Dude, A LOT of people watch DivX. We're talking in the realms of hundreds of thousands, going into millions. It is the MP3 of video. It's obvious why Microsoft and Apple aren't supporting it on their devices, but I don't understand why. Every DVD player these days plays it. And I would buy an AppleTV alone if it did, and for that reason I'm happy to burn DivX to a re-writeable CD/DVD and play it on my HDTV.
And yes you can get 720p content online, IN DivX.
No, few people watch DivX, Dude.
In the hundreds of millions out there who watch video in the USA and Canada alone, your numbers are insignificent.
If you use worldwide numbers, it rises to billions. DivX is a mere dustmote in the air between the viewer and their content. Few people beyond those who are more techinicial even know about Divx.
These arguments over the logic behind the ATV are absolutely ridiculous. If you are in need of 4 hours of DVR programming on your TiVo to make you happy and fulfill your entertainment requirements for the day, then the Apple TV may not be for you.
I only care to watch Heroes and Lost, and the Apple TV will deliver them to me commercial free, and without a cable subscription/tivo subscription, etc. You are also forgetting that the Apple TV is more than just a portal to recorded television. It also plays my music library, which happens to be well organized through iTunes. It plays back the thousands of pictures I have stored on my hard drive, and I can watch video podcasts as well.
As far as Saturday morning cartoons, they come free of charge over broadcast TV.
In your case, why not get a free Tivo? Pay $12.95 per month for the Tivo service, and use your broadcast/antenna cable - the Tivo box is free. $12.95 * 12 (a year of service) = $155.40.
Apple TV is $299.00. You'd be saving $155.40!
Plus, then you can record anything on any of your free channels, at anytime. Including Heros and Lost, and thousands of others. Is a quick fast forward on a Tivo really that big of a deal? It's not like you have to sit there and watch the commercials?!
BTW: Did you know Tivo's can also listen to your iTunes library, view your iPhotos, check live traffic, weather, listen to any internet radio station, listen to any podcast, play a few games, get movie listings (and even buy movie tickets), view yahoo photos, schedule remote recording of any show from any computer that's online, and tons more. They even have a developer SDK available.
With free downloadable addons, you can even add stock quotes, weather radar, live sports scores, and even instant messaging.
So why wouldn't I just want a Tivo? [I have 2]. Because Apple could do it so much nicer, more integrated, and Apple-ized. I'm not saying the current iTV offering aren't neat. They are, just not by themselves. They could easily open the product up to an enormous market by adding that one simple functionality to it; and they would loose nothing. People that aren't using iTMS yet, that would only with an iTV are most likely small. The chance of hooking new people to the service if they had the option (while using it as a useful DVR) however, is great. Add in a web browser, email client, IM client even, and I might get it just for that.
I watch even less. Colbert Report (and the Daily Show if I get my daughter to bed early enough), Battlestar Galactica (although I'm finding the show less compelling right now), and Robot Chicken (when I both remember and can stay up that late).
Not restraint. Just a busy life. And the realization that, after watching TV for years and years, nothing is in fact on.
For news, I do something crazy and read feeds from AP, Reuters, NYT, the BBC, and the Guardian (UK). Plus I read alternative/independent sites like Counterpunch and listen to Democracy Now podcasts during my commute home. It's faster. I find what I want right away. I don't have to endure endless local "news breaks" covering the latest murder/car chase/apartment fire, commercials, or mind-numbing "entertainment news" or "human interest" garbage. I can also freely ignore the latest wobbles in the stock market that are treated as if they were signs from the gods. If anything interesting does manage to make it onto TV, a station's website will often post the video (not to mention the YouTube feeds). And no commercials (did I mention that?)!
Huh? Because he sits in front of the TV less than a typical American? Maybe he paints. Or gardens. Or exercises. Or knits. Or plays with his son. Or has sex with his lover. Or reads. Is the extent of our interests now measured soley by the type and variety of TV we watch? Does being well-rounded now mean that we watch both SciFi and ESPN? (Well, people like that are often well-rounded...at least physically.)
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
The average American is also uninformed and overweight. Coincidence?
But he just explained that it would cost him less.
