themselves in the audio area.
Also a DVR would be great now as well, but if you are going to be downloading things to your computer then wouldn't that become kind of obsolete in the long run? If you stream the tv shows you could record them I suppose but that seems like an obvious feature. What I'm thinking is for 10-15 years away for it to really take off.
I think that the iTV will eventually become a whole reciever/amp. It already has most of the things it needs, but make it slightly bigger, put on a LCD (or oLED I suppose) screen on the front and have more ports.
The problem is one of size for the amplifier portion. These are pretty large even in this day and age. You can stuff these into self powered speakers but typically these don't perform quite as well as even a receiver does.
I can see the iTV becoming a tuner/preamp. But even then it has to be much bigger for all the possible inputs.
Quote:
So now Apple has their reciever, but they need speakers to work with them right? So they release wireless (bluetooth or 801.11n) surround sound speakers to connect wirelessly to your iTV. Gives you the option of 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Also supports 2 subwoofers. This could get rid of much of the cable problem, except for the power needed to run them. This is the major flaw in my area. The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
You can run a line from the sub to the satellites. The sub doesn't have to live anywhere in particular so further back isn't a big deal. Power is less of an issue than speaker cables as by code there will be an outlet somewhere close to where you want to be.
Quote:
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
Buying Onkyo isn't as far fetched as folks think. Arguably Denon makes better gear and they are now owned by a US holding company (and I think combined with Marantz?). Still if you're after an aquisition I would guess that Lenbrook which owns both PSB and NAD is a better choice. Canadian company I think.
I like NAD gear better than either Onkyo or Denon...and PSB makes nice speakers. I nearly went with PSB Alphas but got a good deal on some Von Schweikerts...
Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.
Basically, a lot of new construction has power jacks every several feet on a wall, so power is readily accessible from anywhere in a room. However, speaker wiring is rarely considered. So, for surrounds, it may be easier to plug into wall power near the speaker than it is to run speaker wires in the wall or hide it somehow.
I think wireless speakers are going to be less efficient (electrically), possibly more complicated electronically, and more expensive than hiding a speaker cable. When I put up my walls, I put regular speaker cabling through the walls to the optimal speaker locations. Assuming they get made, wireless home theater speakers is going to be one technology that I will probably be avoiding unless I have no reasonable alternative.
Yeah, I want one of my computers to have a big hairy monster raided tetrabyte plus drive that I download or rip or whatever my content to and then, in whatever place in the house (or in the backyard) I want to get my content beamed to, either computer, stereo, TV, whatever, it just goes there. No muss, no fuss, no having to worry where everything is, or how to get to it. That's where the iTV works for me. I'm sure attaching it to a Mini would add other capabilities, but I don't need the iTV to be the hub for me, just a way to get content to my TV that is elsewhere.
Looks like we have similar reasons why iTV could be a useful component for us, unless Apple drastically changes it for the worse.
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
Apple could easily afford it. The problem is that most buyers like their (medium) high end audio to sound a little uncommon. In that companies like Onkyo or Marantz, that you've heard of, but don't often see, appeal to these types of buyers. Something Apple branded wouldn't be as appealing, because they're too well known.
I think the idea is to have an iTV with PVR via the Mac Mini.
The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.
Quote:
I've already decided that I'm just getting the PVR that my cable company uses.
The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.
Quote:
I think iTV is cool. but it's not that cool. I don't think, for me, it would be used even 1/8th as much as a PVR. I don't really need the iTunes store on my TV when I make better use of the resources I already have and that is without the PVR. If the iTV had a PVR I think I may have used iTV and the store just because of the convenience of it, but for me it seems like a waste of time and money in it's current state.
Sounds sensible.
Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.
The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.
The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.
Sounds sensible.
Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.
That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package. Maybe two packages. A less expensive entry level version, and a more robust solution. Because like I said elsewhere: I just don't see the real need for what is being offered now from Apple comparatively, but I do think Apple could immediately control the PVR market - and broaden it as fast, or faster than they overtook the MP3 market when they introduced the iPod. Apple could really strike twice in this decade if they did that.
After that I think it would only broaden their Mac sales far beyond what iPod has done to help them alone, and that may be their third major success in a really short period of time. These are the reasons I like the iTV but also dislike what Apple has shown us, because if they don't jump on this others will attempt to capitalize on it which will dilute the field, and the iPod will probably remain as Apples one fluke successful product.
