I think we may see the iPod model again here. Sure, the aTV is not a one stop, do it all, set top box of the future. But it is Apple's first product of this sort (kind of). They over-price and under-power it (which I'm not convinced they are; sure, it's not a BARGAIN, but it's not a rip off either). Let the early adopters snatch it up and test out the infrastructure, UI, etc. See how negotiations with studios go, what the revenue stream looks like. i.e. Test the waters.
Then after they've established themselves, users are familiar with the interface, they've learned a few things, then they buy El Gato and make a DVR version.
How don't you see value in it? Let's compare costs.
Cable TV: $40/month.
DVR: $10/month.
After 3 years, that's $1,800.
Apple TV: $300.
Season pass from iTunes: $35 each.
(1800 - 300) / $35 = 42.8 TV seasons.
That's FOURTEEN shows a year. Do you watch that much? I didn't think so.
Apple TV + iTunes is an incredible value, once you throw out cable (not that I ever had it anyway). If next year they can pull of 720p (which would make movies about 3 GB and TV shows between 500 MB and 1 GB), they're golden.
Let me see...
Heroes
Battlestar Galactica
Stargate
Stargate Atlantis
Crossing Jordan
NCIS
24
Law & Order
Law & Order: SVU
Law & Order: CI
Survivor
The Amazing Race
Veronica Mars
Smallville
Project Runway
There's my 14 plus 1 extra. That excludes things I watch at random like CSI, Deal or No Deal, Cold Case, all the shows in syndication, etc.
If you watch just 2 shows a day, that's 14 seasons right there. Not a far stretch to imagine someone watching 2 shows a day. And if you have kids, chances are that easily puts you past 14 seasons right there. Maybe you enjoy watching Spongebob Squarepants, but I'd consider cutting off my own leg to avoid that torture. If you watch any reality TV shows like Survivor, they are basically 1/2 season shows so you end watching 2 of those to fill the season. And what about local news, weather, etc? Hell, what if I'm home from work one day and want to catch an episode of The Price is Right before Bob Barker retires? Hook up the rabbit ears and hope the local CBS channel is watchable? Or a better example right around the corner, what about watching the Super Bowl?
Also, back on the reality shows or even a show like 24, since they are not available on iTunes until the day after (if not longer) they air, if you have friends at work that like the same shows, do you want to walk in and have them greet you, saying, "Hey, were you as shocked as I that Steve got voted off Survivor last night?" Or if you missed the 2 Monday night episodes of 24 (like I did, and bought from iTunes since I currently lack a DVR), do you want to walk in and find out from a friend that Jack killed Curtis to defend a known terrorist and that the bad guys actually detonated a nuke near Los Angeles?
And then there's all the storage space, with each 1 hour episode taking about 1/2 a GB of space. At .5GB for 14 seasons averaging 20 episodes, that's 140GB of HD space a year.
And of course, there's the problem that not everything on TV is on iTunes. I had Smallville on my TV list? Hmm, no Smallville on iTunes...goes I'll have to do without. Thanks.
And this continues to annoy me, what about all the people like myself who can't get high-speed internet through any other source but the cable company? What's your suggestion, that I spend 2 days trying to download over dial-up? Beg a friend or relative to let me download from their computer?
Really, it's great that not having cable works out for you but for most it's simply not going to happen as it provides a better value to have a cable and DVR than Apple TV + iTunes for the majority of people. Really, I could do the same thing you're advocating with Apple TV by just buying DVDs. A season of a TV show costs close to the same amount as an iTunes Season Pass (except HBO series), except in the process I get better picture, sound, and bonus features.