Now, it would actually cost me a bit more, but that's only because I get basic cable for "free" (with my cable modem subscription). We actually cancelled our TV subscription last year when we realized how little TV we actually watch. But when Ido watch TV, I have to endure commercials (how much is my time worth?), plus conform to the network's schedules, missing episodes, staying up late, etc. And the quality is often low (not digital).
Mel, I usually like what you have to say, but this just struck me as wildly off-base.
What I said isn't off base. It's simply the facts of life. People who watch such little Tv are very unusual. I'm not commenting on the quality of life they may have, though not watching Tv doesn't mean that they are doing anything worthwhile either. They could be spending their hours in strip joints for all I know, or in a bar. Or they could be teaching others how to do something worthwhile, or helping out in a nursing home. I don't know, and it doesn't matter.
Most people DO spend that amount of time in front of their Tv, and it isn't just in the US either.
When we are talking about an economic model, that's what we have to think about.
I have a friend who has no Tv at home, and only listens to opera, and only allowed his daughter to listen to opera. I have nothing against opera. I have had seasons tickets at the MET for almost 30 years. But, I think that was too much for him to do. When his daughter graduated high school and went off to college, she said that she would never listen to another opera the rest of her life.
I won't restrict my daughter's interests that way.
I suspect that most people who feel so determined to watch only a couple of shows aren't married, and have no kids.
But then, my mailman has no computer, and has no intention of getting one, even though his kids have begged him for one.
I know that it would cost HIM less. I was saying that to have everyone else buy shows rather than to be able to watch them with commercials, if they would prefer to do so, would cost THEM far more, because most people watch a dozen or more shows, plus everything else I mentioned, while he only watches three.
In your case, why not get a free Tivo? Pay $12.95 per month for the Tivo service, and use your broadcast/antenna cable - the Tivo box is free. $12.95 * 12 (a year of service) = $155.40.
Apple TV is $299.00. You'd be saving $155.40!
Plus, then you can record anything on any of your free channels, at anytime. Including Heros and Lost, and thousands of others. Is a quick fast forward on a Tivo really that big of a deal? It's not like you have to sit there and watch the commercials?!
BTW: Did you know Tivo's can also listen to your iTunes library, view your iPhotos, check live traffic, weather, listen to any internet radio station, listen to any podcast, play a few games, get movie listings (and even buy movie tickets), view yahoo photos, schedule remote recording of any show from any computer that's online, and tons more. They even have a developer SDK available.
With free downloadable addons, you can even add stock quotes, weather radar, live sports scores, and even instant messaging.
So why wouldn't I just want a Tivo? [I have 2]. Because Apple could do it so much nicer, more integrated, and Apple-ized. I'm not saying the current iTV offering aren't neat. They are, just not by themselves. They could easily open the product up to an enormous market by adding that one simple functionality to it; and they would loose nothing. People that aren't using iTMS yet, that would only with an iTV are most likely small. The chance of hooking new people to the service if they had the option (while using it as a useful DVR) however, is great. Add in a web browser, email client, IM client even, and I might get it just for that.
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative. What I am paying for is ease of use. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
Honest question because I have no idea, does TiVo pull your playlists, etc. off of iTunes....also, does it play AAC? I thought it didn't. About all that weather, and news stuff, I have a Wii for that!
If nothing else, this whole thing will make for some interesting census statistics
Only Apple users would be this passionate about a device. Says much about their community and I respect both sides of the argument and see why the iTV will be good for some and not for some. From my point of view though, I just have a strong feeling that they are going after a market that doesn't exist in the numbers they are hoping for [though they have a ridiculous amount of market research to back it up I'm sure, I'm very curious to see how it plays out in the real world]
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative. What I am paying for is ease of use. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
Honest question because I have no idea, does TiVo pull your playlists, etc. off of iTunes....also, does it play AAC? I thought it didn't. About all that weather, and news stuff, I have a Wii for that!
You still get to keep the Tivo box after the year, it's yours. They just want to be sure they make at least a year's worth of service from you. From then on, if you have free cable/air you can record it. I guess I'm at the opposite end, I'd much rather pay a fixed monthly fee rather than a per-episode charge which I think I would run into trouble with really quick - the fact of just racking up charges left and right scares me. I like not having to think about changing the channel or show.