I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package
Agreed. Although I see the iTV as a good first step to the kind of solution I want - a box that lets me pull content off my home network to show on the lounge TV set, without having my Mac in the lounge - it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box. The lack of this feature however will not stop me buying an iTV version 1 in 2007.
When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.
I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.
onlooker, don't you think that the PVR approach contradicts the piecemeal-purchase approach that Apple is invested in? I'm sure elgato and other will continue to do a fine job with their products, allowing them to add-on to iTV, and I'm sure Apple won't try to stop that. But I really don't see Apple getting into that themselves.
First and foremost the idea is to be able to stream content from your computer to the TV for both PC & Mac with an attractive easy to use interface. iTV will certainly deliver this.
Secondly the power behind this system is the fact it can access the internet this opens up many opportunities.
I can see this system able to use a wireless keyboard and mouse so being able to set up iTune accounts and possibly they might include a web browser.
That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato...
Apple doesn't need to buy ElGato. Apple has all the hardware already, some of it is a bit out of date (TV Tuners/AV in), but I'm sure Apple could update it without too much problem. They have the software as well, including a "virtual" digital video recorder via firewire, part of the firewire dev kit if I recall correctly. If there is anything that they don't have it could probably be developed without too much investment. They really don't need anything that ElGato has to offer.
? it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box.
Or hook an EyeTV, Miglia, Plextor, or other TV tuner to your Mac and stream recordings to your remote iTV+A/V components. That's my preference although I understand reasons why it might be desirable to go the other direction.
Quote:
When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.
It appears iTV will support a superset of EyeHome capabilities, though possibly losing support (unfortunately) for playback of unexported EyeTV recordings. If that happens there'd still be some market for EyeHome, though Elgato hasn't shown much recent interest in upgrading it (e.g. there's still only one hardware model) and it's gone from the main product listing on their web site. Seems more likely to me that Apple/Elgato would somehow collaborate (e.g. the "Apple should just buy Elgato" idea) to integrate EyeHome products with iTV than Elgato releasing a new EyeHome box to compete with it. <+>
Quote:
I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.
Yeah, the heavy lifting is on the client side; I'd expect most "newer" G3's could be capable media servers. The limitations might be more network/bandwidth-related than CPU-related.
In another post (@Macworld forums) I mentioned EyeHome uses an older Sigma Designs chip that won't support H.264. So far it's anyone's guess what iTV will use. I haven't noticed anything more specific than nVidia and ATI mentioned as having decent H.264 decoders and that speculation is best left to someone better informed than I am.
<+>
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell
onlooker, don't you think that the PVR approach contradicts the piecemeal-purchase approach that Apple is invested in? I'm sure elgato and other will continue to do a fine job with their products, allowing them to add-on to iTV, and I'm sure Apple won't try to stop that. But I really don't see Apple getting into that themselves.
That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.
That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.
I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying. Any product that is like that gets old real quick. Now if it were a PVR you could record some of your current shows no purchase necessary, and if you feel in the mood for a movie, you can quickly save your self a trip to the video store. Without the PVR it's not a daily use product. The key to the success of such a products is the water cooler chit chat, and everybody that has one is continually talking about it every day, and it's going to be that much more appealing to non Apple users because of it. But with videos. IT's just a rental service, and I'd say the majority of the older working class wait until their weekends to watch. BY the time monday rolls around again the enthusiasm is going to be extinguished. There are a lot more obvious reasons what Apple showed us is not being used to it's fullest potential, but I don't think it's all that useful comparatively.
I haven't read the whole thread, nor any other thread on the iTV but last night I had a thought.
The iTV effectively has Front Row functionality. It can pull audio, video and photos from other computers on your network. And it can pull audio and video from the web. How many people this functionality appeals to I don't know. But think about this ...
On the back of the iTV is a USB port. What could that be for? May be you could plug in HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD/CD, PVR units designed by Apple giving that extra functionality. They stack underneath the iTV. They are cheap in comparison to other players aimed at consumers because they effectively just contain the drive, all the extra functionality required is performed by the iTV.
It's also possible that it could be used to surf the web, take iChat sessions etc.
Now you have this fantastic silent piece of kit that gives you access to all media types and personal communications and does not cost you the consumer that much. Compare this to similar functionality performed by the Xbox 360, PS3 or even Viiv and Apple have a clear winner here.