I think that sentiment is correct. This is the infancy of this product. The long ranging potential is what excites me. I can't help but think that Google could become a part of this picture at some point with their dark fiber. I was starting to digitize my DVDs as MP4 files and was disappointed in the image quality (720x405, 1000 kbps bitrate), when blown up to a large screen display. To playback and deliver image quality that makes it a competitive real world product, the file sizes are going to have to be large...or video compression is going to have to make serious advances. I want to be able to have DVD quality images or better....not lesser. To me, this product becomes a monster when it can team up with a fiber internet connection, making 4GB or so high res movie downloads not so daunting. I want to be able to take my existing DVDs, like my old audio cds, and digitize them at an unnoticeable video compression, and make them useable on my computer, AppleTV or iPod. I'm all ready to go with digitizing my DVDs, but what resolution/format/size/bitrate makes sense for now, and for the future? I don't think anyone has that answer now. That could hurt with early adoption of the product. But I can see how once all these matters are understood and the technology evolves to make this a seamless user experience, Apple will have its foothold and a great potential to set the market like it did with the iPod.
I think that sentiment is correct. This is the infancy of this product. The long ranging potential is what excites me. I can't help but think that Google could become a part of this picture at some point with their dark fiber. I was starting to digitize my DVDs as MP4 files and was disappointed in the image quality (720x405, 1000 kbps bitrate), when blown up to a large screen display. To playback and deliver image quality that makes it a competitive real world product, the file sizes are going to have to be large...or video compression is going to have to make serious advances. I want to be able to have DVD quality images or better....not lesser. To me, this product becomes a monster when it can team up with a fiber internet connection, making 4GB or so high res movie downloads not so daunting. I want to be able to take my existing DVDs, like my old audio cds, and digitize them at an unnoticeable video compression, and make them useable on my computer, AppleTV or iPod. I'm all ready to go with digitizing my DVDs, but what resolution/format/size/bitrate makes sense for now, and for the future? I don't think anyone has that answer now. That could hurt with early adoption of the product. But I can see how once all these matters are understood and the technology evolves to make this a seamless user experience, Apple will have its foothold and a great potential to set the market like it did with the iPod.
Dark fiber? Google is not a backbone. The carriers are. Google has tens of thousands of servers, which are being used at near capacity, as so are being constantly expanded and upgraded.
Me too and I agree. I don't buy movies at all, DVD or iTunes or any thing else. What am I going to do with AppleTV? Whatch Red vs Blue on my TV?
Why does everyone that obviously doesn't have any need for a certain product complain that they don't see a need for that product?
It's really quite simple: you don't have a need for ?tv. Apple doesn't force you to buy ?tv. You don't have to like or need every product that Apple makes.
Why does everyone that obviously doesn't have any need for a certain product complain that they don't see a need for that product?
It's really quite simple: you don't have a need for ?tv. Apple doesn't force you to buy ?tv. You don't have to like or need every product that Apple makes.
It might have something to do with this being a discussion forum, and thus an article about the AppleTV invokes people to discuss said product in the provided forum.
If you don't like the discussion, don't read it. Simple.
It might have something to do with this being a discussion forum, and thus an article about the AppleTV invokes people to discuss said product in the provided forum.
Which is why I'm discussing the fact that people who don't need a certain Apple product always seem to think that the product is stupid.
With over 50,000,000 TV shows and 1,300,000 movies downloaded from iTS (and more titles being added monthly), why is it surprise that there is some sort of a demand for the ?TV?
Selling 500-750k of them a year is not much of a stretch. Is it iPod-tastically successful? No. Profitable? Sure.
Which is why I'm discussing the fact that people who don't need a certain Apple product always seem to think that the product is stupid.
I don't think people have simply stated that they don't want one so they think it's stupid. They've given specific opinions on why they think this product has no value.
I think it has no value because in the end all the AppleTV does is act like a $300 iPod video cable. The device is an iPod without a screen. Nothing more.
Even Job's example during the Keynote with someone bringing over their laptop would be just as easy to do with a cable than through AppleTV.
For anyone with a Front Row enabled Mac, it's a better deal to buy the necessary video adapter and cable and run that to the TV. If you can get a video to play in Quicktime, it will play on Front Row. If you download any video from the internet that doesn't come from iTS, chances are your iPod can't play it and neither will the AppleTV. But install the correct codex and Quicktime/Front Row will handle it without issue.
