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.
How many iPod software upgrades have there been that have actually added abilities to the iPod? There's only so much you can do with a given set of hardware and given the life cycle of the iPod, I'd be hard pressed to imagine they would add anything to it without a hardware revision.
I know it's been said that Apple makes nearly no money off of the music sales on iTS. Is the same true of TV shows? If it is, then Apple offering a DVR service would not make it a real competitor to the iTS. In fact, if they charged a monthly fee like Tivo, it would be pure profit for Apple.
I wanted to like the AppleTV but it's limited to the same video formats as the iPod. And most video on the web is not iPod compatible. Why is the AppleTV so limited when Front Row and Quicktime can be made to play nice with a multitude of video formats? Toast 8 featuring TivoToGO coupled of course with a Tivo DVR had me much more excited than AppleTV.
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.
Greg, you are the one not familiar with the stats. People watch something like 3 to 6 hours of Tv a night.
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.
And the price of an iPod video + dock + remote is?
What if you don't have an iPod video?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
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.
Yep, and you can also use a simple cable to get the music to your stereo, but that doesn't stop people from using AirTunes.
Perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
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.
Again: perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
Perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
Exactly, what everyone wants (or will eventually want) is a network video player.
They're cheap and incredibly simple to use. Simpler than a PVR, way simpler, and perhaps even simpler than channel surfing. That's right, apple may have just made network video playback simpler than channel surfing.
Entering into the market at $300 is actually quite reasonable. $300 is cheaper than any first generation video source that I can remember. My current network video player cost that much but has an absolutely horrible interface. I'd pay $300 just for a NVP with a usable interface. None of them exist yet though... that is until the AppleTV is released.
My current network video player cost that much but has an absolutely horrible interface.
Which one?
Quote:
I'd pay $300 just for a NVP with a usable interface. None of them exist yet though... that is until the AppleTV is released.
I'd pay $300 to replace my dead EyeHome with ATV if only its apparent limitations weren't severely constraining, i.e. no support for SDTV (the real deal-killer) and most of my current A/V content (completely impractical time/quality-wise to convert for ATV-compatible formats). Even with its limitations EyeHome is/was arguably the most "Mac-friendly" network video player (especially for supported EyeTV owners) and now that it's discontinued it's really a shame ATV isn't a more compatible upgrade for it. ATV isn't the "true EyeHome killer" that it might have been for me as long as I can still get more value from EyeHome.
P.S. - I'm also in the "don't want/need a full-blown 'media center' computer in the living room" camp. And I understand why certain people want to do that, but some them don't seem to understand why others of us don't.
I'm using an I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2. It plays just about anything and integrates with iTunes and iPhoto... but the interface is completely pathetic.
The market definitely has room for PVRs, NVPs, and HTPCs. Apple has specifically chosen to sell a NVP. It isn't what some people want, and that is entirely justifiable.
But what I don't understand is people saying that it lacks features because it isn't a HTPC or PVR. This is like complaining that a motorcycle can't carry as much as a truck. This motorcycle sucks because it has less cargo capacity.
I'd pay $300 to replace my dead EyeHome with ATV if only its apparent limitations weren't severely constraining, i.e. no support for SDTV (the real deal-killer) and most of my current A/V content (completely impractical time/quality-wise to convert for ATV-compatible formats). Even with its limitations EyeHome is/was arguably the most "Mac-friendly" network video player (especially for supported EyeTV owners) and now that it's discontinued it's really a shame ATV isn't a more compatible upgrade for it. ATV isn't the "true EyeHome killer" that it might have been for me as long as I can still get more value from EyeHome.
P.S. - I'm also in the "don't want/need a full-blown 'media center' computer in the living room" camp. And I understand why certain people want to do that, but some them don't seem to understand why others of us don't.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point. It's far less limited on the audio side, but it's video compatibility is pretty pathetic. I'm not advocating putting an iMac in the living room (although the 24" iMac wall mounted would make a fine TV stand-in), but AppleTV in many ways competes with Front Row except it's not as good. With a couple of downloads, Front Row will play most any standard video file you throw at it: mpeg, wmv, asf. Would it be too much to want Apple to allow this same ability to extend AppleTV, except of course that it will at least partially break the dependence to the iTunes Store for content.