Jootec from Mars, good point, but I have thought about this, and I think the bigger problem with stacking is, in it's original singular vision, there is no PVR in the main unit - so then you have to buy another stackable unit which just made it become an extremely expensive device.
If the bare essentials were the main iTV unit that we saw, and the secondary stack was a PVR, and all stacks costed $299.00, or $299.00, and $199.00 for secondary stacks your talking about a $500.00 to $600.00 unit.
But if they just included/added the PVR to the main unit I think that one feature alone would be your grounded system selling point. At least it's, at that point, an every day product that every family can use. Just like the TV, or PVR is standing alone on their own.
I'm getting off track a bit, but I think it's a more sensible idea to have more than one version, rather than more stacks. Because once you up the price to the $500.00/600.00 range your getting into the MacMIni price range, and you may as well include all the iTV features into a MacMIni with quad core kensington processor, and strap that on your TV. - That may be a little more dramatic than what I had in mind, but I think you can see that where I'm going is that once you start stacking products you can't put a finger on your sweet spot for a selling point, and you have to start considering all the strange ideas that people come up with in the future for new stacks. Which will lead to undersold, and an under appreciated product overall.
You need to focus this thing down to being a very user friendly product, that has things that are the state of the art of things to come that are usable, and affordable today. PVR makes it user friendly, and affordable today in the fact that you can use it every day with out continually paying into it, and user friendly state of art of things to come is the iTunes store features. Those will be the big pizzaz features. I can't wait to see what iTV2 brings, but currently iTV really must have a PVR because it's a essential to it's success.
People keep saying that Apple needs the TV sales @ iTunes store to be the big revenue maker, but Apple needs to sell the hardware first. People will come to store once the hardware is there. I heard similar, and the same arguments when Apple started selling MP3 Players, and people kept saying Apple was promoting piracy because you could use MP3's on an iPod. Their thinking was iTMS wouldn't work because people would continue to download for free. Once the Hardware was there, and Apple's store made it that easy, iTMS became the most visited store, and most downloaded music place in the world. The difference is convenience. Apple will still sell TV shows. I don't doubt that. Sales will probably slip initially, but in the long run I think we'll see a lot more people buying seasons from iTS than single episodes are sold now.
And nay-sayers keep saying that selling TV is iTunes biggest reason for not having PVR, but Its not like selling TV shows is going anywhere. Maybe at Full DVD price it should but, if your favorite season is over, and your sitting around and want to check out a show you've never seen that you hear good things about (like me with LOST) You can download that show, and check it out. There are 20 - 30 examples of ways people will still continue to use the store for TV, but people keep focusing on the few that will reduce. I say If you put the hardware out there that store will out do many expectations on TV show sales. I have a feeling I'll start buying past seasons of good shows if they drop the price below what it is on DVD.
ABC is just one of the networks that obviously doesn't think giving TV away for free is that big of a deal - they do it from their website. It's not commercial free, but it's free. iTS will still continue to sell TV shows way into the future.
I think for Archival purposes DVD is the way to go on that, but for everyday, or just plain viewing ITV viewing will probably compete better all the way.
Jootec from Mars, good point, but I have thought about this, and I think the bigger problem with stacking is, in it's original singular vision, there is no PVR in the main unit - so then you have to buy another stackable unit which just made it become an extremely expensive device.
I disagree. The iTV comes with basic functionality that Apple want you to have to help them in their OS X and iTunes store endevours. Making it stackable makes it configurable to the consumer's needs. It becomes what the consumer wants of it. I want a HD-DVD player and Blu-Ray player, another wants just a PVR. It's what we both want. All you do is buy what you want, stack it, plug in the power cable and USB cable and off you go. By adding a PVR in to the base unit, you add something that not everybody needs and adding to the initial price. The need for a PVR varies in different countries. In some countries it would be useless.
A PVR is really nothing more than a TV Tuner and a hard disk. Both of those (assuming SD tuner, not HD) these days are cheap. There is no reason why Apple could not sell a PVR addon unit for about a 100 bucks or so. Looking at this device for example, everybody has different needs. One person is quite happy with a single tuner, yet another might want 3. Person 1 buys a single PVR unit, person 2 buys three. To the consumer through iTV, no matter how many PVR units they buy, it appears they only have one, yet they may record as many programs simultaneously as they have tuners. The iTV is intelligent enough to decide which PVR unit is most suitable to record requested program.
