And how much will it cost? The broadcom video chip in the ipod costs ten dollars.
Yes it will cost a lot more than $10.
iTV does not have to pack everything into as small a space as the iPod nor does it need a long life battery or a bright miniature LCD screen. I'm sure those are significant costs than can be shifted to other components.
Intel desperately wants to get its chips into the living room. The concept of iTV is a perfect fit to showcase their technology. Intel is capable of manufacturing a chip that fits the size, heat, and price requirements of what Apple would need in iTV. As well as what other manufacturers would need for devices similar to iTV.
Quote:
If you have a video collection, just convert it (one right click in iTunes), if you have an iPod you're going to be doing that anyway.
Yes this is possible. It would require a policy change for Apple. Right now audio conversion comes free with iTunes but you need Quicktime Pro to convert video into MPEG-4 for the iPod.
Quote:
Who knows if it will ever become the dominant format, but as video ipods get more and more popular, it will become more popular as well.
Microsoft is aggressively pushing its own proprietary Windows Media formats. Along with all the others MPEG-4 has plenty of competition.
It's possible, but its difficult for me to see Apple pinning the success of a new hardware product on the speculative hope of MPEG-4.
Those component costings that you've probably seen of iPods should tell you something: for consumer electronics products around the price of the iTV, the component cost usually comes to 50 - 60% of the retail cost of the unit.
Apple did not always have the success, economy of scale, or fat profit margins on the iPod that it has now. It took time to grow to where it is now.
Quote:
That's because they use the QuickTime framework to play back media. The only way that iTV could use standard QuickTime codecs is if it runs a version of OS X, and that's not possible given the price of the unit.
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated.
iTV does not have to pack everything into as small a space as the iPod nor does it need a long life battery or a bright miniature LCD screen. I'm sure those are significant costs than can be shifted to other components.
I agree with the size/battery issues, but there's still a huge difference in price between a CPU and a codec chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Intel desperately wants to get its chips into the living room. The concept of iTV is a perfect fit to showcase their technology. Intel is capable of manufacturing a chip that fits the size, heat, and price requirements of what Apple would need in iTV. As well as what other manufacturers would need for devices similar to iTV.
So are you saying intel will sell chips for this at a loss? Because that's the only way their CPU's can compete with dedicated codec chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Yes this is possible. It would require a policy change for Apple. Right now audio conversion comes free with iTunes but you need Quicktime Pro to convert video into MPEG-4 for the iPod.
That simply isn't true. iTunes will convert any video in the library to iPod format, just right click on it (option click).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Microsoft is aggressively pushing its own proprietary Windows Media formats. Along with all the others MPEG-4 has plenty of competition.
It certainly does. All macs and pc's can play MP4 movies, plus ipods (plus iTV in the future). As someone providing content, what's the reason for me to use WMV?
MS has been aggresively pushing WMA as well. How has that done compared to mp3 and AAC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It's possible, but its difficult for me to see Apple pinning the success of a new hardware product on the speculative hope of MPEG-4.
Who says iTV's success is "pinned" on mp4? It doesn't need it at all since you can easily convert to it. I'm just saying that the video format will become more common as more devices ship that use it - what's wrong with that logic?
And the iPod with video uses that format...does it depend on the speculative hope of a format as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated
That's the case right now with the iPod, isn't it? Are people frustrated that iPod won't play every video format? Or do they understand that it's a consumer device, not a computer? And why would it be any different with a set top box?
Heck, if apple wanted to, they could have iTunes convert to compatible formats automatically when the user adds the video file to the media library. Problem solved - the iTV (and iPod) plays anything available in iTunes.
How about you have to import all your videos into iTunes before they become accessible on the iTV. iTunes than converts all video's to h264 on import automagically. If they can pull this one off without to much quality loss, that should work pretty seemless?
So are you saying intel will sell chips for this at a loss? Because that's the only way their CPU's can compete with dedicated codec chips.
No I'm not saying Intel will sell chips at a loss or cheaper than dedicated chips. Intel has stated it wants to be in home entertainment. Its clear most people are not going to buy $3000 media centers. iTV at $300 is much more plausible.
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
Quote:
That simply isn't true. iTunes will convert any video in the library to iPod format, just right click on it (option click).
