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.
Obviously.
I was working under the asumption (possibly wrong, but I don't see why it's technically impossible or even implausible) that Apple would simply transport a subset of OSX/Darwin along with the QT frameworks/hooks. I'm thinking this would add up to a whopping 50-100 MBs (plus around ~300MB to drive the graphics interface). Throw in a gig or two of flash for system+buffer and they're covered.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots. Again, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But it's not a technically difficult as one might think.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work.
Yes that's what I'm saying.
Quote:
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots.
In-spite of the fact we on this list think we know better than Apple. Its difficult to ever say if Apple is making a wrong move or not because we don't have the same information they have.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
I think that depends on how it works. If you try to play a video that's in the wrong format and you get a blue screen of death or something, obviously that's not going to fly. If it prompts you to use some simple method to convert it to a format that does work, I don't think that will be much of a problem.
Okay, so to sum up the two sides to this argument:
-The "Devils Advocates" are saying that the iTV will only play MP4 files purchased from the iTS or "legally" ripped into iTunes just as an iPod would.
-The "Apple isn't that stupid" group is saying that iTV will play anything that your computer can play.
Here's what I think about both arguments. The iTV is NOT an iPod. It may not cost as much as an iPod but that doesn't mean that it's functionality is less. The iPod has heavy limitations on video because of size and battery life issues. Neither of these is an issue with a device that is at least 4 times as large as an iPod and uses a wall socket for power. The codec-specific chip issue is really unrealistic. My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos., as long as that is all it is doing. In other words having a low-cost CPU in it would not negatively effect the decoding of these video codecs it is not the job for an expensive Merom, or even a Core Solo processor!
The video is being streamed from your desktop, what's keeping apple from simply streaming the "raw" visual/audio information to the iTV? Bandwidth I suppose, but even if the file were sent to the iTV to be played from there, decoding these files is not a big issue. I believe that I read somewhere that the iTV will contain a hard drive for caching files. Why not have the QT software installed on the device so it can decode all these codecs? When a QT update/plugin is downloaded to your machine it could automatically update your iTV easily enough. Basically the iTV would be a QT box, with some excellent GUI slathered on top and a video card that interfaces with a TV instead of a Monitor. Oh yeah, and WiFi as well.
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wants you to be able to enjoy all the audio/video available to you?
If it prompts you to use some simple method to convert it to a format that does work, I don't think that will be much of a problem.
The potential problem is this leaves room for a competitor to develop a wireless media extender that does actually play every video codec without any conversion.
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos.
I've got a 500 MHz G4 too. Yes, it can play back 320 x 240 H.264. But try to play back 720p or 1080p with that G4 and you get about 0.2 fps.
I've also got a 1.8 GHz MacBook. I downloaded a H.264 720p video from Apple (the Nasa Space Shuttle from Apple's HD gallery). QuickTime's CPU usage was around 80%, jumping to 120% at times. High Quality H.264 playback is very much the preserve of Yonah and above class processors when running a generic operating system. Alternatively, you can use chips like the Sigma Designs that TenoBell linked, which are designed exclusively to decode video. But chips like that don't run OSes like 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.
Why are you so hung up on WMV? The iPod doesn't play WMA, why is the video version so crucial?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
We cannot really answer your question right now because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
It's hard to buy that WMV will be a dominant format in the future when you can't give a single reason why anyone should use it, and can't even give a hypothetical way that MS may get people onboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
MS is using more avenues than only Zune to leverage its WMV codecs.
And are any of those avenues new ones beyond the ones that tried to leverage WMA? (and failed)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
Well, they would be...if they didn't provide a simple way to convert other codecs to MP4. As I've said before, mp4 adoption is just a perk. It's not necessariy at all since iTunes can convert files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Sony made this same mistake with its Walkman and its own ATRAC codec.
Except that people had virtually all their files in mp3, not in a ton of different formats. And sony didn't provide a simple way to convert the other formats to atrac, did they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
But what about wma? You're so concerned about wmv support, why was it OK to blow off wma? And the ipod with video only supports a couple formats NOW. Why are people loving the video side and using it - since it only supports two video codecs, shouldn't the video be a big failure? Why aren't people complaining about iPod video support already, instead of happily converting files to its formats? Same goes for PSP, is there a huge outcry there since it only plays a couple video formats?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Radio and television are completely different markets and cannot be compared in this way.