I could download a program to spend time re-encoding my videos but with what results? I honestly don't know enough about the proper settings to ensure that the audio/video output will be acceptable. I've tried on a couple of videos, and most like fine but the audio has been severely compromised. And Apple isn't providing anything with AppleTV to make this any easier.
I have the Airport Express with AirTunes and I enjoy it alot; if I lived in something larger than an apartment, I'd even consider buying a couple more to get music all over the house. But Airport Express actually provides more function than the AppleTV at 1/3 the cost: it's a wireless router, allows easy network printer sharing, and streams music to a stereo.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point. It's far less limited on the audio side, but it's video compatibility is pretty pathetic. I'm not advocating putting an iMac in the living room (although the 24" iMac wall mounted would make a fine TV stand-in), but AppleTV in many ways competes with Front Row except it's not as good. With a couple of downloads, Front Row will play most any standard video file you throw at it: mpeg, wmv, asf. Would it be too much to want Apple to allow this same ability to extend AppleTV, except of course that it will at least partially break the dependence to the iTunes Store for content.
I could download a program to spend time re-encoding my videos but with what results? I honestly don't know enough about the proper settings to ensure that the audio/video output will be acceptable. I've tried on a couple of videos, and most like fine but the audio has been severely compromised. And Apple isn't providing anything with AppleTV to make this any easier.
I have the Airport Express with AirTunes and I enjoy it alot; if I lived in something larger than an apartment, I'd even consider buying a couple more to get music all over the house. But Airport Express actually provides more function than the AppleTV at 1/3 the cost: it's a wireless router, allows easy network printer sharing, and streams music to a stereo.
Don't forget that this is software upgradeable. It's quite possible that Apple will add to the feature set over time.
It's also possible that third parties will be able to as well. We'll have to see.
But, Apple has made a calculation that most people will simply want to stream their iTunes purchases through a wireless network to their audio/video system.
They may be correct.
We have all noticed that most of the complaints about Apple's offerings come from technically involved people who post on websites like this.
However, the buying public doesn't seem to care about these complaints, and buy the products anyway.
I think that we will have that happening here as well.
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, this product should inspire people to buy more Tv shows, music video's, and movies. Understand that ALL Tv's with SD tuners can only accept 332 x 480 signals. The tuner limits it to that. So, even if you have cable, or even satellite, if your set requires you to go through the tuner input, you will find no difference in quality from this. If you can go through S-Video, or analog component inputs, there will be the same, or slightly better quality through this. Even if your Tv has DVI or HDMI, you may see better quality, depending on the compression used by the providers. Satellite is the worst here.
Apple is going for the large majority of the market now.
Over time, Apple can upgrade their service to 720p, and allow other file types to be streamed, if they find a big enough demand.
The big advantage of using cpu enabled products is to have the ability to adjust the feature mix as demands for those features change.
I see people jumping ahead of what is happening. Once we see what the actual demand for this product is over the next couple of quarters, we will see who is correct.
I'm using an I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2. It plays just about anything and integrates with iTunes and iPhoto... but the interface is completely pathetic.
Worse than EyeHome, if you're familiar with it? Are you using the most current version of AVeL Link Server or tried any other that works with Syabas-based players? I briefly tested an older version ALS, and Neuston Media Centre, with my EyeHome when I first got it. All of 'em seemed fairly comparable, i.e. meh. Maybe only EyeHome's handled EyeTV recordings, though, which was reason enough to keep using it. And it may have been lack of unexported EyeTV playback that kept me from seriously considering an AVLP2 over an EyeHome at the time.
Anyway, I'm more than ready to replace that dead EyeHome with a new NVP once I've sufficiently looked at the alternatives, including Apple TV or another EyeHome (for the right price; eBay prices got ridiculously high right after I started watching, sigh).
