Pentium M-based Intel chip at heart of Apple TV

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 144
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by VTrain View Post


    As Kaspar stated earlier,



    "On its website Apple similarly says Apple TV supports: "Enhanced-definition or high-definition widescreen TVs capable of 1080i 60/50Hz, 720p 60/50Hz, 576p 50Hz (PAL format), or 480p 60Hz."



    Those are the TVs it supports. The actual video it will play back is 720p max.
  • Reply 21 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    I don't care about the hardware, as long as it does the job. Maybe a faster CPU + GPU would have allowed 1080i/1080p support however.



    This is part of the marketing.
    • Early adopters will buy the device, regardles.

    • Most people know what HD stands for, but have no idea of the differences between 720p, 1080i, 1080p30, 100p60, etc.

    • The majority of HDTVs currently being used are not even 1080p capable,

    • Media appliances are not something you need to upgrade as often as a PC. AppleTV (rev.1) will still be useful 5 -10 years from now for most people's needs. So this gives Apple something new to sell you a year from now. (add a faster CPU, GPU, more RAM, larger HDD, and 1000BASE-T). They might even hold off on upgrading the OS's features, with an excuse that the current HW can't handle the load, which will force you to buy the newer version.

  • Reply 23 of 144
    pmjoepmjoe Posts: 565member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    AppleTV (rev.1) will still be useful 5 -10 years from now for most people's needs.



    If it doesn't have the hardware to decompress video beyond 720p, I really doubt it'll still be useful 10 let alone 5 years from now (other than for audio playback). Larger TVs being sold will be mostly 1080p in a year, prices will keep coming down, and then the official switchover to HD in the US will occur in less than 5 years. I'd give it 1-2 years max before the average person starts to realize how weak the specs on this are. On the plus side, that fits in better with your "giv[ing] Apple something new to sell you a year from now".
  • Reply 24 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmjoe View Post


    If it doesn't have the hardware to decompress video beyond 720p, I really doubt it'll still be useful 10 let alone 5 years from now (other than for audio playback). Larger TVs being sold will be mostly 1080p in a year, prices will keep coming down, and then the official switchover to HD in the US will occur in less than 5 years. I'd give it 1-2 years max before the average person starts to realize how weak the specs on this are. On the plus side, that fits in better with your "giv[ing] Apple something new to sell you a year from now".



    If I recall correcly the average person keeps their TV for 5-9 years. There is also iTunes video resolution; I speculate this will only improve to 720p for the next 5 years.
  • Reply 25 of 144
    smaxsmax Posts: 360member
    How long until someone installs inux on one...?



    It would be a cheap box to experiment on...
  • Reply 26 of 144
    I'm a bit confused - can someone explain why I would need to sync my iTunes content onto the Apple TV's hard drive, if I can stream all the content I want over the air? For a lot of users, I agree, 40gb is less than their iTunes library and this therefore raises questions about what gets synced and what doesn't, and do we enter manual mode somehow if this happens...but if the wireless network will support streaming video (which would be the hungriest bandwidth-wise), then I don't understand why I'd need to have my data in two places (my mac and my Apple TV)?



    I guess it'll come down to speed, i.e. content on the hard drive will be accessed faster. But either I'm misunderstanding something or my requirements are different to most people, because I would assume that if there is ANY slowdown or frame loss for streamed video, then the device becomes pretty pointless (for video anyway). And if there ISN'T any slowdown, then we're back to my original question - what's the point in syncing to the hard drive?



    Any ideas?
  • Reply 27 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blascock View Post


    40gb? thats it?...common apple thats tooo small



    Too small for what? Stream content from your main computer...that is what it's designed to do, you know.



    Of course, once it starts shipping and people crack it open, someone will find a way to upgrade the drive.
  • Reply 28 of 144
    You store the content on the Apple TV so that your computer doesn't need to be running to watch or listen to the content.
  • Reply 29 of 144
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hattig View Post


    Heh, good point! Probably 50% faster CPU wise, the GPU memory is the same as the entire memory of the XBox and then there's 256MB more beyond that (= 5x memory), more HD, and the graphics chip is probably far more powerful and featureful too. That's what 5 years of technology advancement gets you.



    I guess that as a media device it also has better quality outputs (decent audio DACs, etc)...



    Yes. This means the folks who predicted the hardware would be highly specialized, were mistaken. This is why I brought up the comparison to XBox. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a gamepad - connect via infrared or any wireless standard they want by using the USB plug at the back - and sell games far beyond what is possible with the iPod.



    An AppleTV Live Arcade, if you will.
  • Reply 30 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bobsmells View Post


    I'm a bit confused - can someone explain why I would need to sync my iTunes content onto the Apple TV's hard drive, if I can stream all the content I want over the air? For a lot of users, I agree, 40gb is less than their iTunes library and this therefore raises questions about what gets synced and what doesn't, and do we enter manual mode somehow if this happens...but if the wireless network will support streaming video (which would be the hungriest bandwidth-wise), then I don't understand why I'd need to have my data in two places (my mac and my Apple TV)?



