It was overpriced, and frivilous in concept. Look at how wrong I was.
I am guessing Apple tv will be similar. It will slap us in the face to demonstrate a need we have that 10 minutes ago we did not know existed.
The first gen iPod was not that unique. They had MP3 players for years. Why was spending 3 times what a 256 meg Rio worth it? Who needed 5 gigs of music all at once?
The Apple tv seems weak when compared with tivo/pvr or PC based home entertainment. But give Apple credit for thinking outside the box. They may hit another homerun. Or it will quietly fade away into obscurity.
Finally, this product should not have been delayed for any type of technical reasons. It is a simple product for Apple to deliver. What's taking them so long?
I am guessing the delay was due to the early announcement. Rumor sites and pundits and analysts were all spouting about iTv for weeks/months before. I think Steve realizes that rumors and dissappointment at MacWorlds hurt stock prices, etc.
So the cat was out of the bag, the best bet is to announce it and have an aggressive timetable. That apparently turned out to be optimistic. Apple HAS shipped products and software before primetime and taken a hit for it. Maybe this product is targetd as a less tech saavy audience and they want it to be perfect.
Remember all eyes are on Apple these days. Many want and need them to fail. Any misstep and we will be back to Apple is doomed BS. So Apple will deliver a solid product that does what it states well. Nothing more and nothing less.
No, but they do need content, specifically 720p content, for it to be a success. The more content the more likely it is going to be a success. Also with video there is a greater chance of success if an alternative to a full purchase price per movie/TV show is offered, at least unless that price is close enough to current rental prices to satisfy the consumer who is more likely to rent $20 in movies (4-6 movies) a week than they are to buy 2 movies for that same $20.
If content (even 720p) is holding this thing back, then why is the iTMS doing so well? It doesnt offer everything but it still offers enough to be successful. Remove the movies and the 720 all together and you still ahve everyone who has purchased TV Shows, Videos and Music as an audience. So no matter what, this product still ahs a huge market and a huge capacity for money!
One other thing... the usb port on the back being for service upgrades is a load of crap.
Also, with SJ saying people don't want to subscribe to get Music is crap too. Thats the iPods biggest weakness which Microsoft failed to drill in with their player. SJ knows a subscription model is too expensive on his end and he doesn't do things that don't make him $. SJ says people want to own it because he doesn't want to let on to the competition. He bends the truth all the time because he knows he can convice people to believe what he wants them to believe. I've been an SJ fanboy for 15 years, I know his crap by now.
Ok, so we're paying apple 300 for a set top box, when microsoft is charging 300-400 for theirs and it plays lots of good games (x360). Seems kinda over priced to me
Well, you could certainly still do that but the thought of paying $20 or $30 a month for imediate access to any music/TV/Movie* makes my jaw hit the floor. With this Apple TV and a Bit Torrent iTunes it's possible. This revolution would make the iPod almost a drop in the bucket.
You can't compare this to renting a movie because it isn't the same. Imagine having the past 70 years of media available instantanously. Eventually you could even get old radio broadcasts in there if you like.
This could replace Cable TV (Except live sports) and Radio! That's huge!
Yes.
While I like owning media, it is far more expensive than renting.
If Apple wants to replace the purchased DVD model, it sure could do that. If it wants to replace CableTV, then the total expenditure I make over a year for AppleTV shows (watching EVERYTHING I want to watch) vs total expenditure on cable (for the same programs of course) would have to be the same.
Of course, if they want to be an adjunct to cable, that is also their choice. And the download to own model works better for the Internet - for now (since there are fewer downloads).
Ok, so we're paying apple 300 for a set top box, when microsoft is charging 300-400 for theirs and it plays lots of good games (x360). Seems kinda over priced to me
The Apple TV is nothing like. They don't even compare. Do you even know what the Apple TV does?
I do think the Apple TV is slightly over priced, but only by £50 and at least it will be silent. The XBox sounds like you've got a swamp boat stuck under your TV.