Yes the Tivo does pull your playlists off of iTunes, for me it's worked perfectly. For AAC, no - you are stuck there. I have everything in MP3 format anyways, but for iTMS purchases it wouldn't work [again, why I wish Apple would make the ultimate killer box to give us the best of both worlds]. I don't have a Wii, but would be neat
I honestly don't even use the majority of the features I mentioned, though I'm sure some people do. The weather and traffic are nice, as are the movie times. I would LOVE the ability to go the web with a full on Safari-lite though, and a nice email client that keeps everything synced. I'd totally pay for that alone, in fact I wish they'd focussed on that instead of what they have now. Unless of course they will have it in the final release, who knows? If the iPhone gets it on a 3" screen, shouldn't a TV?
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?!
Why would anyone want Vista, or a MS Media Centre PC? This is an Apple forum for people who know the difference between a games console and a wireless media storage device. I would even be happy to argue your comment regarding the Xbox "internals" being more advanced than those in the Apple TV.
You are right. This IS an Apple forum.
But Apple is not selling this product to Apple computer owners, they are selling it to everyone who has a computer.
At last check, 95% of people had Windows computers.
Apple has figured this into their business model, as they later did with the iPod, and iTunes. Therefore, is it very important how Windows users will react to this. Much more important than how Mac users will.
In fact, if not even one Mac user bought this product, but just 1% of Windows users did per year, Apple would sell 6.5 million of these devices within the US this year alone. That would be much more than they need to sell to make their numbers, and make this a very successful product.
Mac users have to stop being so parochial.
If we want this product to be a success for Apple, even if we personally may not feel a need for it, but most specially if we do, then its success in the Windows world is paramount.
Many of Apple's new products over the coming years will depend more on non Apple users accepting it, than Apple users.
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative.
One difference is that it's trivial to get non-iTunes music into the iPod. It accepted the dominant audio format, as well as Apple's prefered format, aTV doesn't do that so much. I don't think it would be where it is now if they pulled a Sony on the iPod and only played their single preferred format. Most music on an iPod doesn't come from iTunes.
Getting video into the aTV is a lot more costly, either in money to Apple or CPU cycles to transcode existing video, be it MPEG, MPEG-2, AVI to something aTV will bother to play. Transcoding or importing audio wasn't nearly so hard.
Quote:
I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
I'm pretty sure you can pay up-front, at least they used to offer that as opposed to a monthly fee. That service fee allows them to cut the price to subsidize the hardware, so that's why it is important to figure all the costs in.
You still get to keep the Tivo box after the year, it's yours. They just want to be sure they make at least a year's worth of service from you. From then on, if you have free cable/air you can record it. I guess I'm at the opposite end, I'd much rather pay a fixed monthly fee rather than a per-episode charge which I think I would run into trouble with really quick - the fact of just racking up charges left and right scares me. I like not having to think about changing the channel or show.
Yes the Tivo does pull your playlists off of iTunes, for me it's worked perfectly. For AAC, no - you are stuck there. I have everything in MP3 format anyways, but for iTMS purchases it wouldn't work [again, why I wish Apple would make the ultimate killer box to give us the best of both worlds]. I don't have a Wii, but would be neat
I honestly don't even use the majority of the features I mentioned, though I'm sure some people do. The weather and traffic are nice, as are the movie times. I would LOVE the ability to go the web with a full on Safari-lite though, and a nice email client that keeps everything synced. I'd totally pay for that alone, in fact I wish they'd focussed on that instead of what they have now. Unless of course they will have it in the final release, who knows? If the iPhone gets it on a 3" screen, shouldn't a TV?
Since the HD Tivo costs $800, people would get pretty pissed if they couldn't keep it. Of course they can.
But you don't make up much of a customer base since you are so far off from average. Therefore, your demographic will be ignored when companies think about how they are going to do this.
It's like the way they rate programs. If they are popular with the 18 to 48 year old male, then they are doing just fine. Well, I am a 57 year old male with more money to spend than most 18 to 48 years olds. But, my needs aren't as important to the Tv programmers, because they believe that most 57 year olds don't spend as much on what they want to advertise.