Quote:
The market definitely has room for PVRs, NVPs, and HTPCs. Apple has specifically chosen to sell a NVP. It isn't what some people want, and that is entirely justifiable.
I agree there's a market for all those categories, and not too surprised NVP popularity isn't better represented on Apple/Mac-centric forums. Personally, I think it's ultimately the most "elegant" solution if you don't need the other capabilities. It might be interesting to relate computing/living environments to peoples' PVR/NVP/NTPC preferences.
I'll keep borrowing NVP, if you don't mind, since I already prefer that term to "media extender".
Quote:
But what I don't understand is people saying that it lacks features because it isn't a HTPC or PVR. This is like complaining that a motorcycle can't carry as much as a truck. This motorcycle sucks because it has less cargo capacity.
If only that could be mandatory reading (with quiz afterwards) before people were allowed to post "X sucks because it's not Y" comments. Heck, AI could pioneer personalized AI to automagically detect various flavors of comments we'd prefer not to see and mark or quarantine them so we wouldn't have to? at least not after a certain threshold of tolerance is exceeded.
Apple also has to consider current and possible future relationships with content providers, both network based, and content (music companies, movie studios, etc.) based.
None of those are happy to be bypassed with these various tuners etc.
If Apple wants to do deals with them, they can't compete with them at the same time.
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, this product should inspire people to buy more Tv shows, music video's, and movies. Understand that ALL Tv's with SD tuners can only accept 332 x 480 signals.
I don't understand your reasoning there since Apple TV (as far as the specs claim) doesn't support SDTV, only EDTV/HDTV.
I think we've pretty much exhausted fresh ideas for what might make ATV a better and more compelling product. For me that's SDTV and more pre-existing content compatibility, both which keep it in dfiler's NVP product category that I'm most interested in. Adding other functionality, like 1080 output, still keeps it within that boundary. Others folks want or compare it with PVR/HTPC capabilities, which seems (and I could well be wrong) to reclassify the product beyond what it's intended to be. Certain things, like adding a DVD drive, are kind of on the cusp.
That ATV could be(come) a "best in class" NVP is where I see more potential. The PVR/HTPC aspirations for it might do better considering alternatives, some already proposed.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point.
I don't disagree at all, especially with any reasons within the "NVP boundary" I attempted to define earlier which most (if not all) of yours were. (yikes, grammar police)
I don't understand your reasoning there since Apple TV (as far as the specs claim) doesn't support SDTV, only EDTV/HDTV.
I think we've pretty much exhausted fresh ideas for what might make ATV a better and more compelling product. For me that's SDTV and more pre-existing content compatibility, both which keep it in dfiler's NVP product category that I'm most interested in. Adding other functionality, like 1080 output, still keeps it within that boundary. Others folks want or compare it with PVR/HTPC capabilities, which seems (and I could well be wrong) to reclassify the product beyond what it's intended to be. Certain things, like adding a DVD drive, are kind of on the cusp.
That ATV could be(come) a "best in class" NVP is where I see more potential. The PVR/HTPC aspirations for it might do better considering alternatives, some already proposed.
It supports the Apple iTunes product line. What is that? Have you evidence that Apple plans to suddenly upgrade its recently upgraded video download standard?
I think what he means is that the Apple TV hardware doesn't support SDTV. I currently use my TV system to distribute audio through out the house and been wanting to add photos and video it. The Apple TV doesn't support this. It needs an SDTV output that I can connect to a modulator.
I think what he means is that the Apple TV hardware doesn't support SDTV. I currently use my TV system to distribute audio through out the house and been wanting to add photos and video it. The Apple TV doesn't support this. It needs an SDTV output that I can connect to a modulator.
There are adapters available for under $20 or so that will allow this. They are use in the video world all the time.
Don't forget that HDMI is just DVI with audio. That can easily be broken out to DVI and audio, then the DVI can use Apple's, or anyone's DVI to VGA or S-Video adapter. If you have a really old Tv, you can even adapt S-Video to composite.
At one time or another I've had to do all of those things for people.
