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. I seems Apple is once again not the first to market with a product type, but the first to market with a seamlessly integrated, stable 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.
Two questions:
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
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.
The keynote of Jobs' iPod presentation showed an audience that was far from excited. I can't imagine any of them saw the iPod as the iconic device it is today.
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
How about using it the way Apple has intended for me to use it: to store my x most recent unwatched videos.
I have no idea how well they are selling. I suspect with the lackluster reviews, the low sales rating on Amazon, and the constantly lowering pricepoint that they aren't doing very well.
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 can't say that there's anything wrong with this, but:
You're posting this on a website named AppleInsider.
I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!
I'd also guess that most people on this board have an iPod, and may have purchased music/TV shows/Movies from the iTunes Media Store. None of those purchases will work with the xBox 360/Media Center solution.
None of the (legally) purchased movies and TV shows can be played back in Mac OS X since Microsoft refuses to port their DRM code.
Add another $100 for the wireless connectivity.
The xBox solution will cost me around $700 minimum and won't be compatible with any of my existing setup nor any of digital downloads I've purchased.
From the point of view of someone who is unashamedly an Apple fanatic, I have some reservations about the value of the iTV product when compared to another product available, namely the first gen Xbox with the Xbox Media Center.
I have the XBMC set up at home, and it has the following features:
- Streams all of my movies, music and photos, regardless of format and without conversion, from my iMac in the study to the Xbox under the TV in the living room.
- Gives me movie information from IMDB, and music information from some other place.
- Has many scripts (which are updating all the time thanks to the huge XBMC community), which do things like give you full Youtube video access on your TV, all the Apple Movie Trailers, live TV streams, live music streams, configurable TV guides... the list of what these scripts can do is quite impressive.
- Gives me news headlines (whatever rss feeds I want), as well as weather.
- Can connect to your modem wirelessly via a wireless access point, or wired directly to the modem (possibly the main disadvantage when compared to the iTV)
- Operates via a remote control, either the "normal" shape or in the form of a cordless Xbox controller.
- Looks absolutely gorgeous. The gui interface must be seen to be believed.
- I think you can get it to do HDTV via an add-on cable, although I don't have a HDTV so I can't comment on the specifics, and will stand corrected if I've made a wrong assumption.
- Costs a lot less than the iTV. You need an Xbox (not an Xbox 360), and a mod chip. The software is free on the net.
Anyway, that's just an idea of another product that's out there which might do similar things to what the iTV does.
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site. It also might be used to hold a database of the connected computers library and a short preview for viewing with the title, as Front Row does, so that it does not take as long to retrieve those from a connected computer. You can sync some content, since Apple has said you can, but I doubt that they would have put only a 40 GB HD on it if they intended you to keep a large library of media on the hard drive.
As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consumer pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
[*]I have no idea how well they are selling. I suspect with the lackluster reviews, the low sales rating on Amazon, and the constantly lowering pricepoint that they aren't doing very well.[/LIST]
If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?
The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site.
As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.
See my response to solipsism above.
All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind (and kept getting dissed because I asked some basic questions), but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.
Those of you who think it's great should buy it. It'll make it better for the rest of us six months from now! (Thanks).
And, if I am wrong, I will run out and use the $300 Apple Gift Card that I was recently given to purchase anything Apple!
I've managed to fill my need to have a digital on demand movie storage device and it cost me nothing that what I already had; a series 2 TiVo, and a macbook (or any decent mac).
I encoded my movies into MPEG4 using Handbrake and put them on my NAS drive attached to my Airport 802.11N router. On my MacBook I run a program called Tivo.Net (open source) and it basically takes any file ffmpeg can handle (yes even AVIs) and puts them within an on screen menu on my TiVo. So I can pull shows off of bittorrent or I can rip my dvds to MP4, H.264, AVI, etc. and watch them on my tv when I want to!
If you go to tivocommunity forums you can even find an installer and preference pane I made for this program. Heck this might help some of you avoid a $299 purchase. Only con is no series3 support... yet.
In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consume pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?
The other media extenders' retail prices aren't that much lower than the AppleTV despite the AppleTV having more expensive hardware. It seems obvious how I got from point A to B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?
Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?
I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!
That's a good point. Seeing as most of us are likely using Macs, we cannot use the XBox 360, and the option would cost us considerably more than Apple TV.
Quote:
All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind, but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.
A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.
Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?
Yes -- honestly -- I can seriously not see.
Look, I am as passionate about Apple as anyone. But I can't take something "seriously" just because Apple decides to dish it out.
An open mind works both ways. People have pre-ordered it and having even see the picture quality yet. Some people are already ripping DVD's in preparation of the Appletv. Doesn't seem like open mind to me.
A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.
In which case, we all should shut up about any Apple product before it is introduced, and not reasonably speculate based on information and insight provided by tons of intelligent people?
And, in getting to your 1300+ posts, I assume you have done only that?
Give me a break. That sounds like sheer oldtimer arrogance.
Did a DVR feature get added with the delay? No? Ok, I won't take one, thank you.
Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. That isn't to say that the AppleTV can't be used to play your DVRed content. In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.
