Plasma is not necessarily better than LCD at all. LCD has improved considerably in the last few years. Take it from someone that owns a plasma TV. LCD used to have trouble with viewing angle and black level, as well as motion blur. All of those problems are becoming non-issues with today's technology. My next TV (a long way off) will almost definitely be LCD.
someone on these boards says "laser tv screens" will be the new standard
Plasma is not necessarily better than LCD at all. LCD has improved considerably in the last few years. Take it from someone that owns a plasma TV. LCD used to have trouble with viewing angle and black level, as well as motion blur. All of those problems are becoming non-issues with today's technology. My next TV (a long way off) will almost definitely be LCD.
LCD's still aren't comparable IMO, and because of the technology they never will be.
someone on these boards says "laser tv screens" will be the new standard
2012 OLED will be the new standard I'd bet. I hope to buy my first OLED TV by 2010. Plasma are still king right now though, especially a good Panasonic or Pioneer one.
LCD's still aren't comparable IMO, and because of the technology they never will be.
Uh, I hate to be harsh here, but your opinion is simply not a well informed one. I don't know what LCDs you've been looking at, but they are least "comparable" and in some cases arguably better than plasma sets. They don't suffer from burn in and ghosting as easily, and now produce blacks that are basically on par with plasma. The viewing angle has improved too. In fact, overall my impression is that LCDs look sharper than plasmas do. I've compared them to my plasma, and again...even if not better they are at least comparable, as you put it.
- support other codecs than h.264 (namely *gasp* vc-1)
But it won't.
So it will fail or at best remain a niche product.
Everybody wants to own this space. Watch Sony and MS do their own thing.
The fight will be fierce and this time the openness of the platform does matter.
The iPod has few of those features comparitively speaking (i.e multiple stores, codecs) yet it does fine. No the ATV isn't going to be a jack of all trades device for internet geeks. Stick to your Mac and VLC for that. What the ATV needs to become is a suitable playback device for iTunes content primarily. Consumers tend to stick with the same product/service there's really little use in trying to cover the plethora of options on a fairly nascent market.
Uh, I hate to be harsh here, but your opinion is simply not a well informed one. I don't know what LCDs you've been looking at, but they are least "comparable" and in some cases arguably better than plasma sets. They don't suffer from burn in and ghosting as easily, and now produce blacks that are basically on par with plasma. The viewing angle has improved too. In fact, overall my impression is that LCDs look sharper than plasmas do. I've compared them to my plasma, and again...even if not better they are at least comparable, as you put it.
I'll assume that was a joke. If you don't think Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas kick LCD screens out of the park then your just not with it. When your talking black levels, and contrast, plasmas are noticeably better in both of these areas, the two most important factors for TV's.
And we're not just talking numbers, we're talking in the real world.
I'll assume that was a joke. If you don't think Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas kick LCD screens out of the park then your just not with it. When your talking black levels, and contrast, plasmas are noticeably better in both of these areas, the two most important factors for TV's.
And we're not just talking numbers, we're talking in the real world.
As for burn-in, what year are you living in?
Ireland I think you exaggerate the superiority of plasma vs LCD HDTVs. See this link here.
Teh real world differeence: plasma has better color contrast and saturation, LCDs have higher resolution. Both are good nowadays.
If I had to guess I would think that Steve is looking at these digital picture frames popping up everywhere in much the same way he was thinking about the early mp3 players.
I'd imagine the next Apple TV will be in a digital picture frame form factor, possibly touchscreen input, with support for read only access to documents as well as media and basic websurfing, email, and ichat. That's worth $300 if only to get the teens off your computer for a while.
I'd buy one for each room in the house.
Or maybe just drop the price to $199 and add 1080p and external HD support.
The most significant reason for Apple TV 1.0's failure isn't hardware, but software and contents. Until Apple offers rental, wider selection of contents at DVD-quality (480p with 5.1-channel audio and subtitle), Apple TV will remain a toy for (1) fan boys, (2) those technically inclined enough to rip DVDs (easy for us but too much for average Dicks and Janes), or (3) video pirates. Although I would seriously consider getting Apple TV if it is updated with 1080p, support for external HDD and/or NAS, and multi-channel audio, I am not sure if I would be able to convince my mom until iTunes offer video rental and greater selection.