    I guess it'll come down to speed, i.e. content on the hard drive will be accessed faster. But either I'm misunderstanding something or my requirements are different to most people, because I would assume that if there is ANY slowdown or frame loss for streamed video, then the device becomes pretty pointless (for video anyway). And if there ISN'T any slowdown, then we're back to my original question - what's the point in syncing to the hard drive?



    Any ideas?



    If you shut your computer down, you could still play it off Apple TV after you sync it. Plus it's a good way to back up your media. Hardly anything on my computer is more important than my photos, videos, and music so having them backed up automatically to another location is also good insurance.
  • Reply 31 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gon View Post


    Yes. This means the folks who predicted the hardware would be highly specialized, were mistaken. This is why I brought up the comparison to XBox. If Apple wanted to, they could sell a gamepad - connect via infrared or any wireless standard they want by using the USB plug at the back - and sell games far beyond what is possible with the iPod.



    An AppleTV Live Arcade, if you will.



    It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.
  • Reply 32 of 144
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dukemeiser View Post


    It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.



    Five words: eight-oh-two-eleven-bee
  • Reply 33 of 144
    This product seems like a DUD. It does not approach Apple's usual standards.



    Way less than meets the eye. I was truly looking forward to getting one for my birthday (from my wife, who usually asks me what I want, I tell her, and... ), but I am going to wait.



    Yesterday's stuff.



  • Reply 34 of 144
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dukemeiser View Post


    It might have been plausible if it had included Bluetooth. Infrared controller? Not likely.



    You apparently ignored the part of my post that said "any wireless standard". There's an USB plug at the back which the tech specs claim will be used for "service and updates". Sounds to me like that port is unused practically always. In fact, if they just build in standard USB joystick support, you could go to the nearest computer store and pick up a run-of-the-mill PC wireless gamepad. For instance Logitech has a good pad with 2.4GHz wireless, tiny USB receiver and multiple pads supported on one receiver.
  • Reply 35 of 144
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gon View Post


    You apparently ignored the part of my post that said "any wireless standard". There's an USB plug at the back which the tech specs claim will be used for "service and updates". Sounds to me like that port is unused practically always. In fact, if they just build in standard USB joystick support, you could go to the nearest computer store and pick up a run-of-the-mill PC wireless gamepad. For instance Logitech has a good pad with 2.4GHz wireless, tiny USB receiver and multiple pads supported on one receiver.



    Actually the official thech specs list it as "USB 2.0 (for service and diagnostics)"

    This is the biggest let down for me.

    I would have gotten one if I could of attached an external HD to supplement the 40GB internal drive.



    I think Apple has a golden opportunity to create the home server standard.

    The AppleTV should be able to back up important files from from up to 5 Macs & PCs.

    Backup is the killer app! Something nobody has made drop dead simple.

    They should have called it the iVault and designed it to work with Leopard's Time Machine.
  • Reply 36 of 144
    solsunsolsun Posts: 763member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    This product seems like a DUD. It does not approach Apple's usual standards.



    Way less than meets the eye. I was truly looking forward to getting one for my birthday (from my wife, who usually asks me what I want, I tell her, and... ), but I am going to wait.



    Yesterday's stuff.







    Why not just buy a Mac mini and hook it up to your tv? Bigger hard drive, better processor, more Ram, bluetooth, and you can still hook it up to your wireless network plus you'd be able to surf the web and buy content from iTunes directly from your tv. With tv you have to buy content from your computer and stream it to your tv (not very convenient if your on the couch and want to watch something spur of the moment) Using a Mac mini and a wireless keyboard on your coffe table, you could buy content directly from iTunes and watch without streaming.



    Considering that Mac mini's already have the Front Row interface, I don't really see the appeal of tv. The mini is even smaller.



    Oh yeah, the mini is a dvd player too.
  • Reply 37 of 144
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Five words: eight-oh-two-eleven-bee



    A remote via WiFi? You have got to be kidding me. The battery life would be disastrous.
  • Reply 38 of 144
    Imagine - a hacked AppleTV on top of your TV, with hacked iPhones as accelerometer-based controllers.



    Apple-Wii, here we come...
  • Reply 39 of 144
    I don't see why people keep bringing up non-widescreen TV's with component that are 480p. I have FOUR TV's in my house all of which are 4:3, have component inputs, but are only 480i. I KNOW that these types of TV's are out there (mainly because I own several). What about these TV's? Will they not be supported either? I have never heard of this...Heck, my PS3 is a frickin Blu-ray player hooked up via component capable of (although it's not) outputting at 1080p and still works on my 480i component TV. I would be speechless if Apple forced this down my throat. Anyway, I already bought the Apple TV because I'm an Apple whore, so I'll know soon enough if I have to upgrade.
  • Reply 40 of 144
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post


    I think Apple has a golden opportunity to create the home server standard.

    The AppleTV should be able to back up important files from from up to 5 Macs & PCs.

    Backup is the killer app! Something nobody has made drop dead simple.

    They should have called it the iVault and designed it to work with Leopard's Time Machine.



    How much you want to make a bet that when Leopard is released Time Machine will work with Apple's new Airport Extreme wireless router. Remember, there's a USB port there to hook up an external USB drive...instant NAS. You didn't think Apple would leave you hanging with no storage options to point Time Machine to did you? 8)
Sign In or Register to comment.