Yeah, I just checked it out. That must be new feature in iTunes 7. When the iPod video was first released QT Pro was the well publicized way to convert videos.
This is good that Apple placed the ability right into iTunes.
Quote:
As someone providing content, what's the reason for me to use WMV?
That depends on how well MS is able to market and positions WMV.
Quote:
MS has been aggresively pushing WMA as well. How has that done compared to mp3 and AAC?
This is circumstantial. mp3 is the most popular audio format. AAC is in a better position because of the success of the iPod. The misfortune of WMA has been with the failure of every other mp3 player. This may not necessarily always be the situation.
The market position of video codecs may or may not play out the same way.
Quote:
Who says iTV's success is "pinned" on mp4? It doesn't need it at all since you can easily convert to it. I'm just saying that the video format will become more common as more devices ship that use it - what's wrong with that logic?
If iTV can only play MPEG-4. That leaves an opening for another company to introduce a device with iTV functionality, plays more video codecs, and requires no converting. Such a device could work well enough to be more popular than iTV or popular enough to erode iTV sales.
Quote:
That's the case right now with the iPod, isn't it? Are people frustrated that iPod won't play every video format? Or do they understand that it's a consumer device, not a computer? And why would it be any different with a set top box?
Unlike television the ability to carry video on a portable device is a fairly new development. iPod is basically setting the precedence for how portable video works. We are used to television just working with little concern for codecs.
Admittedly its only my speculation but I question whether the general consumer will have much patience for converting video files to a particular codec for viewing on their television. Why should I do all of that instead of just turning on the TV and changing the channel or loading a disk into the DVD player.
The advantage of viewing video files should be convenience it shouldn't be more work.
Quote:
if apple wanted to, they could have iTunes convert to compatible formats automatically when the user adds the video file to the media library. Problem solved - the iTV (and iPod) plays anything available in iTunes.
Well at least that alleviates the user from doing more work. I suppose as long as their isn't a big hit in quality it should work.
Apple did not always have the success, economy of scale, or fat profit margins on the iPod that it has now. It took time to grow to where it is now.
Apple don't have fat profit margins on the iPod. They just dropped the price. 50 - 60% component costs on consumer electronics items that retail for $100 to $400 is common across the industry. When you take into account assembly costs, shipping, retail margin, R&D and overheads, Apple's profits come to about 10% on their products, including the iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated.
Whether the average consumer cares or not is not going to change what is technically possible. For the iTV to support current QuickTime Codecs, it would have to be running some form of OS X.
What may be just about technically possible, is Apple could provide an SDK allowing people to get their QT codecs to run on an iTV. But this would require Apple to develop some really quite formidable compiler technology.
When you take into account assembly costs, shipping, retail margin, R&D and overheads, Apple's profits come to about 10% on their products, including the iPod.
Nah, it's more than double that, according to Apple.
They could. But you're still looking at not every video format being supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
Which would likely be a codec chip, not a cpu. And which would still not play every video codec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
That depends on how well MS is able to market and positions WMV.
That doesn't really answer my question, it's not a reason I should use wmv. I guess you mean if MS can get WMV widely enough used? Where would that be, in the Zune? That's an uphill battle considering how well iTunes and iPod are already doing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
This is circumstantial. mp3 is the most popular audio format. AAC is in a better position because of the success of the iPod. The misfortune of WMA has been with the failure of every other mp3 player. This may not necessarily always be the situation.
The market position of video codecs may or may not play out the same way.
Ah, so you acknowledge that a popular hardware player can make a media format more popular! So now that you admit the possibility, why is it so implausible that the iPod video and iTV might do the same for a video format, especially one that is an openly available standard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
If iTV can only play MPEG-4. That leaves an opening for another company to introduce a device with iTV functionality, plays more video codecs, and requires no converting. Such a device could work well enough to be more popular than iTV or popular enough to erode iTV sales.
True. But as the iPod has demonstrated, "plays more codecs" isn't that important to most consumers. And iTV will have the advantage of working with iPod and iTunes over other players. Really, what's the big deal about converting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Unlike television the ability to carry video on a portable device is a fairly new development. iPod is basically setting the precedence for how portable video works. We are used to television just working with little concern for codecs.