And to make it worse, Apple doesn't provide any means to convert video to an iPod/AppleTV compatible format. There is a function in iTunes that is supposed to convert videos to iPod friendly format, but it doesn't handle muxed mpeg video which results in a video with no sound (at best). To me, it's sort of the same thing if Apple took out the ability to rip CD's to MP3/AAC; the ability to get video into the iPod is an important feature as Apple tries to jump into the home audio/video center.
And I have purchased TV shows from iTunes. And I generally only watch them on my TV via an iPod video cable or on my iMac through Front Row. But on the TV, I really have to crank up the volume to hear them. Not sure if it's the video cable or the audio quality of the source file.
I'm surprised people would actually give up HD transmissions to download iTMS shows at 640x480. All the people calculating season pass costs, can you factor in the difference between watching 24 in 720p (FOXs broadcast res) and watching 24 at 640x480 s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d to 1280x720?
How don't you see value in it? Let's compare costs.
Cable TV: $40/month.
DVR: $10/month.
After 3 years, that's $1,800.
Apple TV: $300.
Season pass from iTunes: $35 each.
(1800 - 300) / $35 = 42.8 TV seasons.
That's FOURTEEN shows a year. Do you watch that much? I didn't think so.
Apple TV + iTunes is an incredible value, once you throw out cable (not that I ever had it anyway). If next year they can pull of 720p (which would make movies about 3 GB and TV shows between 500 MB and 1 GB), they're golden.
Except that most cable companies jack up their high-speed Internet rates $10-$20/month if you don't do a cable/Internet package deal. Between that and a lack of 1080i/720p movies and shows, it isn't worth it.
And even if it was worth it and everyone started doing it, I can pretty much guarantee it'd result in higher Internet rates for everyone rather than more competitive cable TV costs.
I think people are really missing the point on this. AppleTV is nothing more than a piece of hardware. It's got a processor, a hard drive, inputs, outputs and an operating system -- the last one being easily upgradeable. Just like owners of older iPods, they have all be upgraded through years of software improvements. Why should any of think that this won't be the case for this little box?
New software upgrades mean the USB port on the AppleTV could take an external hard drive. New software upgrades mean better video capabilities. New software upgrades mean almost infinite possibilities.
As for DVR, I agree with a previous post that asks why Apple would want you recording content for free when they make money selling you the same content on iTunes. Seems pretty basic to me.
For me, I purchased Apple TV almost immediately after Job's Keynote. I love the thought of finally making my living room a seamless extension of my iMac.
I'm surprised people would actually give up HD transmissions to download iTMS shows at 640x480. All the people calculating season pass costs, can you factor in the difference between watching 24 in 720p (FOXs broadcast res) and watching 24 at 640x480 s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d to 1280x720?
The cost I calculated was for the average cable subscription. HD cable is way more expensive.
I'm also assuming that iTunes will be 720p in a year. The file size of movies/shows will only increase about 2.5x.
Except that most cable companies jack up their high-speed Internet rates $10-$20/month if you don't do a cable/Internet package deal. Between that and a lack of 1080i/720p movies and shows, it isn't worth it.
And even if it was worth it and everyone started doing it, I can pretty much guarantee it'd result in higher Internet rates for everyone rather than more competitive cable TV costs.
You seem to be the exception. Despite statistics, I think most people (with jobs) watch a fraction of the television you do. 1-2 hours, every night, is freaking insane.
Only about half the people have high speed, and many of them have speeds of less than 1 Mb/s.
I was referring to the internet in general. Spam mentioned that internet would have to be factored into my equation, but everyone who's even aware of the Apple TV at this point already has the internet so it's a moot point.
I wasn't talking about high speed in particular, although obviously Apple TV is pretty much useless without it.
You seem to be the exception. Despite statistics, I think most people (with jobs) watch a fraction of the television you do. 1-2 hours, every night, is freaking insane.