This is, so far, the crux of the matter for me. I buy a decent amount of TV shows on iTunes (for shows I forget to record or that I'm so far behind on that they get deleted) and I like the idea of being able to easily view my photos and play my music through my HDTV. However, the HD DVR in the living room can't play my iTunes purchases, nor can it display my photos or play my music (even if I eventually get a Tivo Series 3, it won't play my mostly AAC iTunes library).
So, I'm basically an ideal Apple TV customer. But given that I find watching non-HD content on my HDTV excruciating, why would I want to stream 480p iTunes TV shows that don't even look that hot on my 20" iMac monitor? I mean, streaming photos and music would be great, but the TV aspect is the key selling point here. I can bring people into the bedroom for 5 minutes to look at photos. I can hook my iPod up to the stereo or pop a CD in the DVD player. But I really don't like watching TV shows on my computer compared to watching them in a comfortable living room on an HDTV. So the "TV" part of Apple TV is the biggest selling point for me. Unfortunately, until I can watch HD content on it, I'm not interested.
And as soon as they put that card on the table, I'll buy their product. Without hesitation.
The flip side of that argument is of course: How much content is currently available at HD resolution?
There's NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other broadcast stations that you can currently receive for free with an ATSC tuner and a cheap antenna... and then what?
Universal, A&E, and TNT have HD channels in some markets that are mostly broadcast re-runs or cancelled series, some in 4:3 or even stretch-o-vision... There are a few series worth catching (BSG for one) but for the most part these channels are scraps compared to their SD equivalents...
There's FOOD, HGTV, Discovery, National Geographic... They're nice but not much I would pay for if it was offered on iTunes. I can get nature and travel programming from the local PBS station as well as science programming that is more substantial than the Discovery channel.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have HD content available, but realistically, where is this content supposed to come from? The sad truth is that most of the new content on cable is still produced and/or presented in SD in 2007. I can't imagine many channels lining up to produce more expensive HD programming (than the SD version enjoyed by the vast majority of the populace) with little financial reward.
Apple could get HD content from movies but they're having problems acquiring films at iPod resolution... and getting films at HD resolution would be even harder. The film studios aren't willing to play ball with Apple as easily as the TV studios. Realistically I can't see myself spending the time or money to download a movie-- I only watch movies once and there's a Blockbuster within two miles of my house. Even if I could rent movies it would be more convenient to head to the video store. It's just too much data.
I have a feeling that the lack of HD content will be relieved as we get closer to 2/2009... as most channels (even the cable ones) are forced to carry HD.
The Apple TV is nothing like. They don't even compare. Do you even know what the Apple TV does?
I do think the Apple TV is slightly over priced, but only by £50 and at least it will be silent. The XBox sounds like you've got a swamp boat stuck under your TV.
The appletv is just like the xbox360, because if you have windows media center or new vista you have access to all your computer's movies, pictures, etc. just like apple tv, the only difference the xbox harddrive is for the games, and the internals of the x360 are a lot more advanced and worth the price.
I just can't understand why -- even for IP reasons -- Apple will not let me stream the DVDs playing on my computer, wirelessly, via AppleTV. It would be just the equivalent of a wireless DVD player, that's all?!
Oddly you can't stream from multi-disc changers in MCEs either. At least not the 200 disc Sony DVD changer. Which sucks.
A POINTLESS PRODUCT THAT WILL FILL A VERY SMALL VOID IN SOMEONE'S LIFE. I don't see it really taking off.
That entire diatribe is 100% opinion. Which you are entitled to but don't mistake it as forecasting the future.
Quote:
Ok, so we're paying apple 300 for a set top box, when microsoft is charging 300-400 for theirs and it plays lots of good games (x360). Seems kinda over priced to me.
The X-Box is a money looser. Apple TV is priced to actually make a profit.
Quote:
So, I'm basically an ideal Apple TV customer. But given that I find watching non-HD content on my HDTV excruciating,
Unless the conversion software in your TV isn't very good. Watching SD on HDTV isn't that bad.
It was overpriced, and frivilous in concept. Look at how wrong I was.
Ummmmm... not to diss you or anything, but the fact that your were wrong with the iPod says nothing at all (e.g., I happened to be right on that, but that was, equally, plain dumb luck).