Just like we're used to audio just working with little concern for codecs? Hmm, using only two codecs didn't hurt iPod, did it? And even now, tons of users are already converting to iPod format for their iPods. I don't see why you think it will suddenly become objectionable when people are doing it already. Especially when you can convert video with ONE CLICK. How exactly is that inconvenient?
And people could just turn on the radio instead of going to all the work of getting music onto an iPod. So shouldn't iPod be a failure?
Pretty much all the reasons "one codec isn't good enough" also apply to the iPod. I just don't get why you think that after accepting all these things once for audio, they're going to reject all the exact same things for audio.
Nah, it's more than double that, according to Apple.
No, according to Apple, several quarters ago (the last time I heard them give a number to iPod gross margins in an investor conference call) the gross margins on iPods were "nearer 20%" (they were comparing to their overall gross margins of around 27%) .
Gross margin ≠ operating margin.
Operating margin gives an indication of the actual profit made, once all costs have been taken into account.
Apple's operating margin is 10 - 13% across their entire business. As volumes go up, so does this figure (and it tends towards the gross margin). They aim to keep overall gross margins around the 27% mark.
Whether the average consumer cares or not is not going to change what is technically possible. For the iTV to support current QuickTime Codecs, it would have to be running some form of OS X.
Ok I'll back up off of iTV playing every codec QT can play. I'll say iTV needs to play the most common codecs: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WMV.
Quote:
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
Which would likely be a codec chip, not a cpu. And which would still not play every video codec.
Which is fine by me. It doesn't need to be a cpu, it only needs to play more than only MPEG-4.
Quote:
That doesn't really answer my question, it's not a reason I should use wmv. I guess you mean if MS can get WMV widely enough used? Where would that be, in the Zune? That's an uphill battle considering how well iTunes and iPod are already doing
We cannot really answer your question right now because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
MS is using more avenues than only Zune to leverage its WMV codecs.
Quote:
Ah, so you acknowledge that a popular hardware player can make a media format more popular! So now that you admit the possibility, why is it so implausible that the iPod video and iTV might do the same for a video format, especially one that is an openly available standard?
I wasn't saying that hardware cannot leverage format popularity. Of course it can. If iTV will only play MPEG-4 Apple is pretty much putting all of its trust that no other video codec will become more popular than MPEG-4.
Sony made this same mistake with its Walkman and its own ATRAC codec.
Quote:
True. But as the iPod has demonstrated, "plays more codecs" isn't that important to most consumers.
When iPod was first introduced the mp3 market was brand new and mp3 was the dominating format. There was no reason for the iPod to play many audio formats.
Internet video is further along and people are using a wider variety of codecs.
Quote:
And people could just turn on the radio instead of going to all the work of getting music onto an iPod. So shouldn't iPod be a failure?
Radio and television are completely different markets and cannot be compared in this way.
Quote:
Pretty much all the reasons "one codec isn't good enough" also apply to the iPod.
The iPod came in at the right time to be able to influence which audio codecs would be dominant. Also the fact that no other company as been able to come up with an mp3 player that competes with the iPod. Those are intangible factors that Apple has no control over. They are only able to take advantage of them.
In the current environment its not very likely iTV could do the same for MPEG-4.
Do you actually have hard information on this? Because I seriously doubt that. The iTV is an "embedded" system like the iPod and I would not expect QT codecs to work on the iTV.
iTV's interface is Front Row 2.0. Anything FR2.0 can do on your computer, iTV will be able to do on your Home Entertainment System via iTV.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
(In this way, it's not only a video delivery system: it's also a solution to the "I'd like to see my playlists/library in iTunes."; well, how about a 50-inch screen?... And then play your visualizer through your HDTV. Instant rave. 8) )
Ok I'll back up off of iTV playing every codec QT can play. I'll say iTV needs to play the most common codecs: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WMV.
Don't get me wrong. It would be great if the iTV could use QT codecs. I've just been trying to explain that that is technically very, very hard to achieve.
So, when you give your list of codecs that the iTV "needs" to play, I pretty much agree. However what you haven't made entirely clear is what you expect. Do you really expect that it will play WMV?
No, according to Apple, several quarters ago (the last time I heard them give a number to iPod gross margins in an investor conference call) the gross margins on iPods were "nearer 20%" (they were comparing to their overall gross margins of around 27%) .