I'd still go for a stackable user-configurable set up. It saves me money and space under my TV. Yes the base unit and a single add-on unit is expensive may be in comparison to a single PVR. But does the PVR have the extra functionality of the base unit? The more devices you want to add the cheaper the whole package becomes. Apple does not do cheap, it does perfection. And perfection doesn't come cheap but it can come reasonably priced.
I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying.
Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.
For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.
Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.
For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.
#1 cable has a set subscription price that you either agree to or not. This is not a similar argument, and you know it.
#2 There are very few people that don't have some form of cable, or satellite service now a days, so I would have to say that you are a extreme minority. But why would a PVR stop you from buying any other show you've never seen? No one (no one that works for a living, or has a life) can keep up with all the high quality programming on todays network, or cable television stations.
Comments
I like the idea of iTV replacing the AV receiver. Not replacing its same complex functionality but replacing it with something much simpler. Televisions themselves are capable of directly connecting the cable box, DVD player, and Playstation. Televisions themselves can output an amplified surround sound signal.
In the very near future their will be less need for the complexity and multiple inputs of an AV receiver. Because of digital signals the inputs are being simplified down to the necessary few and much of the hardware functionality can be done in software.
It looks more like the TV is absorbing what you need a reciever to do than the iTV replacing the reciever. The amplifier and A/V switcher would be moved into the TV. What the iTV might be do is replace the CD player, DVD player, radio (podcasts, streaming internet radio), cable/satellite (if iTV works with an IPTV service).
Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.
Also Onkyo was just a suggestion, and I didn't know they were owned by whatever that Japanese company was. Also they don't make the BEST home entertainment stuff. They do make some pretty nice things though, and I have one in my basement hooked up to my 360. Really my point was that if Apple could buy a nice audio company like Onkyo Apple would already have a name for themselves in the audio area.
Also a DVR would be great now as well, but if you are going to be downloading things to your computer then wouldn't that become kind of obsolete in the long run? If you stream the tv shows you could record them I suppose but that seems like an obvious feature. What I'm thinking is for 10-15 years away for it to really take off.
I think that the iTV will eventually become a whole reciever/amp. It already has most of the things it needs, but make it slightly bigger, put on a LCD (or oLED I suppose) screen on the front and have more ports.
The problem is one of size for the amplifier portion. These are pretty large even in this day and age. You can stuff these into self powered speakers but typically these don't perform quite as well as even a receiver does.
I can see the iTV becoming a tuner/preamp. But even then it has to be much bigger for all the possible inputs.
So now Apple has their reciever, but they need speakers to work with them right? So they release wireless (bluetooth or 801.11n) surround sound speakers to connect wirelessly to your iTV. Gives you the option of 5.1 or 7.1 surround. Also supports 2 subwoofers. This could get rid of much of the cable problem, except for the power needed to run them. This is the major flaw in my area. The subs can have their own power supply but the Surround would need some sort of battery.
You can run a line from the sub to the satellites. The sub doesn't have to live anywhere in particular so further back isn't a big deal. Power is less of an issue than speaker cables as by code there will be an outlet somewhere close to where you want to be.
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
Buying Onkyo isn't as far fetched as folks think. Arguably Denon makes better gear and they are now owned by a US holding company (and I think combined with Marantz?). Still if you're after an aquisition I would guess that Lenbrook which owns both PSB and NAD is a better choice. Canadian company I think.
I like NAD gear better than either Onkyo or Denon...and PSB makes nice speakers. I nearly went with PSB Alphas but got a good deal on some Von Schweikerts...
Vinea
Also how the speakers will be powered is the biggest technical problem that I could think of. Either you would need to get wiring for the power or battery. If you need power cables why would you go wireless at all? If anyone else has a solution please post it.
Basically, a lot of new construction has power jacks every several feet on a wall, so power is readily accessible from anywhere in a room. However, speaker wiring is rarely considered. So, for surrounds, it may be easier to plug into wall power near the speaker than it is to run speaker wires in the wall or hide it somehow.
I think wireless speakers are going to be less efficient (electrically), possibly more complicated electronically, and more expensive than hiding a speaker cable. When I put up my walls, I put regular speaker cabling through the walls to the optimal speaker locations. Assuming they get made, wireless home theater speakers is going to be one technology that I will probably be avoiding unless I have no reasonable alternative.