Also, I have not implied for a nanosecond that it is frivolous in concept. Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance.
The fact that you are willing to generalize from just one data point (your prior experience) does make me wonder.... In any event, I recommend that you read the many insightful posts in this thread, and perhaps you may come to a better understanding.
I don't know why I think this is so cool, but...the idea of loading a movie onto your iPhone, going over to someone's house and playing the movie from the iPhone to an @TV just screams cool to me.
Having said that, the ability to plug in an iPod or iPhone dock should be a given. But it's not at this point.
An iSight with iChat would also be way cool.
On another note, I'd actually consider getting this if it had, not some high-end outlandish feature but rather a simple DVD drive in it. I want less clutter, not more. So close Apple...
...Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance...
And here is the problem today, we don't know the full extent of the execution right now, only what Apple has told us so far. The execution and success of the iPod had as much to do with iTM and iTunes as it did the iPod. We know that Apple TV will have an iTunes link for both streaming and synching movies and music to it's internal 40 GB hard drive. We also know that it will link to Apple's website via the web for streamed movie trailers. We know that you can buy movies and television shows on iTunes at 640 x 480. We also know that initially at least Apple TV will have a limited range of video formats that it will support.
What we do not know is:
Will iTMS be updated to 720p on the release of Apple TV?
Will Apple, either by themselves or with a partner, offer a rental or subscription service?
Will there be some form of plug-in archetecture for third parties to extend the functions of Apple TV?
Does Apple have some other content/distribution model in the works similar for a broadcast like experience? Possibly using ad revenue to pay for or partially subsidies the cost to the consumer for content?
Will Apple license Fair Play to 3rd party venders for content/services that they do not offer?
These are the unknowns that I think are significant to the success of Apple TV. We can guess at some of these, and there are probably others that I have not listed which could help Apple as well. I think that no 2 and 4 are items that could set Apple TV ahead of the others. Numbers 3 and 5 would help, but I would say are less likely today given Apple's concentration on distribution of and control of media for their devices.
Don't forget that Apple TV is not being sold as an all in one solution, but rather part of a package. This at minimum is an Apple TV and iTunes (iTMS) on your Windows PC. But it is also targeted at selling an all around package that includes an iMac, Mini, or Mac Book as well as an AirPort Extreme Base Station with plug in play printer sharing and USB hard drive sharing to inexpensively and easily add storage space as you need it.
When you compare other media extenders with the AppleTV you find that it isn't overpriced at all. Sure, some appliances like the D-Link 320 and 520 series media extenders are a little cheaper. Especially now that the prices have recently been severely reduced, which, in my opinion, is due directly to the impending release of the AppleTV.
However, the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD, a more refined UI, and judging by negative comments about the D-Link DSM-320/520 on Amazon the AppleTV will most certainly be more reliable than those devices. It seems Apple is once again not the first to market with a product type, but the first to market with a seamlessly integrated, stable, easy to use product type.
PS: only wish is that there will be a way to play my AVIs, even it means I have to create a simple Reference Movie with QT Pro and then importing that file into iTunes.
...a simple DVD drive in it. I want less clutter, not more. So close Apple...
One of Apple's goals with Apple TV is to get you to buy one of these instead of a HD DVD or Blue Ray player. They figure that most people that would buy one already have a DVD player hooked up to their TV, so they don't really need one in the Apple TV unless it was HD DVD which they don't want you to buy so why include it in the Apple TV when it would just make it more expensive than the HD DVD player?
And here is the problem today, we don't know the full extent of the execution right now, only what Apple has told us so far. The execution and success of the iPod had as much to do with iTM and iTunes as it did the iPod. We know that Apple TV will have an iTunes link for both streaming and synching movies and music to it's internal 40 GB hard drive. We also know that it will link to Apple's website via the web for streamed movie trailers. We know that you can buy movies and television shows on iTunes at 640 x 480. We also know that initially at least Apple TV will have a limited range of video formats that it will support.
What we do not know is:
Will iTMS be updated to 720p on the release of Apple TV?
Will Apple, either by themselves or with a partner, offer a rental or subscription service?