You can do a quick search on the web for the adapters. Cyberguys, Newegg, and others, should carry at least some of these.
As far as Europe is concerned, I'm not familiar with what they mostly use these days other than the SCART adapter Aegis has been talking about.
There are adapters available for under $20 or so that will allow this. They are use in the video world all the time.
Those are physical adapters (svideo/vga and vga/dvi). The graphics hardware and drivers have to support the output or the physical adapter is worthless.
Those are physical adapters (svideo/vga and vga/dvi). The graphics hardware and drivers have to support the output or the physical adapter is worthless.
In my experience, it hasn't been a problem. We don't as yet know just what the thing is doing to the signal.
We don't know if it upscales all video or not. We don't k ow what it does to SD proportions, etc.
Even if one does need a widescreen Tv, the rest of the argument holds.
Will these adapters work with 480p? If I recall correctly I had to set my Mac Mini to Interlace in order to used the S-Video adapter. (The picture was so awful I quickly bought a dedicated display for it.)
Will these adapters work with 480p? If I recall correctly I had to set my Mac Mini to Interlace in order to used the S-Video adapter. (The picture was so awful I quickly bought a dedicated display for it.)
It's an interesting question. Most Tv's that produce 480p will take a 480i signal and turn it into 480p. There are Tv's with 480p that have analog component and S-Video inputs as well.
Don't forget that the AppleTv also has analog component outputs as well. They can also be combined in an adapter to S-Video, though those adapters are more expensive.
Don't forget that the AppleTv also has analog component outputs as well. They can also be combined in an adapter to S-Video, though those adapters are more expensive.
It's these analog connections I've been looking at. And what I think will be the problem is interlace and progressive. Those adapters will probably work with an interlaced input but not with a progressive input. I have a DVD player that has 480i/p component and s-video outputs. The s-video output displays a picture when the player is set for interlace. It does not display a picture when progressive is selected.
And if it was this easy then why am I returning an A/V receiver I just bought. The sells people said that it could do all the conversions I wanted. But its manual explicitly stated that it will not down convert component (analog inputs) to s-video/composite. It will cross convert s-video and composite, and it will up convert s-video/composite to component. If it is as easy as you think, why wasn't the capability put in there?
Comments
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.
How many iPod software upgrades have there been that have actually added abilities to the iPod? There's only so much you can do with a given set of hardware and given the life cycle of the iPod, I'd be hard pressed to imagine they would add anything to it without a hardware revision.
I know it's been said that Apple makes nearly no money off of the music sales on iTS. Is the same true of TV shows? If it is, then Apple offering a DVR service would not make it a real competitor to the iTS. In fact, if they charged a monthly fee like Tivo, it would be pure profit for Apple.
I wanted to like the AppleTV but it's limited to the same video formats as the iPod. And most video on the web is not iPod compatible. Why is the AppleTV so limited when Front Row and Quicktime can be made to play nice with a multitude of video formats? Toast 8 featuring TivoToGO coupled of course with a Tivo DVR had me much more excited than AppleTV.
@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.
Greg, you are the one not familiar with the stats. People watch something like 3 to 6 hours of Tv a night.
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.
And the price of an iPod video + dock + remote is?
What if you don't have an iPod video?
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.
Yep, and you can also use a simple cable to get the music to your stereo, but that doesn't stop people from using AirTunes.
Perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
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.
Again: perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
Perhaps we don't all want to have a computer in the living room?
Exactly, what everyone wants (or will eventually want) is a network video player.
They're cheap and incredibly simple to use. Simpler than a PVR, way simpler, and perhaps even simpler than channel surfing. That's right, apple may have just made network video playback simpler than channel surfing.
Entering into the market at $300 is actually quite reasonable. $300 is cheaper than any first generation video source that I can remember. My current network video player cost that much but has an absolutely horrible interface. I'd pay $300 just for a NVP with a usable interface. None of them exist yet though... that is until the AppleTV is released.
My current network video player cost that much but has an absolutely horrible interface.
Which one?