Whatever. If you want to believe that people are willing to sacrifice convenience for audio but not for video, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
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.
And it definitely looks like it's possible that the video iPod and iTV will come in at the right time, and it's possible that no other company will come up with portable video and desktop video players that compete either. Sure, it may not happen, but I don't see why you think it's impossible. Especially when ipod has such a huge market share already, and many people will want to continue using the same file formats and the same app (iTunes) when they move to video.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In the current environment its not very likely iTV could do the same for MPEG-4.
Why not? No portable video player or settop box has really caught on so far. Even with the limited success of the ipod with video so far, I see that as a significant reason to use mp4.
Think about it. If I put video content online in WMV or one of the myriad of other formats, it can be played on computers.
If I put content online in mp4 format, it can be played on all computers plus video ipods. (aren't the vast majority of video podcasts in this format already? Isn't that evidence that the video format war is being effected by ipod already?)
Give me a reason I should use wmv instead of mp4. What reason is so compelling that it outweighs passing up all ipod viewers?
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.
Exactly. From a hardware standpoint, the iTV is probably more like a big iPod than a computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
I think the Front Row 1.0 interface looks better than the demoed iTV interface.
Don't forget, that was an early beta. And who knows if they intentionally left things out to avoid giving competitors ideas to steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCQ
I was working under the asumption (possibly wrong, but I don't see why it's technically impossible or even implausible) that Apple would simply transport a subset of OSX/Darwin along with the QT frameworks/hooks. I'm thinking this would add up to a whopping 50-100 MBs (plus around ~300MB to drive the graphics interface). Throw in a gig or two of flash for system+buffer and they're covered.
That's obviously an option for Apple. But it would be FAR more expensive than just building a box with guts similar to an iPod. Why spend money on a computer CPU when you can just use a really basic CPU and cheap video chip?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCQ
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
Why? iPods won't play video without converting. PSP won't play videos without converting. I assume Zune won't play all videos without converting. Why weren't the reviews for iPod with video harsh? Shouldn't it just work?
Worst case, apple just needs to add more conversion options to iTunes. Either convert all video automatically or when video is added ask "This video needs to be converted for iTV. Yes/No" Problem solved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCQ
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots. Again, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But it's not a technically difficult as one might think.
It's NOT technically difficult, it's just expensive, and for a consumer electronics device, price is potentially the single most important factor. Your solution would cost hundreds more than a simplified solution. Jobs and Co aren't idiots. That's why they realize that playing every codec is less important than saving a couple hundred bucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In-spite of the fact we on this list think we know better than Apple. Its difficult to ever say if Apple is making a wrong move or not because we don't have the same information they have.
Here's what we do know. Playing every format is way more expensive than playing a limited number of formats. That's a given. We know that iTunes is capable of converting all these other formats.
And we know that devices have shipped that don't play every format, and have still been big hits.
The iPod has heavy limitations on video because of size and battery life issues.
Don't ignore cost. Even if you could magically eliminate size and battery issues, making an iPod play all video formats would be far more expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwidspawn
My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos., as long as that is all it is doing. In other words having a low-cost CPU in it would not negatively effect the decoding of these video codecs it is not the job for an expensive Merom, or even a Core Solo processor!
And even a chip at the G4 level is going to cost way more than a codec chip. The broadcom chip in an iPod costs ten dollars - can you buy a G4 level chip for ten dollars? And we don't know what level of video the iTV will play. If it is hdtv (720p) your G4 won't handle it and you might even need a core duo. A specialized codec chip will always be cheaper than a general CPU capable of handling the same video playback. That's just how it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwidspawn
Why not have the QT software installed on the device so it can decode all these codecs?
It's certainly possible. It would just cost way more than a dedicated device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwidspawn
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wants you to be able to enjoy all the audio/video available to you?