Will there be some form of plug-in archetecture for third parties to extend the functions of Apple TV?
Does Apple have some other content/distribution model in the works similar for a broadcast like experience? Possibly using ad revenue to pay for or partially subsidies the cost to the consumer for content?
Will Apple license Fair Play to 3rd party venders for content/services that they do not offer?
These are the unknowns that I think are significant to the success of Apple TV. We can guess at some of these, and there are probably others that I have not listed which could help Apple as well. I think that no 2 and 4 are items that could set Apple TV ahead of the others. Numbers 3 and 5 would help, but I would say are less likely today given Apple's concentration on distribution of and control of media for their devices.
Don't forget that Apple TV is not being sold as an all in one solution, but rather part of a package. This at minimum is an Apple TV and iTunes (iTMS) on your Windows PC. But it is also targeted at selling an all around package that includes an iMac, Mini, or Mac Book as well as an AirPort Extreme Base Station with plug in play printer sharing and USB hard drive sharing to inexpensively and easily add storage space as you need it.
Heck.... if this thing allowed me to get rid of my current wireless routers and act as a one-stop router (on top of it being a TV streaming device), I would consider it a bit more wothwhile for $300!
Ummmmm... not to diss you or anything, but the fact that your were wrong with the iPod says nothing at all (e.g., I happened to be right on that, but that was, equally, plain dumb luck).
Also, I have not implied for a nanosecond that it is frivolous in concept. Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance.
The fact that you are willing to generalize from just one data point (your prior experience) does make me wonder.... In any event, I recommend that you read the many insightful posts in this thread, and perhaps you may come to a better understanding.
While I quoted my personal view point, I can go back and find plenty of discussion boards all over that had the same opinion. The original iPod was a nich product, overpriced, an odd ball product, etc. My point was not based upon one data point, but in fact hundreds.
I myself have preordered an Apple TV so I am not dissig it in any way. It will do exactly what I bought it for. I wanted it to be clear that plenty of Apple launches have been met with a healthy dose of negativity and it seems Apple Tv gets a hefty dose and like the original iPod it may turn heads or like the Cube may flop. Simple as that.
Comments
Tell me again..... why should I buy this product?
This is exactly what I said with the first iPod.
It was overpriced, and frivilous in concept. Look at how wrong I was.
I am guessing Apple tv will be similar. It will slap us in the face to demonstrate a need we have that 10 minutes ago we did not know existed.
The first gen iPod was not that unique. They had MP3 players for years. Why was spending 3 times what a 256 meg Rio worth it? Who needed 5 gigs of music all at once?
The Apple tv seems weak when compared with tivo/pvr or PC based home entertainment. But give Apple credit for thinking outside the box. They may hit another homerun. Or it will quietly fade away into obscurity.
Finally, this product should not have been delayed for any type of technical reasons. It is a simple product for Apple to deliver. What's taking them so long?
I am guessing the delay was due to the early announcement. Rumor sites and pundits and analysts were all spouting about iTv for weeks/months before. I think Steve realizes that rumors and dissappointment at MacWorlds hurt stock prices, etc.
So the cat was out of the bag, the best bet is to announce it and have an aggressive timetable. That apparently turned out to be optimistic. Apple HAS shipped products and software before primetime and taken a hit for it. Maybe this product is targetd as a less tech saavy audience and they want it to be perfect.
Remember all eyes are on Apple these days. Many want and need them to fail. Any misstep and we will be back to Apple is doomed BS. So Apple will deliver a solid product that does what it states well. Nothing more and nothing less.
No, but they do need content, specifically 720p content, for it to be a success. The more content the more likely it is going to be a success. Also with video there is a greater chance of success if an alternative to a full purchase price per movie/TV show is offered, at least unless that price is close enough to current rental prices to satisfy the consumer who is more likely to rent $20 in movies (4-6 movies) a week than they are to buy 2 movies for that same $20.
If content (even 720p) is holding this thing back, then why is the iTMS doing so well? It doesnt offer everything but it still offers enough to be successful. Remove the movies and the 720 all together and you still ahve everyone who has purchased TV Shows, Videos and Music as an audience. So no matter what, this product still ahs a huge market and a huge capacity for money!