1-2 hours every night is insane? That's a whopping 2 shows a night. Crazy, I know. As you seem to be discarding the statistics that show that TV watching is a lot higher than that, I can only say you would be the exception.
I'm not sure if you were trying to imply it or not, but I DO have a job.
The cost I calculated was for the average cable subscription. HD cable is way more expensive.
I'm also assuming that iTunes will be 720p in a year. The file size of movies/shows will only increase about 2.5x.
Sigh, HD cable was like $10 more from the one cable company I used to subscribe to.
The file size would only increase about 2.5? ONLY? ONLY? It takes about 30 minutes to download a 45 minute episode over my 3Mbps internet. And 2 hour movies around 1.2GB right now, about 3 GB for 720p, so I can spend 3 hours downloading one film? At that rate, I could be to Walmart and back for the DVD, or Best Buy for the 1080p HD version, and still have 2 hours to spare.
Comments
Then after they've established themselves, users are familiar with the interface, they've learned a few things, then they buy El Gato and make a DVR version.
- Jasen.
How don't you see value in it? Let's compare costs.
Cable TV: $40/month.
DVR: $10/month.
After 3 years, that's $1,800.
Apple TV: $300.
Season pass from iTunes: $35 each.
(1800 - 300) / $35 = 42.8 TV seasons.
That's FOURTEEN shows a year. Do you watch that much? I didn't think so.
Apple TV + iTunes is an incredible value, once you throw out cable (not that I ever had it anyway). If next year they can pull of 720p (which would make movies about 3 GB and TV shows between 500 MB and 1 GB), they're golden.
Let me see...
Heroes
Battlestar Galactica
Stargate
Stargate Atlantis
Crossing Jordan
NCIS
24
Law & Order
Law & Order: SVU
Law & Order: CI
Survivor
The Amazing Race
Veronica Mars
Smallville
Project Runway
There's my 14 plus 1 extra. That excludes things I watch at random like CSI, Deal or No Deal, Cold Case, all the shows in syndication, etc.
If you watch just 2 shows a day, that's 14 seasons right there. Not a far stretch to imagine someone watching 2 shows a day. And if you have kids, chances are that easily puts you past 14 seasons right there. Maybe you enjoy watching Spongebob Squarepants, but I'd consider cutting off my own leg to avoid that torture. If you watch any reality TV shows like Survivor, they are basically 1/2 season shows so you end watching 2 of those to fill the season. And what about local news, weather, etc? Hell, what if I'm home from work one day and want to catch an episode of The Price is Right before Bob Barker retires? Hook up the rabbit ears and hope the local CBS channel is watchable? Or a better example right around the corner, what about watching the Super Bowl?
Also, back on the reality shows or even a show like 24, since they are not available on iTunes until the day after (if not longer) they air, if you have friends at work that like the same shows, do you want to walk in and have them greet you, saying, "Hey, were you as shocked as I that Steve got voted off Survivor last night?" Or if you missed the 2 Monday night episodes of 24 (like I did, and bought from iTunes since I currently lack a DVR), do you want to walk in and find out from a friend that Jack killed Curtis to defend a known terrorist and that the bad guys actually detonated a nuke near Los Angeles?
And then there's all the storage space, with each 1 hour episode taking about 1/2 a GB of space. At .5GB for 14 seasons averaging 20 episodes, that's 140GB of HD space a year.
And of course, there's the problem that not everything on TV is on iTunes. I had Smallville on my TV list? Hmm, no Smallville on iTunes...goes I'll have to do without. Thanks.
And this continues to annoy me, what about all the people like myself who can't get high-speed internet through any other source but the cable company? What's your suggestion, that I spend 2 days trying to download over dial-up? Beg a friend or relative to let me download from their computer?
Really, it's great that not having cable works out for you but for most it's simply not going to happen as it provides a better value to have a cable and DVR than Apple TV + iTunes for the majority of people. Really, I could do the same thing you're advocating with Apple TV by just buying DVDs. A season of a TV show costs close to the same amount as an iTunes Season Pass (except HBO series), except in the process I get better picture, sound, and bonus features.