I honestly don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
The same is basically true for me as well. The only non-broadcast network programs I watch are probably Battlestar Galactica and South Park.
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
I honestly don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
The same is basically true for me as well. The only non-broadcast network programs I watch are probably Battlestar Galactica and South Park.
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
If you think that, then you aren't paying attention.
One difference is that it's trivial to get non-iTunes music into the iPod. It accepted the dominant audio format, as well as Apple's prefered format, aTV doesn't do that so much. Most music on the typical iPod didn't come from iTunes. I don't think it would be where it is now if they pulled a Sony and only played their single preferred format.
Getting video into the aTV is a lot more costly, either in money to Apple or CPU cycles to transcode existing video, be it MPEG, MPEG-2, AVI to something aTV will bother to play. Transcoding or importing audio wasn't nearly so hard.
I'm pretty sure you can pay up-front, at least they used to offer that as opposed to a monthly fee. That service fee allows them to cut the price to subsidize the hardware, so that's why it is important to figure all the costs in.
You missed my point. You can buy thousands of other media players that play more formats than the iPod for a fraction of the price, but they don't have the ease of use. you can buy many other laptops for a fraction of the price of a macbook, but they don't have the experience of a mac. The reason the iPod is so successful is because of its ease of use and visual appeal. This is the same as the Apple TV....lots of other options to choose from that are a fraction of the price.
I agree that getting video onto the Apple TV is going to be more of a pain in the ass than the iPod, but mediafork and others are making this easy. Also, if the ATV catches on, you can expect ATV formatted videos to start popping up all over torrent sites (not that I would download them)
As far as TiVo, if you want to use it, you have to pay a monthly fee. They used to have an up front $300 lifetime membership, but I think they got rid of it (I may be wrong). Its like a cell phone, you can get the old crappy phones for free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee, and if you want the good phones, you pay more for them and still have to pay a monthly fee.
Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way.
Which is why it would be "free" with an iTV DVR. You could record them at any time of the day/night, and watch whenever. I do this in my house on 2 tivos that don't have digital boxes, just plain old cable into the box and it records perfectly. When I can get them for free, why would anyone pay for them through iTMS? Most people that know better wouldn't. Though they might buy other things that they *can't* get on their basic cable, which is where Apple would have the chance to make money, branding, and hook them. But since they'll never make it into these homes in the first place (since anyone who knows this has a DVR to get it for basically free), Apple will never get the chance to pitch anything of this, in essence making $0 instead of ongoing $some.
As far as TiVo, if you want to use it, you have to pay a monthly fee. They used to have an up front $300 lifetime membership, but I think they got rid of it (I may be wrong). Its like a cell phone, you can get the old crappy phones for free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee, and if you want the good phones, you pay more for them and still have to pay a monthly fee.
I'm pretty sure they did cut the lifetime subscription part on Tivos. But $13/month for tivo gets you everything you can get on basic cable (recorded for you at anytime and kept to watch anytime). $13 worth of iTV/iTMS TV shows gets you about 6 1/2 episodes of something. That's it. I'd rather have it all personally, how can you beat that?
I wasn't disputing the facts. 4.5 hours is about right, if my students are anything to judge by. And they don't watch nearly as much TV as their parents. I was critiquing your sarcasm and incredulity at his statement that he only watches a few shows a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I have a friend who has no Tv at home, and only listens to opera, and only allowed his daughter to listen to opera. I have nothing against opera. I have had seasons tickets at the MET for almost 30 years. But, I think that was too much for him to do. When his daughter graduated high school and went off to college, she said that she would never listen to another opera the rest of her life.
I won't restrict my daughter's interests that way.
You have permission to beat me senseless with a blunt instrument if I ever do that. I don't know when my daughter will start watching TV (and as I said, she does watch movies). But I do know I will encourage her to do other things. Hopefully by example more than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I suspect that most people who feel so determined to watch only a couple of shows aren't married, and have no kids.