Also, with SJ saying people don't want to subscribe to get Music is crap too. Thats the iPods biggest weakness which Microsoft failed to drill in with their player. SJ knows a subscription model is too expensive on his end and he doesn't do things that don't make him $. SJ says people want to own it because he doesn't want to let on to the competition. He bends the truth all the time because he knows he can convice people to believe what he wants them to believe. I've been an SJ fanboy for 15 years, I know his crap by now.
If you want to connect this:
to this:
without this:
a great laugh to start the day, thanks
Well, you could certainly still do that but the thought of paying $20 or $30 a month for imediate access to any music/TV/Movie* makes my jaw hit the floor. With this Apple TV and a Bit Torrent iTunes it's possible. This revolution would make the iPod almost a drop in the bucket.
You can't compare this to renting a movie because it isn't the same. Imagine having the past 70 years of media available instantanously. Eventually you could even get old radio broadcasts in there if you like.
This could replace Cable TV (Except live sports) and Radio! That's huge!
Yes.
While I like owning media, it is far more expensive than renting.
If Apple wants to replace the purchased DVD model, it sure could do that. If it wants to replace CableTV, then the total expenditure I make over a year for AppleTV shows (watching EVERYTHING I want to watch) vs total expenditure on cable (for the same programs of course) would have to be the same.
Of course, if they want to be an adjunct to cable, that is also their choice. And the download to own model works better for the Internet - for now (since there are fewer downloads).
Ok, so we're paying apple 300 for a set top box, when microsoft is charging 300-400 for theirs and it plays lots of good games (x360). Seems kinda over priced to me
The Apple TV is nothing like. They don't even compare. Do you even know what the Apple TV does?
I do think the Apple TV is slightly over priced, but only by £50 and at least it will be silent. The XBox sounds like you've got a swamp boat stuck under your TV.
This is, so far, the crux of the matter for me. I buy a decent amount of TV shows on iTunes (for shows I forget to record or that I'm so far behind on that they get deleted) and I like the idea of being able to easily view my photos and play my music through my HDTV. However, the HD DVR in the living room can't play my iTunes purchases, nor can it display my photos or play my music (even if I eventually get a Tivo Series 3, it won't play my mostly AAC iTunes library).
So, I'm basically an ideal Apple TV customer. But given that I find watching non-HD content on my HDTV excruciating, why would I want to stream 480p iTunes TV shows that don't even look that hot on my 20" iMac monitor? I mean, streaming photos and music would be great, but the TV aspect is the key selling point here. I can bring people into the bedroom for 5 minutes to look at photos. I can hook my iPod up to the stereo or pop a CD in the DVD player. But I really don't like watching TV shows on my computer compared to watching them in a comfortable living room on an HDTV. So the "TV" part of Apple TV is the biggest selling point for me. Unfortunately, until I can watch HD content on it, I'm not interested.
And as soon as they put that card on the table, I'll buy their product. Without hesitation.
The flip side of that argument is of course: How much content is currently available at HD resolution?
There's NBC, CBS, ABC, and the other broadcast stations that you can currently receive for free with an ATSC tuner and a cheap antenna... and then what?
Universal, A&E, and TNT have HD channels in some markets that are mostly broadcast re-runs or cancelled series, some in 4:3 or even stretch-o-vision... There are a few series worth catching (BSG for one) but for the most part these channels are scraps compared to their SD equivalents...
There's FOOD, HGTV, Discovery, National Geographic... They're nice but not much I would pay for if it was offered on iTunes. I can get nature and travel programming from the local PBS station as well as science programming that is more substantial than the Discovery channel.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have HD content available, but realistically, where is this content supposed to come from? The sad truth is that most of the new content on cable is still produced and/or presented in SD in 2007. I can't imagine many channels lining up to produce more expensive HD programming (than the SD version enjoyed by the vast majority of the populace) with little financial reward.
Apple could get HD content from movies but they're having problems acquiring films at iPod resolution... and getting films at HD resolution would be even harder. The film studios aren't willing to play ball with Apple as easily as the TV studios. Realistically I can't see myself spending the time or money to download a movie-- I only watch movies once and there's a Blockbuster within two miles of my house. Even if I could rent movies it would be more convenient to head to the video store. It's just too much data.