Gross margin ? operating margin.
Operating margin gives an indication of the actual profit made, once all costs have been taken into account.
Apple's operating margin is 10 - 13% across their entire business. As volumes go up, so does this figure (and it tends towards the gross margin). They aim to keep overall gross margins around the 27% mark.
OK. I believe operating margin includes everything else, including the big tickets like wages, which you didn't include in your list, so I thought you were referring to something else.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
So "no" then
Just because the interface looks like Front Row, does not logically imply that the iTV is running OS X with all the QT frameworks necessary to support QT codecs natively on the box itself. You could make an interface that looks like Front Row work on an iPod, but that wouldn't mean the iPod would then magically be able to play all QT content.
iTV's interface is Front Row 2.0. Anything FR2.0 can do on your computer, iTV will be able to do on your Home Entertainment System via iTV.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
(In this way, it's not only a video delivery system: it's also a solution to the "I'd like to see my playlists/library in iTunes."; well, how about a 50-inch screen?... And then play your visualizer through your HDTV. Instant rave. 8) )
I think the Front Row 1.0 interface looks better than the demoed iTV interface.
I don't think Apple will actively support WMV. But I do think it would be a mistake for Apple to actively shut WMV out. Especially since iTV is meant to be cross platform.
You can stream any audio that iTunes can play to the airport express. In fact, you can do better by streaming 5.1 surround sound and having a surround sound decoder connected optically to the airport express. They did this by having iTunes convert any music on-the-fly to Apple Lossless Audio Codec that the Airport Express can decode. I think it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to suggest that Apple has a similar solution to stream video content to the iTV...
Comments
And how much will it cost? The broadcom video chip in the ipod costs ten dollars.
I hope that Apple will be using something slightly more powerful than the broadcom chip in the iPod. However, I expect to be disappointed
I would hope that the iTV will support the following:
MPEG-2
MPEG-4 part 2 (what Apple referred to simply as "MPEG-4" when they launched QuickTime 6, and what they still refer to it as)
MPEG-4 part 10 (aka H.264) up to at least Main Profile
What I expect that the iTV will support:
MPEG-4 part 2
MPEG-4 part 10 up to baseline profile level 2 (same as the iPod)
Come on Apple, beat my expectations and give us part 10 High Profile support - I dare you!
There is the forthcoming Conroe-L.
And how much will it cost? The broadcom video chip in the ipod costs ten dollars.
Yes it will cost a lot more than $10.
iTV does not have to pack everything into as small a space as the iPod nor does it need a long life battery or a bright miniature LCD screen. I'm sure those are significant costs than can be shifted to other components.
Intel desperately wants to get its chips into the living room. The concept of iTV is a perfect fit to showcase their technology. Intel is capable of manufacturing a chip that fits the size, heat, and price requirements of what Apple would need in iTV. As well as what other manufacturers would need for devices similar to iTV.
If you have a video collection, just convert it (one right click in iTunes), if you have an iPod you're going to be doing that anyway.
Yes this is possible. It would require a policy change for Apple. Right now audio conversion comes free with iTunes but you need Quicktime Pro to convert video into MPEG-4 for the iPod.
Who knows if it will ever become the dominant format, but as video ipods get more and more popular, it will become more popular as well.
Microsoft is aggressively pushing its own proprietary Windows Media formats. Along with all the others MPEG-4 has plenty of competition.
It's possible, but its difficult for me to see Apple pinning the success of a new hardware product on the speculative hope of MPEG-4.
Those component costings that you've probably seen of iPods should tell you something: for consumer electronics products around the price of the iTV, the component cost usually comes to 50 - 60% of the retail cost of the unit.
Apple did not always have the success, economy of scale, or fat profit margins on the iPod that it has now. It took time to grow to where it is now.
That's because they use the QuickTime framework to play back media. The only way that iTV could use standard QuickTime codecs is if it runs a version of OS X, and that's not possible given the price of the unit.
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated.
Yes it will cost a lot more than $10.
iTV does not have to pack everything into as small a space as the iPod nor does it need a long life battery or a bright miniature LCD screen. I'm sure those are significant costs than can be shifted to other components.
I agree with the size/battery issues, but there's still a huge difference in price between a CPU and a codec chip.