Yeah, I want one of my computers to have a big hairy monster raided tetrabyte plus drive that I download or rip or whatever my content to and then, in whatever place in the house (or in the backyard) I want to get my content beamed to, either computer, stereo, TV, whatever, it just goes there. No muss, no fuss, no having to worry where everything is, or how to get to it. That's where the iTV works for me. I'm sure attaching it to a Mini would add other capabilities, but I don't need the iTV to be the hub for me, just a way to get content to my TV that is elsewhere.
Looks like we have similar reasons why iTV could be a useful component for us, unless Apple drastically changes it for the worse.
Now my friend and I were talking and my friend believed to get a name for themselves Apple would have to either work with or buy a company such as Onkyo and perhaps some high-end speaker companies. What do you guys think...be as harsh as you want.
Apple could easily afford it. The problem is that most buyers like their (medium) high end audio to sound a little uncommon. In that companies like Onkyo or Marantz, that you've heard of, but don't often see, appeal to these types of buyers. Something Apple branded wouldn't be as appealing, because they're too well known.
It looks more like the TV is absorbing what you need a reciever to do than the iTV replacing the reciever.
Now that I look at it again you are right. In my scenario iTV has little to do with the receiver.
I think the idea is to have an iTV with PVR via the Mac Mini.
The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.
I've already decided that I'm just getting the PVR that my cable company uses.
The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.
I think iTV is cool. but it's not that cool. I don't think, for me, it would be used even 1/8th as much as a PVR. I don't really need the iTunes store on my TV when I make better use of the resources I already have and that is without the PVR. If the iTV had a PVR I think I may have used iTV and the store just because of the convenience of it, but for me it seems like a waste of time and money in it's current state.
Sounds sensible.
Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.
The iTV might be unnecessary if the mini can be directly connected to preferred A/V devices, but I'm sure that won't stop some people from buying it anyway.
The cable provider here didn't offer a PVR when I bought EyeTV. And TiVo's subscription fee talked me out of that option at the time. I'm still satisfied having chosen EyeTV, especially after adding EyeHome -- even with limitations of both. Staying within somewhat modest requirements, the combination has proven to be a relatively low-budget success for keeping unnecessary hardware and media out of the living room.
Sounds sensible.
Similar to EyeHome, I can imagine how iTV might have the most value (at least initially) while EyeTV is still my PVR. iTV might be a worthwhile EyeHome upgrade, which is unknowable until it's released and obvious after that.
That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package. Maybe two packages. A less expensive entry level version, and a more robust solution. Because like I said elsewhere: I just don't see the real need for what is being offered now from Apple comparatively, but I do think Apple could immediately control the PVR market - and broaden it as fast, or faster than they overtook the MP3 market when they introduced the iPod. Apple could really strike twice in this decade if they did that.
After that I think it would only broaden their Mac sales far beyond what iPod has done to help them alone, and that may be their third major success in a really short period of time. These are the reasons I like the iTV but also dislike what Apple has shown us, because if they don't jump on this others will attempt to capitalize on it which will dilute the field, and the iPod will probably remain as Apples one fluke successful product.
onlooker:
I think Apple should just buy elgato, and add it all into one Apple package
Agreed. Although I see the iTV as a good first step to the kind of solution I want - a box that lets me pull content off my home network to show on the lounge TV set, without having my Mac in the lounge - it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box. The lack of this feature however will not stop me buying an iTV version 1 in 2007.
When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.
I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.
Secondly the power behind this system is the fact it can access the internet this opens up many opportunities.
I can see this system able to use a wireless keyboard and mouse so being able to set up iTune accounts and possibly they might include a web browser.
That's why I think Apple should just buy elgato...
Apple doesn't need to buy ElGato. Apple has all the hardware already, some of it is a bit out of date (TV Tuners/AV in), but I'm sure Apple could update it without too much problem. They have the software as well, including a "virtual" digital video recorder via firewire, part of the firewire dev kit if I recall correctly. If there is anything that they don't have it could probably be developed without too much investment. They really don't need anything that ElGato has to offer.
? it certainly would add another dimension to be able to take content off the TV and save it on the Mac, via the same box.
Or hook an EyeTV, Miglia, Plextor, or other TV tuner to your Mac and stream recordings to your remote iTV+A/V components. That's my preference although I understand reasons why it might be desirable to go the other direction.
When iTV was demonstrated I kind of wondered whether it really did that much more than elgato's eyehome, with a better user interface. I am still not 100% convinced, but it must (yes?) get over eyehome's limitation of being unable to play any DRM media (ie anything from Itunes store) and I would also expect it would be able to play h264 encoded video, which eyehome also cannot do.