Since I know a few replies will be coming saying you won't *need* a DVR with Apple TV, since you can just buy the episodes you want.......no, I can't.
I just pay for basic cable right now for less than $25/month. With that I get over 160 channels of 24/7 programming. I'm free to channel surf all day, record my favorite shows at night, and grab whatever at 3:00am - which I'd absolutely NEVER pay for if it was separate.
Unless the iTunes store will offer a subscription option for like $20/month for access to every TV show [which I highly doubt is likely to happen], I'd be racking up hundreds of dollars a month. If I just wanted to see one segment on some Discovery channel show, oh wait, that'll be another $3.99 [or whatever]. I think not.
When I'm relaxing in my home theater watching TV, the last thing I want is extra stress. With Apple TV, every time I'd watch a show I would be like oops that was $3.99. Click. $3.99. Click. $3.99 [my prices may be off but you get the point]. How damn stressful would that be?! I don't want to be sweating it each time I want to watch a TV show, knowing I'm racking up enormous charges for each show. My god, seriously, how does this box make any sense for a TV viewer?
Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. .
Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).
DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?
In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.
That's an extra few hundred dollars on top of the already high price of the iTV alone. And what features would I gain from these extra steps besides a larger electricity bill from keeping my Mac Pro on 24/7 to stream TV from, after waiting for the 2 step encode process that really gains nothing. My Tivo series 2 is a DVR, streams all of my music from iTunes, streams all my iPhotos, built in internet radio and podcast features, can transfer shows from any other Tivo in my house, dual tuners, and so much more. I am still totally clueless on what this thing has to offer? Plus, a Tivo is basically free with 1 year of service.
Comments
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. I seems Apple is once again not the first to market with a product type, but the first to market with a seamlessly integrated, stable 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.
Two questions:
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
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.
The keynote of Jobs' iPod presentation showed an audience that was far from excited. I can't imagine any of them saw the iPod as the iconic device it is today.
Maybe I'll upload it onto YouTube.
Two questions:
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
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 can't say that there's anything wrong with this, but:
You're posting this on a website named AppleInsider.
I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!
I'd also guess that most people on this board have an iPod, and may have purchased music/TV shows/Movies from the iTunes Media Store. None of those purchases will work with the xBox 360/Media Center solution.
None of the (legally) purchased movies and TV shows can be played back in Mac OS X since Microsoft refuses to port their DRM code.
Add another $100 for the wireless connectivity.
The xBox solution will cost me around $700 minimum and won't be compatible with any of my existing setup nor any of digital downloads I've purchased.
I have the XBMC set up at home, and it has the following features:
- Streams all of my movies, music and photos, regardless of format and without conversion, from my iMac in the study to the Xbox under the TV in the living room.
- Gives me movie information from IMDB, and music information from some other place.
- Has many scripts (which are updating all the time thanks to the huge XBMC community), which do things like give you full Youtube video access on your TV, all the Apple Movie Trailers, live TV streams, live music streams, configurable TV guides... the list of what these scripts can do is quite impressive.
- Gives me news headlines (whatever rss feeds I want), as well as weather.
- Can connect to your modem wirelessly via a wireless access point, or wired directly to the modem (possibly the main disadvantage when compared to the iTV)
- Operates via a remote control, either the "normal" shape or in the form of a cordless Xbox controller.
- Looks absolutely gorgeous. The gui interface must be seen to be believed.
- I think you can get it to do HDTV via an add-on cable, although I don't have a HDTV so I can't comment on the specifics, and will stand corrected if I've made a wrong assumption.
- Costs a lot less than the iTV. You need an Xbox (not an Xbox 360), and a mod chip. The software is free on the net.
Anyway, that's just an idea of another product that's out there which might do similar things to what the iTV does.
cheers,
Ian
Two questions:
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there? (Hope you don't have a 60 GB or 80GB iPod that is close to full).
2) How well are these products that you are citing doing in the marketplace? Are people rushing out to buy it?
The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site. It also might be used to hold a database of the connected computers library and a short preview for viewing with the title, as Front Row does, so that it does not take as long to retrieve those from a connected computer. You can sync some content, since Apple has said you can, but I doubt that they would have put only a 40 GB HD on it if they intended you to keep a large library of media on the hard drive.
As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consumer pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?
I'm really not sure how these questions relate to my post.
[*]I have no idea how well they are selling. I suspect with the lackluster reviews, the low sales rating on Amazon, and the constantly lowering pricepoint that they aren't doing very well.[/LIST]
If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?
The HD is probably in part needed for streaming cache, since this will sync with one computer but receive streams from all on the network as well as Quicktime trailers from Apple's web site.
Huh? You need 40GB for something like that!?
As to number 2, I think his point was that in comparison the Apple TV is not that expensive given that it uses better quality hard ware and a better wireless standard. I think that some of those listed do not support even 720p HD video and are about as limited in supported video formats as Apple TV. And the trojan horse here is that Apple TV will hook up to your stereo so that you can have your iTunes library in the living room AND be able to control it through Apple TV's interface.
See my response to solipsism above.
All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind (and kept getting dissed because I asked some basic questions), but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.