I think that sentiment is correct. This is the infancy of this product. The long ranging potential is what excites me. I can't help but think that Google could become a part of this picture at some point with their dark fiber. I was starting to digitize my DVDs as MP4 files and was disappointed in the image quality (720x405, 1000 kbps bitrate), when blown up to a large screen display. To playback and deliver image quality that makes it a competitive real world product, the file sizes are going to have to be large...or video compression is going to have to make serious advances. I want to be able to have DVD quality images or better....not lesser. To me, this product becomes a monster when it can team up with a fiber internet connection, making 4GB or so high res movie downloads not so daunting. I want to be able to take my existing DVDs, like my old audio cds, and digitize them at an unnoticeable video compression, and make them useable on my computer, AppleTV or iPod. I'm all ready to go with digitizing my DVDs, but what resolution/format/size/bitrate makes sense for now, and for the future? I don't think anyone has that answer now. That could hurt with early adoption of the product. But I can see how once all these matters are understood and the technology evolves to make this a seamless user experience, Apple will have its foothold and a great potential to set the market like it did with the iPod.
Dark fiber? Google is not a backbone. The carriers are. Google has tens of thousands of servers, which are being used at near capacity, as so are being constantly expanded and upgraded.
Apple uses Akamai to serve its media offerings.
Me too and I agree. I don't buy movies at all, DVD or iTunes or any thing else. What am I going to do with AppleTV? Whatch Red vs Blue on my TV?
Why does everyone that obviously doesn't have any need for a certain product complain that they don't see a need for that product?
It's really quite simple: you don't have a need for ?tv. Apple doesn't force you to buy ?tv. You don't have to like or need every product that Apple makes.
Why does everyone that obviously doesn't have any need for a certain product complain that they don't see a need for that product?
It's really quite simple: you don't have a need for ?tv. Apple doesn't force you to buy ?tv. You don't have to like or need every product that Apple makes.
It might have something to do with this being a discussion forum, and thus an article about the AppleTV invokes people to discuss said product in the provided forum.
If you don't like the discussion, don't read it. Simple.
It might have something to do with this being a discussion forum, and thus an article about the AppleTV invokes people to discuss said product in the provided forum.
Which is why I'm discussing the fact that people who don't need a certain Apple product always seem to think that the product is stupid.
Selling 500-750k of them a year is not much of a stretch. Is it iPod-tastically successful? No. Profitable? Sure.
Which is why I'm discussing the fact that people who don't need a certain Apple product always seem to think that the product is stupid.
I don't think people have simply stated that they don't want one so they think it's stupid. They've given specific opinions on why they think this product has no value.
I think it has no value because in the end all the AppleTV does is act like a $300 iPod video cable. The device is an iPod without a screen. Nothing more.
Even Job's example during the Keynote with someone bringing over their laptop would be just as easy to do with a cable than through AppleTV.
For anyone with a Front Row enabled Mac, it's a better deal to buy the necessary video adapter and cable and run that to the TV. If you can get a video to play in Quicktime, it will play on Front Row. If you download any video from the internet that doesn't come from iTS, chances are your iPod can't play it and neither will the AppleTV. But install the correct codex and Quicktime/Front Row will handle it without issue.
And to make it worse, Apple doesn't provide any means to convert video to an iPod/AppleTV compatible format. There is a function in iTunes that is supposed to convert videos to iPod friendly format, but it doesn't handle muxed mpeg video which results in a video with no sound (at best). To me, it's sort of the same thing if Apple took out the ability to rip CD's to MP3/AAC; the ability to get video into the iPod is an important feature as Apple tries to jump into the home audio/video center.
And I have purchased TV shows from iTunes. And I generally only watch them on my TV via an iPod video cable or on my iMac through Front Row. But on the TV, I really have to crank up the volume to hear them. Not sure if it's the video cable or the audio quality of the source file.
How don't you see value in it? Let's compare costs.
Cable TV: $40/month.
DVR: $10/month.