It appears iTV will support a superset of EyeHome capabilities, though possibly losing support (unfortunately) for playback of unexported EyeTV recordings. If that happens there'd still be some market for EyeHome, though Elgato hasn't shown much recent interest in upgrading it (e.g. there's still only one hardware model) and it's gone from the main product listing on their web site. Seems more likely to me that Apple/Elgato would somehow collaborate (e.g. the "Apple should just buy Elgato" idea) to integrate EyeHome products with iTV than Elgato releasing a new EyeHome box to compete with it. <+>
I did a lot of fooling around with itunes 6's ability to share video with other itunes users on the local network and I found the the processing power of the receiving mac was fundamental to good and consistent video (you could serve ok from a G3 but it ws no good as a client). Makes me wonder what processing power Apple will put in the iTV.
Yeah, the heavy lifting is on the client side; I'd expect most "newer" G3's could be capable media servers. The limitations might be more network/bandwidth-related than CPU-related.
In another post (@Macworld forums) I mentioned EyeHome uses an older Sigma Designs chip that won't support H.264. So far it's anyone's guess what iTV will use. I haven't noticed anything more specific than nVidia and ATI mentioned as having decent H.264 decoders and that speculation is best left to someone better informed than I am.
<+>
onlooker, don't you think that the PVR approach contradicts the piecemeal-purchase approach that Apple is invested in? I'm sure elgato and other will continue to do a fine job with their products, allowing them to add-on to iTV, and I'm sure Apple won't try to stop that. But I really don't see Apple getting into that themselves.
That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.
<+>
That summarizes my current opinion, too, more than Apple buying Elgato or creating their own PVR. Seeing Apple produce iTV as a potential EyeHome-killer might make some people think they'll create an EyeTV-killer PVR, but certain product/service differences seem to defy that comparison. For example, iTV's integration with the iTunes Store gives Apple more control of a solution than they'd have offering a PVR product. Others have already mentioned iPod/iTV analogies with iTS as the common denominator.
I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying. Any product that is like that gets old real quick. Now if it were a PVR you could record some of your current shows no purchase necessary, and if you feel in the mood for a movie, you can quickly save your self a trip to the video store. Without the PVR it's not a daily use product. The key to the success of such a products is the water cooler chit chat, and everybody that has one is continually talking about it every day, and it's going to be that much more appealing to non Apple users because of it. But with videos. IT's just a rental service, and I'd say the majority of the older working class wait until their weekends to watch. BY the time monday rolls around again the enthusiasm is going to be extinguished. There are a lot more obvious reasons what Apple showed us is not being used to it's fullest potential, but I don't think it's all that useful comparatively.
The iTV effectively has Front Row functionality. It can pull audio, video and photos from other computers on your network. And it can pull audio and video from the web. How many people this functionality appeals to I don't know. But think about this ...
On the back of the iTV is a USB port. What could that be for? May be you could plug in HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD/CD, PVR units designed by Apple giving that extra functionality. They stack underneath the iTV. They are cheap in comparison to other players aimed at consumers because they effectively just contain the drive, all the extra functionality required is performed by the iTV.
It's also possible that it could be used to surf the web, take iChat sessions etc.
Now you have this fantastic silent piece of kit that gives you access to all media types and personal communications and does not cost you the consumer that much. Compare this to similar functionality performed by the Xbox 360, PS3 or even Viiv and Apple have a clear winner here.
If the bare essentials were the main iTV unit that we saw, and the secondary stack was a PVR, and all stacks costed $299.00, or $299.00, and $199.00 for secondary stacks your talking about a $500.00 to $600.00 unit.
But if they just included/added the PVR to the main unit I think that one feature alone would be your grounded system selling point. At least it's, at that point, an every day product that every family can use. Just like the TV, or PVR is standing alone on their own.
I'm getting off track a bit, but I think it's a more sensible idea to have more than one version, rather than more stacks. Because once you up the price to the $500.00/600.00 range your getting into the MacMIni price range, and you may as well include all the iTV features into a MacMIni with quad core kensington processor, and strap that on your TV. - That may be a little more dramatic than what I had in mind, but I think you can see that where I'm going is that once you start stacking products you can't put a finger on your sweet spot for a selling point, and you have to start considering all the strange ideas that people come up with in the future for new stacks. Which will lead to undersold, and an under appreciated product overall.