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wouldn't be willing to double the price of the device just to handle more formats? Is it so hard to believe that people wouldn't be willing to convert videos that arrive in a different format?
What videos exactly would people be watching that would show up in some oddball format anyway? Pirated movies?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The potential problem is this leaves room for a competitor to develop a wireless media extender that does actually play every video codec without any conversion.
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
A competitor could do that. But it would cost way more than the iTV. Are you willing to pay hundreds more just to avoid converting files?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
I believe that is exactly the case. All codecs will always cost more than limited codecs. Period. And don't forget, $299 is just the initial price. As tech improves and economies of scale kick in, the iTV will be $199, then $149.
With codec chips, they could probably get it down below $99 eventually. Impossible with a mini-computer design.
And for the record, we're not talking about "one codec", we're talking about limited codecs, whatever the particular codec chip can handle (even the iPod already handles more than one). It will be at least what the iPod can play and probably additional resolutions if not additional formats.
My guess is that you'll have to convert to some format that minimizes bandwidth and is suitable for streaming (ie H.264/MPEG-4 AVC). Wireless in the real world, even draft-N, leaves much to be desired. There will also have to be some buffering on the iTV side to deal with the multi-second dropouts you sometimes see on wireless.
The cost for the codec vs CPU is a red herring. The real limitation is in the transport. I really doubt you'll see MPEG2, MPEG4 part 2, etc supported natively.
For me, the mere fact that iTV can play a purchased movie as it downloads (a la QuickTime player) confirms that it plays content streamed from the host computer--similar to VLC's streaming feature.
confirms that it plays content streamed from the host computer
Er, yeah, that's the whole point of the iTV. The question is, which codecs will it support - i.e., in what format will the host computer be streaming video to the iTV?
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...
this is what I ment with my original post. I really hope this will be the case.
Well, Dacloo that would work great except for one problem. If the Host computer were to decode the video and then send it the speed of your network would have to be amazingly fast. Putting that much data through a wireless network would be a feat in and of itself. It would be much easier to send the file to the device and have the device decode it there.
Comments
I think it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to suggest that Apple has a similar solution to stream video content to the iTV...
Indeed, this is something that has already been suggested. But it would require a lot more CPU power than the Airport Express audio solution.
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.
Obviously.
I was working under the asumption (possibly wrong, but I don't see why it's technically impossible or even implausible) that Apple would simply transport a subset of OSX/Darwin along with the QT frameworks/hooks. I'm thinking this would add up to a whopping 50-100 MBs (plus around ~300MB to drive the graphics interface). Throw in a gig or two of flash for system+buffer and they're covered.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots. Again, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But it's not a technically difficult as one might think.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work.
Yes that's what I'm saying.
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots.
In-spite of the fact we on this list think we know better than Apple. Its difficult to ever say if Apple is making a wrong move or not because we don't have the same information they have.
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
I think that depends on how it works. If you try to play a video that's in the wrong format and you get a blue screen of death or something, obviously that's not going to fly. If it prompts you to use some simple method to convert it to a format that does work, I don't think that will be much of a problem.
-The "Devils Advocates" are saying that the iTV will only play MP4 files purchased from the iTS or "legally" ripped into iTunes just as an iPod would.
-The "Apple isn't that stupid" group is saying that iTV will play anything that your computer can play.
Here's what I think about both arguments. The iTV is NOT an iPod. It may not cost as much as an iPod but that doesn't mean that it's functionality is less. The iPod has heavy limitations on video because of size and battery life issues. Neither of these is an issue with a device that is at least 4 times as large as an iPod and uses a wall socket for power. The codec-specific chip issue is really unrealistic. My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos., as long as that is all it is doing. In other words having a low-cost CPU in it would not negatively effect the decoding of these video codecs it is not the job for an expensive Merom, or even a Core Solo processor!
The video is being streamed from your desktop, what's keeping apple from simply streaming the "raw" visual/audio information to the iTV? Bandwidth I suppose, but even if the file were sent to the iTV to be played from there, decoding these files is not a big issue. I believe that I read somewhere that the iTV will contain a hard drive for caching files. Why not have the QT software installed on the device so it can decode all these codecs? When a QT update/plugin is downloaded to your machine it could automatically update your iTV easily enough. Basically the iTV would be a QT box, with some excellent GUI slathered on top and a video card that interfaces with a TV instead of a Monitor. Oh yeah, and WiFi as well.