Married for 9 years. My daughter is 3-1/2 and we're expecting a son next month. And it's not about being "determined" only to watch a few shows. Look at my schedule above. Who has time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I was saying that to have everyone else buy shows rather than to be able to watch them with commercials, if they would prefer to do so, would cost THEM far more, because most people watch a dozen or more shows, plus everything else I mentioned, while he only watches three.
I'm actually not a proponent of the @TV right now, or of Apple's video media/iTS strategy. I think $2 a pop is entirely too expensive for a single episode of a show, especially considering the lack of portability (e.g., can't burn your own disks and watch in the old family truckster). But this strategy is dictated more by the demands of money-grubbing studios than of Apple itself.
Of course, for someone who watches a gagillion hours of TV--like the typical American--the iTS is not an ideal solution. (I think it is a good thing for music; though I would like a higher bit-rate encoding, I think the flexibility of buying per-song, its cheaper prices relative to a CD, and portability options (iPod, CD, or re-encode to MP3, WAV, etc.) outweight that right now.)
But maybe we should stop thinking of the competition for iTS as broadcast subscriptions, but TV-on-DVD sales.
I'm pretty sure they did cut the lifetime subscription part on Tivos. But $13/month for tivo gets you everything you can get on basic cable (recorded for you at anytime and kept to watch anytime). $13 worth of iTV/iTMS TV shows gets you about 6 1/2 episodes of something. That's it. I'd rather have it all personally, how can you beat that?
That is 13 dollars a month for Tivo. Where I live, you need to add at least another 30 dollars a month for basic cable. $43 a month worth of iTMS TV shows is more than I would watch anyway.
That is 13 dollars a month for Tivo. Where I live, you need to add at least another 30 dollars a month for basic cable. $43 a month worth of iTMS TV shows is more than I would watch anyway.
You can grab most network channels over analog cable connections or via antenna (even HD). So it's just the Tivo fee, that's all.
[updated]
Also I believe in the UK and possibly much more of Europe [maybe even more] has much more extensive free over-the-air broadcast standards. In the US I think that all major networks are mandated to broadcast OTA for free, now even in HD. So that would cover most of the major popular shows.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the iTV is completely pointless. It just seems half-a** to me. Doesn't seem like a product that benefits the consumer, being instead just a pure forced revenue source for Apple. Of course they're in it for the money like any business. But there is a fine line between useful/profitable vs extremely limited/profitable. In the iTV case I think it is just a very straightforward direct revenue stream for Apple to force you into buying their own shows. The only other option is to not use it at all, since it's a one-feature-wonder box. For me, it's not to use it at all I guess.
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.
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there?
Seems foolish to store a primary iTunes library (or any other data intended to be kept [semi-]permanently) on a device that can't be backed up. Right now Apple TV's HD only seems intended for temporarily caching iTunes library content.
Comments
Dude, A LOT of people watch DivX. We're talking in the realms of hundreds of thousands, going into millions. It is the MP3 of video. It's obvious why Microsoft and Apple aren't supporting it on their devices, but I don't understand why. Every DVD player these days plays it. And I would buy an AppleTV alone if it did, and for that reason I'm happy to burn DivX to a re-writeable CD/DVD and play it on my HDTV.
And yes you can get 720p content online, IN DivX.
No, few people watch DivX, Dude.
In the hundreds of millions out there who watch video in the USA and Canada alone, your numbers are insignificent.
If you use worldwide numbers, it rises to billions. DivX is a mere dustmote in the air between the viewer and their content. Few people beyond those who are more techinicial even know about Divx.
These arguments over the logic behind the ATV are absolutely ridiculous. If you are in need of 4 hours of DVR programming on your TiVo to make you happy and fulfill your entertainment requirements for the day, then the Apple TV may not be for you.
I only care to watch Heroes and Lost, and the Apple TV will deliver them to me commercial free, and without a cable subscription/tivo subscription, etc. You are also forgetting that the Apple TV is more than just a portal to recorded television. It also plays my music library, which happens to be well organized through iTunes. It plays back the thousands of pictures I have stored on my hard drive, and I can watch video podcasts as well.
As far as Saturday morning cartoons, they come free of charge over broadcast TV.