Intel desperately wants to get its chips into the living room. The concept of iTV is a perfect fit to showcase their technology. Intel is capable of manufacturing a chip that fits the size, heat, and price requirements of what Apple would need in iTV. As well as what other manufacturers would need for devices similar to iTV.
So are you saying intel will sell chips for this at a loss? Because that's the only way their CPU's can compete with dedicated codec chips.
Yes this is possible. It would require a policy change for Apple. Right now audio conversion comes free with iTunes but you need Quicktime Pro to convert video into MPEG-4 for the iPod.
That simply isn't true. iTunes will convert any video in the library to iPod format, just right click on it (option click).
Microsoft is aggressively pushing its own proprietary Windows Media formats. Along with all the others MPEG-4 has plenty of competition.
It certainly does. All macs and pc's can play MP4 movies, plus ipods (plus iTV in the future). As someone providing content, what's the reason for me to use WMV?
MS has been aggresively pushing WMA as well. How has that done compared to mp3 and AAC?
It's possible, but its difficult for me to see Apple pinning the success of a new hardware product on the speculative hope of MPEG-4.
Who says iTV's success is "pinned" on mp4? It doesn't need it at all since you can easily convert to it. I'm just saying that the video format will become more common as more devices ship that use it - what's wrong with that logic?
And the iPod with video uses that format...does it depend on the speculative hope of a format as well?
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated
That's the case right now with the iPod, isn't it? Are people frustrated that iPod won't play every video format? Or do they understand that it's a consumer device, not a computer? And why would it be any different with a set top box?
Heck, if apple wanted to, they could have iTunes convert to compatible formats automatically when the user adds the video file to the media library. Problem solved - the iTV (and iPod) plays anything available in iTunes.
I agree with the size/battery issues, but there's still a huge difference in price between a CPU and a codec chip.
I agree. Apple would need to at least use something like this that can decode more than only MPEG-4.
http://www.sigmadesigns.com/public/P...30_series.html
So are you saying intel will sell chips for this at a loss? Because that's the only way their CPU's can compete with dedicated codec chips.
No I'm not saying Intel will sell chips at a loss or cheaper than dedicated chips. Intel has stated it wants to be in home entertainment. Its clear most people are not going to buy $3000 media centers. iTV at $300 is much more plausible.
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
That simply isn't true. iTunes will convert any video in the library to iPod format, just right click on it (option click).
Yeah, I just checked it out. That must be new feature in iTunes 7. When the iPod video was first released QT Pro was the well publicized way to convert videos.
This is good that Apple placed the ability right into iTunes.
As someone providing content, what's the reason for me to use WMV?
That depends on how well MS is able to market and positions WMV.
MS has been aggresively pushing WMA as well. How has that done compared to mp3 and AAC?
This is circumstantial. mp3 is the most popular audio format. AAC is in a better position because of the success of the iPod. The misfortune of WMA has been with the failure of every other mp3 player. This may not necessarily always be the situation.
The market position of video codecs may or may not play out the same way.
Who says iTV's success is "pinned" on mp4? It doesn't need it at all since you can easily convert to it. I'm just saying that the video format will become more common as more devices ship that use it - what's wrong with that logic?
If iTV can only play MPEG-4. That leaves an opening for another company to introduce a device with iTV functionality, plays more video codecs, and requires no converting. Such a device could work well enough to be more popular than iTV or popular enough to erode iTV sales.
That's the case right now with the iPod, isn't it? Are people frustrated that iPod won't play every video format? Or do they understand that it's a consumer device, not a computer? And why would it be any different with a set top box?
Unlike television the ability to carry video on a portable device is a fairly new development. iPod is basically setting the precedence for how portable video works. We are used to television just working with little concern for codecs.
Admittedly its only my speculation but I question whether the general consumer will have much patience for converting video files to a particular codec for viewing on their television. Why should I do all of that instead of just turning on the TV and changing the channel or loading a disk into the DVD player.
The advantage of viewing video files should be convenience it shouldn't be more work.
if apple wanted to, they could have iTunes convert to compatible formats automatically when the user adds the video file to the media library. Problem solved - the iTV (and iPod) plays anything available in iTunes.
Well at least that alleviates the user from doing more work. I suppose as long as their isn't a big hit in quality it should work.