I have a feeling that the lack of HD content will be relieved as we get closer to 2/2009... as most channels (even the cable ones) are forced to carry HD.
1. A way to stream protected iTunes content to my audio system.
2. A way to take my photo files and deliver them on my TV.
3. A way to play back video files
$299 isn't cheap but the ATV isn't selling at or below cost like a console.
The Apple TV is nothing like. They don't even compare. Do you even know what the Apple TV does?
I do think the Apple TV is slightly over priced, but only by £50 and at least it will be silent. The XBox sounds like you've got a swamp boat stuck under your TV.
The appletv is just like the xbox360, because if you have windows media center or new vista you have access to all your computer's movies, pictures, etc. just like apple tv, the only difference the xbox harddrive is for the games, and the internals of the x360 are a lot more advanced and worth the price.
I just can't understand why -- even for IP reasons -- Apple will not let me stream the DVDs playing on my computer, wirelessly, via AppleTV. It would be just the equivalent of a wireless DVD player, that's all?!
Oddly you can't stream from multi-disc changers in MCEs either. At least not the 200 disc Sony DVD changer. Which sucks.
Damnifiknow why.
Vinea
A POINTLESS PRODUCT THAT WILL FILL A VERY SMALL VOID IN SOMEONE'S LIFE. I don't see it really taking off.
That entire diatribe is 100% opinion. Which you are entitled to but don't mistake it as forecasting the future.
Ok, so we're paying apple 300 for a set top box, when microsoft is charging 300-400 for theirs and it plays lots of good games (x360). Seems kinda over priced to me.
The X-Box is a money looser. Apple TV is priced to actually make a profit.
So, I'm basically an ideal Apple TV customer. But given that I find watching non-HD content on my HDTV excruciating,
Unless the conversion software in your TV isn't very good. Watching SD on HDTV isn't that bad.
This is exactly what I said with the first iPod.
It was overpriced, and frivilous in concept. Look at how wrong I was.
Ummmmm... not to diss you or anything, but the fact that your were wrong with the iPod says nothing at all (e.g., I happened to be right on that, but that was, equally, plain dumb luck).
Also, I have not implied for a nanosecond that it is frivolous in concept. Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance.
The fact that you are willing to generalize from just one data point (your prior experience) does make me wonder.... In any event, I recommend that you read the many insightful posts in this thread, and perhaps you may come to a better understanding.
Having said that, the ability to plug in an iPod or iPhone dock should be a given. But it's not at this point.
An iSight with iChat would also be way cool.
On another note, I'd actually consider getting this if it had, not some high-end outlandish feature but rather a simple DVD drive in it. I want less clutter, not more. So close Apple...
...Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance...
And here is the problem today, we don't know the full extent of the execution right now, only what Apple has told us so far. The execution and success of the iPod had as much to do with iTM and iTunes as it did the iPod. We know that Apple TV will have an iTunes link for both streaming and synching movies and music to it's internal 40 GB hard drive. We also know that it will link to Apple's website via the web for streamed movie trailers. We know that you can buy movies and television shows on iTunes at 640 x 480. We also know that initially at least Apple TV will have a limited range of video formats that it will support.
What we do not know is:
- Will iTMS be updated to 720p on the release of Apple TV?
- Will Apple, either by themselves or with a partner, offer a rental or subscription service?
- Will there be some form of plug-in archetecture for third parties to extend the functions of Apple TV?
- Does Apple have some other content/distribution model in the works similar for a broadcast like experience? Possibly using ad revenue to pay for or partially subsidies the cost to the consumer for content?
- Will Apple license Fair Play to 3rd party venders for content/services that they do not offer?