I believe the second gen Apple TV, will be a television. 32", 42", or 50" black Apple televsion with side-slot-load DVD player, Apple TV Edition Remote and Apple iTV inside with 100GB HD. That would be special.
I agree though that LCD sets have improved considerably. Each, plasma vs. LCD, have their strengths. Plasmas have greater contrast but LCDs seem to have greater selection in 1080p resolution(why?).
I would guess the reason being that there is a "finitesimal" (although the word does not exist) size at which the plasma cells can be made. LCD dot pitch gets smaller all the time and so it must be easier to make LCD 1080p at any size, whereas 1080p Plasma could possibly be limited to large screens around 50" in size.
This thread is fast turning into an argument of LCD versus Plasma, not really about Apple TV 2.0 any more.
I haven't really got an opinion (nor is it important) but all I will say is - I would have thought Apple would very much side for LCD, should they venture into the 'real' TV market. After all, they already sell the technology and have had nothing much to do with Plasma before.
This thread is fast turning into an argument of LCD versus Plasma, not really about Apple TV 2.0 any more.
I haven't really got an opinion (nor is it important) but all I will say is - I would have thought Apple would very much side for LCD, should they venture into the 'real' TV market. After all, they already sell the technology and have had nothing much to do with Plasma before.
The Plasma/LCD debate is nothing big. LCDs continue to improve in black levels and size which means they'll eventually overtake Plasmas at the high end and become the defacto standard.
OLED at large sizes is dead. Toshiba just bailed.
SED may see the light of day but it'll be expensive
I don't know if Apple would enter this market but it'd surely be with LCD IMO.
Apple TV 2.0 for me needs to offer more consolidation. It should not be a mini computer with an Intel proc and GPU etc. It needs to offer a SoC (System on Chip) design that replaces dedicated CPU/GPU parts with some sort of integrated affair reducing heat and cost. I think the battle is going to be finding a capable SoC chipset and getting OS X tailored to run well on it.
Apple TV 2.0 needs to be as low as $199 for a unit with a 40GB hard drive and $299 for a unit with a 200GB hard drive. We need better AVC support (Main Profile I believe) and higher bitrates and resolution. I'm hoping for a SoC design with a nice HD dedicated decode chip that supports 1080p up to 10Mbps.
ability to direct connect to the iTunes Store without using your Mac.
movie and TV rentals with at least DVD quality
more complex remote with lcd screen and touchscreen ala iPhone. So you can control the music content without have to turn your TV on and also have the touchscreen keyboard to input information to navigate the iTunes store and download content.
Let's hope the above can be achieve and the price range still the same as we have now.
I want better iLife support and iTunes sync support. Specifically, I want to read iMovie project directly from AppleTV and I want to have content (like DVDs) on my AppleTV that aren't in my iTunes library.
I shouldn't have to export an iMovie project to an AppleTV MP4 file, import that file into iTunes, and then transfer that file to my AppleTV. Nor do I want DVD rips sitting on my iMac wasting space.
I also want to stream DVDs from my iMac to the AppleTV. I want the AppleTV to replace my DVD player already!
Yes I too find it a strange thing to argue that Apple wouldn't want to put a DVD player in the Apple TV because there's so much of a market already out there. I would think most people would like a machine that would replace another machine instead of adding to the mounds of hardware already living under their TVs.
Unfortunately for me, I have a DVD recorder not a player, so it would only be able to replace it if it had a recordable DVD, and a video input. Which ain't gonna happen...
Unfortunately for me, I have a DVD recorder not a player, so it would only be able to replace it if it had a recordable DVD, and a video input. Which ain't gonna happen...
This is one of the reasons why AppleTV might never see a DVD on it. Most people already own DVD players and the same content competes with iTunes.
I understand your desire to condense as many possible things in one device, but it seems unlikely that Apple will go that route. It only add on price, complexity and size to AppleTV.