I'd pay $300 just for a NVP with a usable interface. None of them exist yet though... that is until the AppleTV is released.
I'd pay $300 to replace my dead EyeHome with ATV if only its apparent limitations weren't severely constraining, i.e. no support for SDTV (the real deal-killer) and most of my current A/V content (completely impractical time/quality-wise to convert for ATV-compatible formats). Even with its limitations EyeHome is/was arguably the most "Mac-friendly" network video player (especially for supported EyeTV owners) and now that it's discontinued it's really a shame ATV isn't a more compatible upgrade for it. ATV isn't the "true EyeHome killer" that it might have been for me as long as I can still get more value from EyeHome.
P.S. - I'm also in the "don't want/need a full-blown 'media center' computer in the living room" camp. And I understand why certain people want to do that, but some them don't seem to understand why others of us don't.
Which one?
I'm using an I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2. It plays just about anything and integrates with iTunes and iPhoto... but the interface is completely pathetic.
The market definitely has room for PVRs, NVPs, and HTPCs. Apple has specifically chosen to sell a NVP. It isn't what some people want, and that is entirely justifiable.
But what I don't understand is people saying that it lacks features because it isn't a HTPC or PVR. This is like complaining that a motorcycle can't carry as much as a truck. This motorcycle sucks because it has less cargo capacity.
I'd pay $300 to replace my dead EyeHome with ATV if only its apparent limitations weren't severely constraining, i.e. no support for SDTV (the real deal-killer) and most of my current A/V content (completely impractical time/quality-wise to convert for ATV-compatible formats). Even with its limitations EyeHome is/was arguably the most "Mac-friendly" network video player (especially for supported EyeTV owners) and now that it's discontinued it's really a shame ATV isn't a more compatible upgrade for it. ATV isn't the "true EyeHome killer" that it might have been for me as long as I can still get more value from EyeHome.
P.S. - I'm also in the "don't want/need a full-blown 'media center' computer in the living room" camp. And I understand why certain people want to do that, but some them don't seem to understand why others of us don't.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point. It's far less limited on the audio side, but it's video compatibility is pretty pathetic. I'm not advocating putting an iMac in the living room (although the 24" iMac wall mounted would make a fine TV stand-in), but AppleTV in many ways competes with Front Row except it's not as good. With a couple of downloads, Front Row will play most any standard video file you throw at it: mpeg, wmv, asf. Would it be too much to want Apple to allow this same ability to extend AppleTV, except of course that it will at least partially break the dependence to the iTunes Store for content.
I could download a program to spend time re-encoding my videos but with what results? I honestly don't know enough about the proper settings to ensure that the audio/video output will be acceptable. I've tried on a couple of videos, and most like fine but the audio has been severely compromised. And Apple isn't providing anything with AppleTV to make this any easier.
I have the Airport Express with AirTunes and I enjoy it alot; if I lived in something larger than an apartment, I'd even consider buying a couple more to get music all over the house. But Airport Express actually provides more function than the AppleTV at 1/3 the cost: it's a wireless router, allows easy network printer sharing, and streams music to a stereo.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point. It's far less limited on the audio side, but it's video compatibility is pretty pathetic. I'm not advocating putting an iMac in the living room (although the 24" iMac wall mounted would make a fine TV stand-in), but AppleTV in many ways competes with Front Row except it's not as good. With a couple of downloads, Front Row will play most any standard video file you throw at it: mpeg, wmv, asf. Would it be too much to want Apple to allow this same ability to extend AppleTV, except of course that it will at least partially break the dependence to the iTunes Store for content.
I could download a program to spend time re-encoding my videos but with what results? I honestly don't know enough about the proper settings to ensure that the audio/video output will be acceptable. I've tried on a couple of videos, and most like fine but the audio has been severely compromised. And Apple isn't providing anything with AppleTV to make this any easier.
I have the Airport Express with AirTunes and I enjoy it alot; if I lived in something larger than an apartment, I'd even consider buying a couple more to get music all over the house. But Airport Express actually provides more function than the AppleTV at 1/3 the cost: it's a wireless router, allows easy network printer sharing, and streams music to a stereo.