You need to focus this thing down to being a very user friendly product, that has things that are the state of the art of things to come that are usable, and affordable today. PVR makes it user friendly, and affordable today in the fact that you can use it every day with out continually paying into it, and user friendly state of art of things to come is the iTunes store features. Those will be the big pizzaz features. I can't wait to see what iTV2 brings, but currently iTV really must have a PVR because it's a essential to it's success.
People keep saying that Apple needs the TV sales @ iTunes store to be the big revenue maker, but Apple needs to sell the hardware first. People will come to store once the hardware is there. I heard similar, and the same arguments when Apple started selling MP3 Players, and people kept saying Apple was promoting piracy because you could use MP3's on an iPod. Their thinking was iTMS wouldn't work because people would continue to download for free. Once the Hardware was there, and Apple's store made it that easy, iTMS became the most visited store, and most downloaded music place in the world. The difference is convenience. Apple will still sell TV shows. I don't doubt that. Sales will probably slip initially, but in the long run I think we'll see a lot more people buying seasons from iTS than single episodes are sold now.
And nay-sayers keep saying that selling TV is iTunes biggest reason for not having PVR, but Its not like selling TV shows is going anywhere. Maybe at Full DVD price it should but, if your favorite season is over, and your sitting around and want to check out a show you've never seen that you hear good things about (like me with LOST) You can download that show, and check it out. There are 20 - 30 examples of ways people will still continue to use the store for TV, but people keep focusing on the few that will reduce. I say If you put the hardware out there that store will out do many expectations on TV show sales. I have a feeling I'll start buying past seasons of good shows if they drop the price below what it is on DVD.
ABC is just one of the networks that obviously doesn't think giving TV away for free is that big of a deal - they do it from their website. It's not commercial free, but it's free. iTS will still continue to sell TV shows way into the future.
I think for Archival purposes DVD is the way to go on that, but for everyday, or just plain viewing ITV viewing will probably compete better all the way.
Jootec from Mars, good point, but I have thought about this, and I think the bigger problem with stacking is, in it's original singular vision, there is no PVR in the main unit - so then you have to buy another stackable unit which just made it become an extremely expensive device.
I disagree. The iTV comes with basic functionality that Apple want you to have to help them in their OS X and iTunes store endevours. Making it stackable makes it configurable to the consumer's needs. It becomes what the consumer wants of it. I want a HD-DVD player and Blu-Ray player, another wants just a PVR. It's what we both want. All you do is buy what you want, stack it, plug in the power cable and USB cable and off you go. By adding a PVR in to the base unit, you add something that not everybody needs and adding to the initial price. The need for a PVR varies in different countries. In some countries it would be useless.
A PVR is really nothing more than a TV Tuner and a hard disk. Both of those (assuming SD tuner, not HD) these days are cheap. There is no reason why Apple could not sell a PVR addon unit for about a 100 bucks or so. Looking at this device for example, everybody has different needs. One person is quite happy with a single tuner, yet another might want 3. Person 1 buys a single PVR unit, person 2 buys three. To the consumer through iTV, no matter how many PVR units they buy, it appears they only have one, yet they may record as many programs simultaneously as they have tuners. The iTV is intelligent enough to decide which PVR unit is most suitable to record requested program.
I'd still go for a stackable user-configurable set up. It saves me money and space under my TV. Yes the base unit and a single add-on unit is expensive may be in comparison to a single PVR. But does the PVR have the extra functionality of the base unit? The more devices you want to add the cheaper the whole package becomes. Apple does not do cheap, it does perfection. And perfection doesn't come cheap but it can come reasonably priced.
I have made a similar analogy, but it's not the one your suggesting.
I think iTV is pretty useless without the PVR, but I'm not going to keep explaining it. Think about this though. Right now from what we saw demoed your talking about buying something that you need to continually keep buying things for to use it. There is no break on buying.
Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.
For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.
Kinda like you keep buying cable, month after month, with no break from buying.
For someone like me who doesn't subscribe to cable, but does watch movies and the occasional really good TV show on DVD (Arrested Development), it might be worth it.
#1 cable has a set subscription price that you either agree to or not. This is not a similar argument, and you know it.
#2 There are very few people that don't have some form of cable, or satellite service now a days, so I would have to say that you are a extreme minority. But why would a PVR stop you from buying any other show you've never seen? No one (no one that works for a living, or has a life) can keep up with all the high quality programming on todays network, or cable television stations.