Comments
Plasma is not necessarily better than LCD at all. LCD has improved considerably in the last few years. Take it from someone that owns a plasma TV. LCD used to have trouble with viewing angle and black level, as well as motion blur. All of those problems are becoming non-issues with today's technology. My next TV (a long way off) will almost definitely be LCD.
someone on these boards says "laser tv screens" will be the new standard
Plasma is not necessarily better than LCD at all. LCD has improved considerably in the last few years. Take it from someone that owns a plasma TV. LCD used to have trouble with viewing angle and black level, as well as motion blur. All of those problems are becoming non-issues with today's technology. My next TV (a long way off) will almost definitely be LCD.
LCD's still aren't comparable IMO, and because of the technology they never will be.
someone on these boards says "laser tv screens" will be the new standard
2012 OLED will be the new standard I'd bet. I hope to buy my first OLED TV by 2010. Plasma are still king right now though, especially a good Panasonic or Pioneer one.
- support 1080p at high bitrates
- support other sources than just iTunes store
- support other containers other than quicktime
- support other codecs than h.264 (namely *gasp* vc-1)
But it won't.
So it will fail or at best remain a niche product.
Everybody wants to own this space. Watch Sony and MS do their own thing.
The fight will be fierce and this time the openness of the platform does matter.
LCD's still aren't comparable IMO, and because of the technology they never will be.
Uh, I hate to be harsh here, but your opinion is simply not a well informed one. I don't know what LCDs you've been looking at, but they are least "comparable" and in some cases arguably better than plasma sets. They don't suffer from burn in and ghosting as easily, and now produce blacks that are basically on par with plasma. The viewing angle has improved too. In fact, overall my impression is that LCDs look sharper than plasmas do. I've compared them to my plasma, and again...even if not better they are at least comparable, as you put it.
Apple TV 2.0 would have to:
- support 1080p at high bitrates
- support other sources than just iTunes store
- support other containers other than quicktime
- support other codecs than h.264 (namely *gasp* vc-1)
But it won't.
So it will fail or at best remain a niche product.
Everybody wants to own this space. Watch Sony and MS do their own thing.
The fight will be fierce and this time the openness of the platform does matter.
The iPod has few of those features comparitively speaking (i.e multiple stores, codecs) yet it does fine. No the ATV isn't going to be a jack of all trades device for internet geeks. Stick to your Mac and VLC for that. What the ATV needs to become is a suitable playback device for iTunes content primarily. Consumers tend to stick with the same product/service there's really little use in trying to cover the plethora of options on a fairly nascent market.
Uh, I hate to be harsh here, but your opinion is simply not a well informed one. I don't know what LCDs you've been looking at, but they are least "comparable" and in some cases arguably better than plasma sets. They don't suffer from burn in and ghosting as easily, and now produce blacks that are basically on par with plasma. The viewing angle has improved too. In fact, overall my impression is that LCDs look sharper than plasmas do. I've compared them to my plasma, and again...even if not better they are at least comparable, as you put it.
I'll assume that was a joke. If you don't think Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas kick LCD screens out of the park then your just not with it. When your talking black levels, and contrast, plasmas are noticeably better in both of these areas, the two most important factors for TV's.
And we're not just talking numbers, we're talking in the real world.
As for burn-in, what year are you living in?
I'll assume that was a joke. If you don't think Pioneer and Panasonic plasmas kick LCD screens out of the park then your just not with it. When your talking black levels, and contrast, plasmas are noticeably better in both of these areas, the two most important factors for TV's.
And we're not just talking numbers, we're talking in the real world.
As for burn-in, what year are you living in?
Ireland I think you exaggerate the superiority of plasma vs LCD HDTVs. See this link here.
Teh real world differeence: plasma has better color contrast and saturation, LCDs have higher resolution. Both are good nowadays.
If I was going to another aTV, I do it up like the Mini, but add the Nvidia GPU from the current aTV at least, the rest is fine.