In your case, why not get a free Tivo? Pay $12.95 per month for the Tivo service, and use your broadcast/antenna cable - the Tivo box is free. $12.95 * 12 (a year of service) = $155.40.
Apple TV is $299.00. You'd be saving $155.40!
Plus, then you can record anything on any of your free channels, at anytime. Including Heros and Lost, and thousands of others. Is a quick fast forward on a Tivo really that big of a deal? It's not like you have to sit there and watch the commercials?!
BTW: Did you know Tivo's can also listen to your iTunes library, view your iPhotos, check live traffic, weather, listen to any internet radio station, listen to any podcast, play a few games, get movie listings (and even buy movie tickets), view yahoo photos, schedule remote recording of any show from any computer that's online, and tons more. They even have a developer SDK available.
With free downloadable addons, you can even add stock quotes, weather radar, live sports scores, and even instant messaging.
So why wouldn't I just want a Tivo? [I have 2]. Because Apple could do it so much nicer, more integrated, and Apple-ized. I'm not saying the current iTV offering aren't neat. They are, just not by themselves. They could easily open the product up to an enormous market by adding that one simple functionality to it; and they would loose nothing. People that aren't using iTMS yet, that would only with an iTV are most likely small. The chance of hooking new people to the service if they had the option (while using it as a useful DVR) however, is great. Add in a web browser, email client, IM client even, and I might get it just for that.
I watch even less. Colbert Report (and the Daily Show if I get my daughter to bed early enough), Battlestar Galactica (although I'm finding the show less compelling right now), and Robot Chicken (when I both remember and can stay up that late).
Not restraint. Just a busy life. And the realization that, after watching TV for years and years, nothing is in fact on.
For news, I do something crazy and read feeds from AP, Reuters, NYT, the BBC, and the Guardian (UK). Plus I read alternative/independent sites like Counterpunch and listen to Democracy Now podcasts during my commute home. It's faster. I find what I want right away. I don't have to endure endless local "news breaks" covering the latest murder/car chase/apartment fire, commercials, or mind-numbing "entertainment news" or "human interest" garbage. I can also freely ignore the latest wobbles in the stock market that are treated as if they were signs from the gods. If anything interesting does manage to make it onto TV, a station's website will often post the video (not to mention the YouTube feeds). And no commercials (did I mention that?)!
Huh? Because he sits in front of the TV less than a typical American? Maybe he paints. Or gardens. Or exercises. Or knits. Or plays with his son. Or has sex with his lover. Or reads. Is the extent of our interests now measured soley by the type and variety of TV we watch? Does being well-rounded now mean that we watch both SciFi and ESPN? (Well, people like that are often well-rounded...at least physically.)
"There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
The average American is also uninformed and overweight. Coincidence?
But he just explained that it would cost him less.
Now, it would actually cost me a bit more, but that's only because I get basic cable for "free" (with my cable modem subscription). We actually cancelled our TV subscription last year when we realized how little TV we actually watch. But when Ido watch TV, I have to endure commercials (how much is my time worth?), plus conform to the network's schedules, missing episodes, staying up late, etc. And the quality is often low (not digital).
Mel, I usually like what you have to say, but this just struck me as wildly off-base.
What I said isn't off base. It's simply the facts of life. People who watch such little Tv are very unusual. I'm not commenting on the quality of life they may have, though not watching Tv doesn't mean that they are doing anything worthwhile either. They could be spending their hours in strip joints for all I know, or in a bar. Or they could be teaching others how to do something worthwhile, or helping out in a nursing home. I don't know, and it doesn't matter.
Most people DO spend that amount of time in front of their Tv, and it isn't just in the US either.
When we are talking about an economic model, that's what we have to think about.
I have a friend who has no Tv at home, and only listens to opera, and only allowed his daughter to listen to opera. I have nothing against opera. I have had seasons tickets at the MET for almost 30 years. But, I think that was too much for him to do. When his daughter graduated high school and went off to college, she said that she would never listen to another opera the rest of her life.
I won't restrict my daughter's interests that way.
I suspect that most people who feel so determined to watch only a couple of shows aren't married, and have no kids.
But then, my mailman has no computer, and has no intention of getting one, even though his kids have begged him for one.