Those of you who think it's great should buy it. It'll make it better for the rest of us six months from now! (Thanks).
And, if I am wrong, I will run out and use the $300 Apple Gift Card that I was recently given to purchase anything Apple!
Either way, I am OK.
I encoded my movies into MPEG4 using Handbrake and put them on my NAS drive attached to my Airport 802.11N router. On my MacBook I run a program called Tivo.Net (open source) and it basically takes any file ffmpeg can handle (yes even AVIs) and puts them within an on screen menu on my TiVo. So I can pull shows off of bittorrent or I can rip my dvds to MP4, H.264, AVI, etc. and watch them on my tv when I want to!
If you go to tivocommunity forums you can even find an installer and preference pane I made for this program. Heck this might help some of you avoid a $299 purchase. Only con is no series3 support... yet.
In your post, you listed ATv's characteristics such as (quote) "....the AppleTV contains more expensive hardware components, such as 802.11n and a 40GB HDD...." (unquote; emphasis mine). If this 'expensive hardware' doesn't have some functionality, why would a consume pay for it? Therefore, how can you conclude it is fairly priced (which is sort of what your post was all about)?
The other media extenders' retail prices aren't that much lower than the AppleTV despite the AppleTV having more expensive hardware. It seems obvious how I got from point A to B.
If they aren't doing very well, as you suspect (and I think you are right), why do you think this one should do any better? Because of the more expensive hardware (see above)?
Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?
The iPhone has at least 4 GB memory to run it in. The stripped down version there still takes 500 MB of memory to hold it, according to Apple.
Also the iPhone runs various programs. This won't.
That would be storage space not memory -- I would be surprised if the iPhone has more than 256MB of memory.
The Apple TV has 40GB of storage space, so wins that one
Amorya
I'd say a fair share of the members here don't have a Windows Media Center or a new Vista PC, and probably aren't persuaded to buy one to hook up to their xBox 360. Already this solution is going to cost $300-$400 not including the price of the xBox!
That's a good point. Seeing as most of us are likely using Macs, we cannot use the XBox 360, and the option would cost us considerably more than Apple TV.
All I can say is, I started this thread with an open mind, but now I am getting closer to being convinced that this version of this product sounds like a complete dud.
A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.
Can you seriously not see how an Apple product that works seamlessly with iTunes and compliments your home entertainment system may prevail over standalone appliances?
Yes -- honestly -- I can seriously not see.
Look, I am as passionate about Apple as anyone. But I can't take something "seriously" just because Apple decides to dish it out.
A truly open mind would see this product isn't even shipping for anyone to use it yet. So no one outside of Apple knows how well it works against its competiton. An open mind would at least wait for that point before "open mind" considers it a dud.
In which case, we all should shut up about any Apple product before it is introduced, and not reasonably speculate based on information and insight provided by tons of intelligent people?
And, in getting to your 1300+ posts, I assume you have done only that?
Give me a break. That sounds like sheer oldtimer arrogance.
Did a DVR feature get added with the delay? No? Ok, I won't take one, thank you.
Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. That isn't to say that the AppleTV can't be used to play your DVRed content. In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.
I just pay for basic cable right now for less than $25/month. With that I get over 160 channels of 24/7 programming. I'm free to channel surf all day, record my favorite shows at night, and grab whatever at 3:00am - which I'd absolutely NEVER pay for if it was separate.
Unless the iTunes store will offer a subscription option for like $20/month for access to every TV show [which I highly doubt is likely to happen], I'd be racking up hundreds of dollars a month. If I just wanted to see one segment on some Discovery channel show, oh wait, that'll be another $3.99 [or whatever]. I think not.
When I'm relaxing in my home theater watching TV, the last thing I want is extra stress. With Apple TV, every time I'd watch a show I would be like oops that was $3.99. Click. $3.99. Click. $3.99 [my prices may be off but you get the point]. How damn stressful would that be?! I don't want to be sweating it each time I want to watch a TV show, knowing I'm racking up enormous charges for each show. My god, seriously, how does this box make any sense for a TV viewer?
Of course not. Anyone who thinks this was a possibility seriously has no clue. .
Another typically arrogant comment (and I am jumping in on behalf of someone else who posted).
DVRs have existed for over five years now (at least, that's when I bought my 40GB version, which I still use). Why was this not a "serious possibility" in any device such as this that Apple introduces in 2007?
Have you used one?
In fact, the simplest solution is to use an Elgato or Migilia device attached to your Mac that will auto encode in H.264 and import into iTunes, which will then be seen by AppleTV immediately upon completion.
That's an extra few hundred dollars on top of the already high price of the iTV alone. And what features would I gain from these extra steps besides a larger electricity bill from keeping my Mac Pro on 24/7 to stream TV from, after waiting for the 2 step encode process that really gains nothing. My Tivo series 2 is a DVR, streams all of my music from iTunes, streams all my iPhotos, built in internet radio and podcast features, can transfer shows from any other Tivo in my house, dual tuners, and so much more. I am still totally clueless on what this thing has to offer? Plus, a Tivo is basically free with 1 year of service.