Apple did not always have the success, economy of scale, or fat profit margins on the iPod that it has now. It took time to grow to where it is now.
Apple don't have fat profit margins on the iPod. They just dropped the price. 50 - 60% component costs on consumer electronics items that retail for $100 to $400 is common across the industry. When you take into account assembly costs, shipping, retail margin, R&D and overheads, Apple's profits come to about 10% on their products, including the iPod.
Average consumers are not going to care about behind the scenes technical mumbo jumbo. All they will see is that some of the movies that play in iTunes and Front Row will not play on my television and be frustrated.
Whether the average consumer cares or not is not going to change what is technically possible. For the iTV to support current QuickTime Codecs, it would have to be running some form of OS X.
What may be just about technically possible, is Apple could provide an SDK allowing people to get their QT codecs to run on an iTV. But this would require Apple to develop some really quite formidable compiler technology.
When you take into account assembly costs, shipping, retail margin, R&D and overheads, Apple's profits come to about 10% on their products, including the iPod.
Nah, it's more than double that, according to Apple.
I agree. Apple would need to at least use something like this that can decode more than only MPEG-4.
http://www.sigmadesigns.com/public/P...30_series.html
They could. But you're still looking at not every video format being supported.
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
Which would likely be a codec chip, not a cpu. And which would still not play every video codec.
That depends on how well MS is able to market and positions WMV.
That doesn't really answer my question, it's not a reason I should use wmv. I guess you mean if MS can get WMV widely enough used? Where would that be, in the Zune? That's an uphill battle considering how well iTunes and iPod are already doing.
This is circumstantial. mp3 is the most popular audio format. AAC is in a better position because of the success of the iPod. The misfortune of WMA has been with the failure of every other mp3 player. This may not necessarily always be the situation.
The market position of video codecs may or may not play out the same way.
Ah, so you acknowledge that a popular hardware player can make a media format more popular! So now that you admit the possibility, why is it so implausible that the iPod video and iTV might do the same for a video format, especially one that is an openly available standard?
If iTV can only play MPEG-4. That leaves an opening for another company to introduce a device with iTV functionality, plays more video codecs, and requires no converting. Such a device could work well enough to be more popular than iTV or popular enough to erode iTV sales.
True. But as the iPod has demonstrated, "plays more codecs" isn't that important to most consumers. And iTV will have the advantage of working with iPod and iTunes over other players. Really, what's the big deal about converting?
Unlike television the ability to carry video on a portable device is a fairly new development. iPod is basically setting the precedence for how portable video works. We are used to television just working with little concern for codecs.
Just like we're used to audio just working with little concern for codecs? Hmm, using only two codecs didn't hurt iPod, did it? And even now, tons of users are already converting to iPod format for their iPods. I don't see why you think it will suddenly become objectionable when people are doing it already. Especially when you can convert video with ONE CLICK. How exactly is that inconvenient?
And people could just turn on the radio instead of going to all the work of getting music onto an iPod. So shouldn't iPod be a failure?
Pretty much all the reasons "one codec isn't good enough" also apply to the iPod. I just don't get why you think that after accepting all these things once for audio, they're going to reject all the exact same things for audio.
Nah, it's more than double that, according to Apple.
No, according to Apple, several quarters ago (the last time I heard them give a number to iPod gross margins in an investor conference call) the gross margins on iPods were "nearer 20%" (they were comparing to their overall gross margins of around 27%) .
Gross margin ≠ operating margin.
Operating margin gives an indication of the actual profit made, once all costs have been taken into account.
Apple's operating margin is 10 - 13% across their entire business. As volumes go up, so does this figure (and it tends towards the gross margin). They aim to keep overall gross margins around the 27% mark.
Whether the average consumer cares or not is not going to change what is technically possible. For the iTV to support current QuickTime Codecs, it would have to be running some form of OS X.
Ok I'll back up off of iTV playing every codec QT can play. I'll say iTV needs to play the most common codecs: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WMV.
If Intel really wanted to get their chips in iTV (or the home entertainment market in general) they have the talent and resources to create a chip that fits Apple's needs.
Which would likely be a codec chip, not a cpu. And which would still not play every video codec.
Which is fine by me. It doesn't need to be a cpu, it only needs to play more than only MPEG-4.