These are the unknowns that I think are significant to the success of Apple TV. We can guess at some of these, and there are probably others that I have not listed which could help Apple as well. I think that no 2 and 4 are items that could set Apple TV ahead of the others. Numbers 3 and 5 would help, but I would say are less likely today given Apple's concentration on distribution of and control of media for their devices.Don't forget that Apple TV is not being sold as an all in one solution, but rather part of a package. This at minimum is an Apple TV and iTunes (iTMS) on your Windows PC. But it is also targeted at selling an all around package that includes an iMac, Mini, or Mac Book as well as an AirPort Extreme Base Station with plug in play printer sharing and USB hard drive sharing to inexpensively and easily add storage space as you need it.
However, the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD, a more refined UI, and judging by negative comments about the D-Link DSM-320/520 on Amazon the AppleTV will most certainly be more reliable than those devices. It seems Apple is once again not the first to market with a product type, but the first to market with a seamlessly integrated, stable, easy to use product type.
PS: only wish is that there will be a way to play my AVIs, even it means I have to create a simple Reference Movie with QT Pro and then importing that file into iTunes.
...a simple DVD drive in it. I want less clutter, not more. So close Apple...
One of Apple's goals with Apple TV is to get you to buy one of these instead of a HD DVD or Blue Ray player. They figure that most people that would buy one already have a DVD player hooked up to their TV, so they don't really need one in the Apple TV unless it was HD DVD which they don't want you to buy so why include it in the Apple TV when it would just make it more expensive than the HD DVD player?
And here is the problem today, we don't know the full extent of the execution right now, only what Apple has told us so far. The execution and success of the iPod had as much to do with iTM and iTunes as it did the iPod. We know that Apple TV will have an iTunes link for both streaming and synching movies and music to it's internal 40 GB hard drive. We also know that it will link to Apple's website via the web for streamed movie trailers. We know that you can buy movies and television shows on iTunes at 640 x 480. We also know that initially at least Apple TV will have a limited range of video formats that it will support.
What we do not know is:
- Will iTMS be updated to 720p on the release of Apple TV?
- Will Apple, either by themselves or with a partner, offer a rental or subscription service?
- Will there be some form of plug-in archetecture for third parties to extend the functions of Apple TV?
- Does Apple have some other content/distribution model in the works similar for a broadcast like experience? Possibly using ad revenue to pay for or partially subsidies the cost to the consumer for content?
- Will Apple license Fair Play to 3rd party venders for content/services that they do not offer?
These are the unknowns that I think are significant to the success of Apple TV. We can guess at some of these, and there are probably others that I have not listed which could help Apple as well. I think that no 2 and 4 are items that could set Apple TV ahead of the others. Numbers 3 and 5 would help, but I would say are less likely today given Apple's concentration on distribution of and control of media for their devices.Don't forget that Apple TV is not being sold as an all in one solution, but rather part of a package. This at minimum is an Apple TV and iTunes (iTMS) on your Windows PC. But it is also targeted at selling an all around package that includes an iMac, Mini, or Mac Book as well as an AirPort Extreme Base Station with plug in play printer sharing and USB hard drive sharing to inexpensively and easily add storage space as you need it.
Heck.... if this thing allowed me to get rid of my current wireless routers and act as a one-stop router (on top of it being a TV streaming device), I would consider it a bit more wothwhile for $300!
Ummmmm... not to diss you or anything, but the fact that your were wrong with the iPod says nothing at all (e.g., I happened to be right on that, but that was, equally, plain dumb luck).
Also, I have not implied for a nanosecond that it is frivolous in concept. Indeed, it is a GREAT concept. Perhaps less-than-impressively executed in its first go-around, and not up to Apple's usual standards of brilliance.
The fact that you are willing to generalize from just one data point (your prior experience) does make me wonder.... In any event, I recommend that you read the many insightful posts in this thread, and perhaps you may come to a better understanding.
While I quoted my personal view point, I can go back and find plenty of discussion boards all over that had the same opinion. The original iPod was a nich product, overpriced, an odd ball product, etc. My point was not based upon one data point, but in fact hundreds.
I myself have preordered an Apple TV so I am not dissig it in any way. It will do exactly what I bought it for. I wanted it to be clear that plenty of Apple launches have been met with a healthy dose of negativity and it seems Apple Tv gets a hefty dose and like the original iPod it may turn heads or like the Cube may flop. Simple as that.