I'd imagine the next Apple TV will be in a digital picture frame form factor, possibly touchscreen input, with support for read only access to documents as well as media and basic websurfing, email, and ichat. That's worth $300 if only to get the teens off your computer for a while.
I'd buy one for each room in the house.
Or maybe just drop the price to $199 and add 1080p and external HD support.
Ireland I think you exaggerate the superiority of plasma vs LCD HDTVs. See this link here.
Teh real world differeence: plasma has better color contrast and saturation, LCDs have higher resolution. Both are good nowadays.
No I don't. Plasma black levels still have the edge, both visually and technologically. You do need a good plasma to really appreciate it though.
I believe the second gen Apple TV, will be a television. 32", 42", or 50" black Apple televsion with side-slot-load DVD player, Apple TV Edition Remote and Apple iTV inside with 100GB HD. That would be special.
Man... I'm liking that one.
Where do I sign??
HOW MUCH??
I agree though that LCD sets have improved considerably. Each, plasma vs. LCD, have their strengths. Plasmas have greater contrast but LCDs seem to have greater selection in 1080p resolution(why?).
I would guess the reason being that there is a "finitesimal" (although the word does not exist) size at which the plasma cells can be made. LCD dot pitch gets smaller all the time and so it must be easier to make LCD 1080p at any size, whereas 1080p Plasma could possibly be limited to large screens around 50" in size.
I haven't really got an opinion (nor is it important) but all I will say is - I would have thought Apple would very much side for LCD, should they venture into the 'real' TV market. After all, they already sell the technology and have had nothing much to do with Plasma before.
This thread is fast turning into an argument of LCD versus Plasma, not really about Apple TV 2.0 any more.
I haven't really got an opinion (nor is it important) but all I will say is - I would have thought Apple would very much side for LCD, should they venture into the 'real' TV market. After all, they already sell the technology and have had nothing much to do with Plasma before.
The Plasma/LCD debate is nothing big. LCDs continue to improve in black levels and size which means they'll eventually overtake Plasmas at the high end and become the defacto standard.
OLED at large sizes is dead. Toshiba just bailed.
SED may see the light of day but it'll be expensive
I don't know if Apple would enter this market but it'd surely be with LCD IMO.
Apple TV 2.0 for me needs to offer more consolidation. It should not be a mini computer with an Intel proc and GPU etc. It needs to offer a SoC (System on Chip) design that replaces dedicated CPU/GPU parts with some sort of integrated affair reducing heat and cost. I think the battle is going to be finding a capable SoC chipset and getting OS X tailored to run well on it.
Apple TV 2.0 needs to be as low as $199 for a unit with a 40GB hard drive and $299 for a unit with a 200GB hard drive. We need better AVC support (Main Profile I believe) and higher bitrates and resolution. I'm hoping for a SoC design with a nice HD dedicated decode chip that supports 1080p up to 10Mbps.
1080p
5.1 audio
larger drive
ability to direct connect to the iTunes Store without using your Mac.
movie and TV rentals with at least DVD quality
more complex remote with lcd screen and touchscreen ala iPhone. So you can control the music content without have to turn your TV on and also have the touchscreen keyboard to input information to navigate the iTunes store and download content.
Let's hope the above can be achieve and the price range still the same as we have now.
.
I shouldn't have to export an iMovie project to an AppleTV MP4 file, import that file into iTunes, and then transfer that file to my AppleTV. Nor do I want DVD rips sitting on my iMac wasting space.
I also want to stream DVDs from my iMac to the AppleTV. I want the AppleTV to replace my DVD player already!
Dave
Unfortunately for me, I have a DVD recorder not a player, so it would only be able to replace it if it had a recordable DVD, and a video input. Which ain't gonna happen...
Unfortunately for me, I have a DVD recorder not a player, so it would only be able to replace it if it had a recordable DVD, and a video input. Which ain't gonna happen...
This is one of the reasons why AppleTV might never see a DVD on it. Most people already own DVD players and the same content competes with iTunes.
I understand your desire to condense as many possible things in one device, but it seems unlikely that Apple will go that route. It only add on price, complexity and size to AppleTV.