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wants you to be able to enjoy all the audio/video available to you?
If it prompts you to use some simple method to convert it to a format that does work, I don't think that will be much of a problem.
The potential problem is this leaves room for a competitor to develop a wireless media extender that does actually play every video codec without any conversion.
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos.
I've got a 500 MHz G4 too. Yes, it can play back 320 x 240 H.264. But try to play back 720p or 1080p with that G4 and you get about 0.2 fps.
I've also got a 1.8 GHz MacBook. I downloaded a H.264 720p video from Apple (the Nasa Space Shuttle from Apple's HD gallery). QuickTime's CPU usage was around 80%, jumping to 120% at times. High Quality H.264 playback is very much the preserve of Yonah and above class processors when running a generic operating system. Alternatively, you can use chips like the Sigma Designs that TenoBell linked, which are designed exclusively to decode video. But chips like that don't run OSes like 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.
Why are you so hung up on WMV? The iPod doesn't play WMA, why is the video version so crucial?
We cannot really answer your question right now because we don't know what's going to happen in the future.
It's hard to buy that WMV will be a dominant format in the future when you can't give a single reason why anyone should use it, and can't even give a hypothetical way that MS may get people onboard.
MS is using more avenues than only Zune to leverage its WMV codecs.
And are any of those avenues new ones beyond the ones that tried to leverage WMA? (and failed)
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.
Well, they would be...if they didn't provide a simple way to convert other codecs to MP4. As I've said before, mp4 adoption is just a perk. It's not necessariy at all since iTunes can convert files.
Sony made this same mistake with its Walkman and its own ATRAC codec.
Except that people had virtually all their files in mp3, not in a ton of different formats. And sony didn't provide a simple way to convert the other formats to atrac, did they?
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.
But what about wma? You're so concerned about wmv support, why was it OK to blow off wma? And the ipod with video only supports a couple formats NOW. Why are people loving the video side and using it - since it only supports two video codecs, shouldn't the video be a big failure? Why aren't people complaining about iPod video support already, instead of happily converting files to its formats? Same goes for PSP, is there a huge outcry there since it only plays a couple video formats?
Radio and television are completely different markets and cannot be compared in this way.
Whatever. If you want to believe that people are willing to sacrifice convenience for audio but not for video, I'm not going to be able to talk you out of that.
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.
And it definitely looks like it's possible that the video iPod and iTV will come in at the right time, and it's possible that no other company will come up with portable video and desktop video players that compete either. Sure, it may not happen, but I don't see why you think it's impossible. Especially when ipod has such a huge market share already, and many people will want to continue using the same file formats and the same app (iTunes) when they move to video.
In the current environment its not very likely iTV could do the same for MPEG-4.
Why not? No portable video player or settop box has really caught on so far. Even with the limited success of the ipod with video so far, I see that as a significant reason to use mp4.
Think about it. If I put video content online in WMV or one of the myriad of other formats, it can be played on computers.
If I put content online in mp4 format, it can be played on all computers plus video ipods. (aren't the vast majority of video podcasts in this format already? Isn't that evidence that the video format war is being effected by ipod already?)
Give me a reason I should use wmv instead of mp4. What reason is so compelling that it outweighs passing up all ipod viewers?
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.
Exactly. From a hardware standpoint, the iTV is probably more like a big iPod than a computer.
I think the Front Row 1.0 interface looks better than the demoed iTV interface.
Don't forget, that was an early beta. And who knows if they intentionally left things out to avoid giving competitors ideas to steal.
I was working under the asumption (possibly wrong, but I don't see why it's technically impossible or even implausible) that Apple would simply transport a subset of OSX/Darwin along with the QT frameworks/hooks. I'm thinking this would add up to a whopping 50-100 MBs (plus around ~300MB to drive the graphics interface). Throw in a gig or two of flash for system+buffer and they're covered.