After 3 years, that's $1,800.
Apple TV: $300.
Season pass from iTunes: $35 each.
(1800 - 300) / $35 = 42.8 TV seasons.
That's FOURTEEN shows a year. Do you watch that much? I didn't think so.
Apple TV + iTunes is an incredible value, once you throw out cable (not that I ever had it anyway). If next year they can pull of 720p (which would make movies about 3 GB and TV shows between 500 MB and 1 GB), they're golden.
Except that most cable companies jack up their high-speed Internet rates $10-$20/month if you don't do a cable/Internet package deal. Between that and a lack of 1080i/720p movies and shows, it isn't worth it.
And even if it was worth it and everyone started doing it, I can pretty much guarantee it'd result in higher Internet rates for everyone rather than more competitive cable TV costs.
I think we're more likely to see a monthly subscriber plan than DVR functionality. With a subscription plan, Apple TV effectively is a DVR.
Exactly! Repeat after me: Apple has no plans to release a DVR; it would be contrary to their iTunes Store business model.
If you want a Mac DVR, there are plenty of 3rd party options out there, buy one.
Doesn't change the fact that the Apple TV is an overpriced piece of 2 year old technology though.
New software upgrades mean the USB port on the AppleTV could take an external hard drive. New software upgrades mean better video capabilities. New software upgrades mean almost infinite possibilities.
As for DVR, I agree with a previous post that asks why Apple would want you recording content for free when they make money selling you the same content on iTunes. Seems pretty basic to me.
For me, I purchased Apple TV almost immediately after Job's Keynote. I love the thought of finally making my living room a seamless extension of my iMac.
I'm surprised people would actually give up HD transmissions to download iTMS shows at 640x480. All the people calculating season pass costs, can you factor in the difference between watching 24 in 720p (FOXs broadcast res) and watching 24 at 640x480 s-t-r-e-t-c-h-e-d to 1280x720?
The cost I calculated was for the average cable subscription. HD cable is way more expensive.
I'm also assuming that iTunes will be 720p in a year. The file size of movies/shows will only increase about 2.5x.
Except that most cable companies jack up their high-speed Internet rates $10-$20/month if you don't do a cable/Internet package deal. Between that and a lack of 1080i/720p movies and shows, it isn't worth it.
And even if it was worth it and everyone started doing it, I can pretty much guarantee it'd result in higher Internet rates for everyone rather than more competitive cable TV costs.
Unless you say, don't use Comcast for your cable.
You seem to be the exception. Despite statistics, I think most people (with jobs) watch a fraction of the television you do. 1-2 hours, every night, is freaking insane.
Only about half the people have high speed, and many of them have speeds of less than 1 Mb/s.
I was referring to the internet in general. Spam mentioned that internet would have to be factored into my equation, but everyone who's even aware of the Apple TV at this point already has the internet so it's a moot point.
I wasn't talking about high speed in particular, although obviously Apple TV is pretty much useless without it.
@caliminius
You seem to be the exception. Despite statistics, I think most people (with jobs) watch a fraction of the television you do. 1-2 hours, every night, is freaking insane.
1-2 hours every night is insane? That's a whopping 2 shows a night. Crazy, I know. As you seem to be discarding the statistics that show that TV watching is a lot higher than that, I can only say you would be the exception.
I'm not sure if you were trying to imply it or not, but I DO have a job.
The cost I calculated was for the average cable subscription. HD cable is way more expensive.
I'm also assuming that iTunes will be 720p in a year. The file size of movies/shows will only increase about 2.5x.
Sigh, HD cable was like $10 more from the one cable company I used to subscribe to.
The file size would only increase about 2.5? ONLY? ONLY? It takes about 30 minutes to download a 45 minute episode over my 3Mbps internet. And 2 hour movies around 1.2GB right now, about 3 GB for 720p, so I can spend 3 hours downloading one film? At that rate, I could be to Walmart and back for the DVD, or Best Buy for the 1080p HD version, and still have 2 hours to spare.