Don't forget that this is software upgradeable. It's quite possible that Apple will add to the feature set over time.
It's also possible that third parties will be able to as well. We'll have to see.
But, Apple has made a calculation that most people will simply want to stream their iTunes purchases through a wireless network to their audio/video system.
They may be correct.
We have all noticed that most of the complaints about Apple's offerings come from technically involved people who post on websites like this.
However, the buying public doesn't seem to care about these complaints, and buy the products anyway.
I think that we will have that happening here as well.
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, this product should inspire people to buy more Tv shows, music video's, and movies. Understand that ALL Tv's with SD tuners can only accept 332 x 480 signals. The tuner limits it to that. So, even if you have cable, or even satellite, if your set requires you to go through the tuner input, you will find no difference in quality from this. If you can go through S-Video, or analog component inputs, there will be the same, or slightly better quality through this. Even if your Tv has DVI or HDMI, you may see better quality, depending on the compression used by the providers. Satellite is the worst here.
Apple is going for the large majority of the market now.
Over time, Apple can upgrade their service to 720p, and allow other file types to be streamed, if they find a big enough demand.
The big advantage of using cpu enabled products is to have the ability to adjust the feature mix as demands for those features change.
I see people jumping ahead of what is happening. Once we see what the actual demand for this product is over the next couple of quarters, we will see who is correct.
I'm using an I-O Data AVeL LinkPlayer2. It plays just about anything and integrates with iTunes and iPhoto... but the interface is completely pathetic.
Worse than EyeHome, if you're familiar with it? Are you using the most current version of AVeL Link Server or tried any other that works with Syabas-based players? I briefly tested an older version ALS, and Neuston Media Centre, with my EyeHome when I first got it. All of 'em seemed fairly comparable, i.e. meh. Maybe only EyeHome's handled EyeTV recordings, though, which was reason enough to keep using it. And it may have been lack of unexported EyeTV playback that kept me from seriously considering an AVLP2 over an EyeHome at the time.
Anyway, I'm more than ready to replace that dead EyeHome with a new NVP once I've sufficiently looked at the alternatives, including Apple TV or another EyeHome (for the right price; eBay prices got ridiculously high right after I started watching, sigh).
The market definitely has room for PVRs, NVPs, and HTPCs. Apple has specifically chosen to sell a NVP. It isn't what some people want, and that is entirely justifiable.
I agree there's a market for all those categories, and not too surprised NVP popularity isn't better represented on Apple/Mac-centric forums. Personally, I think it's ultimately the most "elegant" solution if you don't need the other capabilities. It might be interesting to relate computing/living environments to peoples' PVR/NVP/NTPC preferences.
I'll keep borrowing NVP, if you don't mind, since I already prefer that term to "media extender".
But what I don't understand is people saying that it lacks features because it isn't a HTPC or PVR. This is like complaining that a motorcycle can't carry as much as a truck. This motorcycle sucks because it has less cargo capacity.
If only that could be mandatory reading (with quiz afterwards) before people were allowed to post "X sucks because it's not Y" comments. Heck, AI could pioneer personalized AI to automagically detect various flavors of comments we'd prefer not to see and mark or quarantine them so we wouldn't have to? at least not after a certain threshold of tolerance is exceeded.
None of those are happy to be bypassed with these various tuners etc.
If Apple wants to do deals with them, they can't compete with them at the same time.
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, this product should inspire people to buy more Tv shows, music video's, and movies. Understand that ALL Tv's with SD tuners can only accept 332 x 480 signals.
I don't understand your reasoning there since Apple TV (as far as the specs claim) doesn't support SDTV, only EDTV/HDTV.
I think we've pretty much exhausted fresh ideas for what might make ATV a better and more compelling product. For me that's SDTV and more pre-existing content compatibility, both which keep it in dfiler's NVP product category that I'm most interested in. Adding other functionality, like 1080 output, still keeps it within that boundary. Others folks want or compare it with PVR/HTPC capabilities, which seems (and I could well be wrong) to reclassify the product beyond what it's intended to be. Certain things, like adding a DVD drive, are kind of on the cusp.