That doesn't really answer my question, it's not a reason I should use wmv. I guess you mean if MS can get WMV widely enough used? Where would that be, in the Zune? That's an uphill battle considering how well iTunes and iPod are already doing
We cannot really answer your question right now because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
MS is using more avenues than only Zune to leverage its WMV codecs.
Ah, so you acknowledge that a popular hardware player can make a media format more popular! So now that you admit the possibility, why is it so implausible that the iPod video and iTV might do the same for a video format, especially one that is an openly available standard?
I wasn't saying that hardware cannot leverage format popularity. Of course it can. If iTV will only play MPEG-4 Apple is pretty much putting all of its trust that no other video codec will become more popular than MPEG-4.
Sony made this same mistake with its Walkman and its own ATRAC codec.
True. But as the iPod has demonstrated, "plays more codecs" isn't that important to most consumers.
When iPod was first introduced the mp3 market was brand new and mp3 was the dominating format. There was no reason for the iPod to play many audio formats.
Internet video is further along and people are using a wider variety of codecs.
And people could just turn on the radio instead of going to all the work of getting music onto an iPod. So shouldn't iPod be a failure?
Radio and television are completely different markets and cannot be compared in this way.
Pretty much all the reasons "one codec isn't good enough" also apply to the iPod.
The iPod came in at the right time to be able to influence which audio codecs would be dominant. Also the fact that no other company as been able to come up with an mp3 player that competes with the iPod. Those are intangible factors that Apple has no control over. They are only able to take advantage of them.
In the current environment its not very likely iTV could do the same for MPEG-4.
Do you actually have hard information on this? Because I seriously doubt that. The iTV is an "embedded" system like the iPod and I would not expect QT codecs to work on the iTV.
iTV's interface is Front Row 2.0. Anything FR2.0 can do on your computer, iTV will be able to do on your Home Entertainment System via iTV.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
(In this way, it's not only a video delivery system: it's also a solution to the "I'd like to see my playlists/library in iTunes."; well, how about a 50-inch screen?... And then play your visualizer through your HDTV. Instant rave. 8) )
Ok I'll back up off of iTV playing every codec QT can play. I'll say iTV needs to play the most common codecs: MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and WMV.
Don't get me wrong. It would be great if the iTV could use QT codecs. I've just been trying to explain that that is technically very, very hard to achieve.
So, when you give your list of codecs that the iTV "needs" to play, I pretty much agree. However what you haven't made entirely clear is what you expect. Do you really expect that it will play WMV?
No, according to Apple, several quarters ago (the last time I heard them give a number to iPod gross margins in an investor conference call) the gross margins on iPods were "nearer 20%" (they were comparing to their overall gross margins of around 27%) .
Gross margin ? operating margin.
Operating margin gives an indication of the actual profit made, once all costs have been taken into account.
Apple's operating margin is 10 - 13% across their entire business. As volumes go up, so does this figure (and it tends towards the gross margin). They aim to keep overall gross margins around the 27% mark.
OK. I believe operating margin includes everything else, including the big tickets like wages, which you didn't include in your list, so I thought you were referring to something else.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
So "no" then
Just because the interface looks like Front Row, does not logically imply that the iTV is running OS X with all the QT frameworks necessary to support QT codecs natively on the box itself. You could make an interface that looks like Front Row work on an iPod, but that wouldn't mean the iPod would then magically be able to play all QT content.
I believe operating margin includes everything ? which you didn't include in your list
Yeah, sorry. Should have put some etc.'s in there.
iTV's interface is Front Row 2.0. Anything FR2.0 can do on your computer, iTV will be able to do on your Home Entertainment System via iTV.
Since FR can play anything QT can, I just made the logical leap.
(In this way, it's not only a video delivery system: it's also a solution to the "I'd like to see my playlists/library in iTunes."; well, how about a 50-inch screen?... And then play your visualizer through your HDTV. Instant rave. 8) )
I think the Front Row 1.0 interface looks better than the demoed iTV interface.
Do you really expect that it will play WMV?
I don't think Apple will actively support WMV. But I do think it would be a mistake for Apple to actively shut WMV out. Especially since iTV is meant to be cross platform.
If WMA had become as popular as AAC and MS opened its DRM to the Mac. I think Apple would have had little choice but to open the iPod to WMA.