That's obviously an option for Apple. But it would be FAR more expensive than just building a box with guts similar to an iPod. Why spend money on a computer CPU when you can just use a really basic CPU and cheap video chip?
If it doesn't play all the movies front row can, we should expect the reviews to be pretty harsh come January. After all, Apple has made a name for itself as a company that can just make something work. Most people won't care to read the fine print about why they can watch a video in their movies folder on their computer, but can't get it to stream to their TV when they bought a pretty expensive piece of apple hardware for just that purpose.
Why? iPods won't play video without converting. PSP won't play videos without converting. I assume Zune won't play all videos without converting. Why weren't the reviews for iPod with video harsh? Shouldn't it just work?
Worst case, apple just needs to add more conversion options to iTunes. Either convert all video automatically or when video is added ask "This video needs to be converted for iTV. Yes/No" Problem solved.
The "logical leap" is based on the assumption that Jobs and Co aren't idiots. Again, I could be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time. But it's not a technically difficult as one might think.
It's NOT technically difficult, it's just expensive, and for a consumer electronics device, price is potentially the single most important factor. Your solution would cost hundreds more than a simplified solution. Jobs and Co aren't idiots. That's why they realize that playing every codec is less important than saving a couple hundred bucks.
In-spite of the fact we on this list think we know better than Apple. Its difficult to ever say if Apple is making a wrong move or not because we don't have the same information they have.
Here's what we do know. Playing every format is way more expensive than playing a limited number of formats. That's a given. We know that iTunes is capable of converting all these other formats.
And we know that devices have shipped that don't play every format, and have still been big hits.
The iPod has heavy limitations on video because of size and battery life issues.
Don't ignore cost. Even if you could magically eliminate size and battery issues, making an iPod play all video formats would be far more expensive.
My G4 tower with 256 megs of RAM a 500 MHz processor and 8 meg GPU has NO PROBLEM playing H.264 videos., as long as that is all it is doing. In other words having a low-cost CPU in it would not negatively effect the decoding of these video codecs it is not the job for an expensive Merom, or even a Core Solo processor!
And even a chip at the G4 level is going to cost way more than a codec chip. The broadcom chip in an iPod costs ten dollars - can you buy a G4 level chip for ten dollars? And we don't know what level of video the iTV will play. If it is hdtv (720p) your G4 won't handle it and you might even need a core duo. A specialized codec chip will always be cheaper than a general CPU capable of handling the same video playback. That's just how it is.
Why not have the QT software installed on the device so it can decode all these codecs?
It's certainly possible. It would just cost way more than a dedicated device.
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wants you to be able to enjoy all the audio/video available to you?
Is it so hard to believe that Apple wouldn't be willing to double the price of the device just to handle more formats? Is it so hard to believe that people wouldn't be willing to convert videos that arrive in a different format?
What videos exactly would people be watching that would show up in some oddball format anyway? Pirated movies?
The potential problem is this leaves room for a competitor to develop a wireless media extender that does actually play every video codec without any conversion.
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
A competitor could do that. But it would cost way more than the iTV. Are you willing to pay hundreds more just to avoid converting files?
The only way Apple should close iTV down to one codec if there is absolutely no way to play all common codecs and charge $300. And prohibitively expensive for any competitor to produce a better product.
I believe that is exactly the case. All codecs will always cost more than limited codecs. Period. And don't forget, $299 is just the initial price. As tech improves and economies of scale kick in, the iTV will be $199, then $149.
With codec chips, they could probably get it down below $99 eventually. Impossible with a mini-computer design.
And for the record, we're not talking about "one codec", we're talking about limited codecs, whatever the particular codec chip can handle (even the iPod already handles more than one). It will be at least what the iPod can play and probably additional resolutions if not additional formats.
The cost for the codec vs CPU is a red herring. The real limitation is in the transport. I really doubt you'll see MPEG2, MPEG4 part 2, etc supported natively.
Vinea
confirms that it plays content streamed from the host computer
Er, yeah, that's the whole point of the iTV. The question is, which codecs will it support - i.e., in what format will the host computer be streaming video to the iTV?
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...
this is what I ment with my original post. I really hope this will be the case.