That ATV could be(come) a "best in class" NVP is where I see more potential. The PVR/HTPC aspirations for it might do better considering alternatives, some already proposed.
The limited capabilities of the AppleTV is my point.
I don't disagree at all, especially with any reasons within the "NVP boundary" I attempted to define earlier which most (if not all) of yours were. (yikes, grammar police)
I don't understand your reasoning there since Apple TV (as far as the specs claim) doesn't support SDTV, only EDTV/HDTV.
I think we've pretty much exhausted fresh ideas for what might make ATV a better and more compelling product. For me that's SDTV and more pre-existing content compatibility, both which keep it in dfiler's NVP product category that I'm most interested in. Adding other functionality, like 1080 output, still keeps it within that boundary. Others folks want or compare it with PVR/HTPC capabilities, which seems (and I could well be wrong) to reclassify the product beyond what it's intended to be. Certain things, like adding a DVD drive, are kind of on the cusp.
That ATV could be(come) a "best in class" NVP is where I see more potential. The PVR/HTPC aspirations for it might do better considering alternatives, some already proposed.
It supports the Apple iTunes product line. What is that? Have you evidence that Apple plans to suddenly upgrade its recently upgraded video download standard?
I think what he means is that the Apple TV hardware doesn't support SDTV. I currently use my TV system to distribute audio through out the house and been wanting to add photos and video it. The Apple TV doesn't support this. It needs an SDTV output that I can connect to a modulator.
There are adapters available for under $20 or so that will allow this. They are use in the video world all the time.
Don't forget that HDMI is just DVI with audio. That can easily be broken out to DVI and audio, then the DVI can use Apple's, or anyone's DVI to VGA or S-Video adapter. If you have a really old Tv, you can even adapt S-Video to composite.
At one time or another I've had to do all of those things for people.
You can do a quick search on the web for the adapters. Cyberguys, Newegg, and others, should carry at least some of these.
As far as Europe is concerned, I'm not familiar with what they mostly use these days other than the SCART adapter Aegis has been talking about.
There are adapters available for under $20 or so that will allow this. They are use in the video world all the time.
Those are physical adapters (svideo/vga and vga/dvi). The graphics hardware and drivers have to support the output or the physical adapter is worthless.
Those are physical adapters (svideo/vga and vga/dvi). The graphics hardware and drivers have to support the output or the physical adapter is worthless.
In my experience, it hasn't been a problem. We don't as yet know just what the thing is doing to the signal.
We don't know if it upscales all video or not. We don't k ow what it does to SD proportions, etc.
Even if one does need a widescreen Tv, the rest of the argument holds.
Will these adapters work with 480p? If I recall correctly I had to set my Mac Mini to Interlace in order to used the S-Video adapter. (The picture was so awful I quickly bought a dedicated display for it.)
It's an interesting question. Most Tv's that produce 480p will take a 480i signal and turn it into 480p. There are Tv's with 480p that have analog component and S-Video inputs as well.
Don't forget that the AppleTv also has analog component outputs as well. They can also be combined in an adapter to S-Video, though those adapters are more expensive.
Don't forget that the AppleTv also has analog component outputs as well. They can also be combined in an adapter to S-Video, though those adapters are more expensive.
It's these analog connections I've been looking at. And what I think will be the problem is interlace and progressive. Those adapters will probably work with an interlaced input but not with a progressive input. I have a DVD player that has 480i/p component and s-video outputs. The s-video output displays a picture when the player is set for interlace. It does not display a picture when progressive is selected.
And if it was this easy then why am I returning an A/V receiver I just bought. The sells people said that it could do all the conversions I wanted. But its manual explicitly stated that it will not down convert component (analog inputs) to s-video/composite. It will cross convert s-video and composite, and it will up convert s-video/composite to component. If it is as easy as you think, why wasn't the capability put in there?