I know that it would cost HIM less. I was saying that to have everyone else buy shows rather than to be able to watch them with commercials, if they would prefer to do so, would cost THEM far more, because most people watch a dozen or more shows, plus everything else I mentioned, while he only watches three.
Productive?
Vinea
That's an assumption.
In your case, why not get a free Tivo? Pay $12.95 per month for the Tivo service, and use your broadcast/antenna cable - the Tivo box is free. $12.95 * 12 (a year of service) = $155.40.
Apple TV is $299.00. You'd be saving $155.40!
Plus, then you can record anything on any of your free channels, at anytime. Including Heros and Lost, and thousands of others. Is a quick fast forward on a Tivo really that big of a deal? It's not like you have to sit there and watch the commercials?!
BTW: Did you know Tivo's can also listen to your iTunes library, view your iPhotos, check live traffic, weather, listen to any internet radio station, listen to any podcast, play a few games, get movie listings (and even buy movie tickets), view yahoo photos, schedule remote recording of any show from any computer that's online, and tons more. They even have a developer SDK available.
With free downloadable addons, you can even add stock quotes, weather radar, live sports scores, and even instant messaging.
So why wouldn't I just want a Tivo? [I have 2]. Because Apple could do it so much nicer, more integrated, and Apple-ized. I'm not saying the current iTV offering aren't neat. They are, just not by themselves. They could easily open the product up to an enormous market by adding that one simple functionality to it; and they would loose nothing. People that aren't using iTMS yet, that would only with an iTV are most likely small. The chance of hooking new people to the service if they had the option (while using it as a useful DVR) however, is great. Add in a web browser, email client, IM client even, and I might get it just for that.
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative. What I am paying for is ease of use. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
Honest question because I have no idea, does TiVo pull your playlists, etc. off of iTunes....also, does it play AAC? I thought it didn't. About all that weather, and news stuff, I have a Wii for that!
Only Apple users would be this passionate about a device. Says much about their community and I respect both sides of the argument and see why the iTV will be good for some and not for some. From my point of view though, I just have a strong feeling that they are going after a market that doesn't exist in the numbers they are hoping for [though they have a ridiculous amount of market research to back it up I'm sure, I'm very curious to see how it plays out in the real world]
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative. What I am paying for is ease of use. I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
Honest question because I have no idea, does TiVo pull your playlists, etc. off of iTunes....also, does it play AAC? I thought it didn't. About all that weather, and news stuff, I have a Wii for that!
You still get to keep the Tivo box after the year, it's yours. They just want to be sure they make at least a year's worth of service from you. From then on, if you have free cable/air you can record it. I guess I'm at the opposite end, I'd much rather pay a fixed monthly fee rather than a per-episode charge which I think I would run into trouble with really quick - the fact of just racking up charges left and right scares me. I like not having to think about changing the channel or show.
Yes the Tivo does pull your playlists off of iTunes, for me it's worked perfectly. For AAC, no - you are stuck there. I have everything in MP3 format anyways, but for iTMS purchases it wouldn't work [again, why I wish Apple would make the ultimate killer box to give us the best of both worlds]. I don't have a Wii, but would be neat
I honestly don't even use the majority of the features I mentioned, though I'm sure some people do. The weather and traffic are nice, as are the movie times. I would LOVE the ability to go the web with a full on Safari-lite though, and a nice email client that keeps everything synced. I'd totally pay for that alone, in fact I wish they'd focussed on that instead of what they have now. Unless of course they will have it in the final release, who knows? If the iPhone gets it on a 3" screen, shouldn't a TV?
You really don't know what you're talking about do you?!
Why would anyone want Vista, or a MS Media Centre PC? This is an Apple forum for people who know the difference between a games console and a wireless media storage device. I would even be happy to argue your comment regarding the Xbox "internals" being more advanced than those in the Apple TV.
You are right. This IS an Apple forum.
But Apple is not selling this product to Apple computer owners, they are selling it to everyone who has a computer.
At last check, 95% of people had Windows computers.
Apple has figured this into their business model, as they later did with the iPod, and iTunes. Therefore, is it very important how Windows users will react to this. Much more important than how Mac users will.
In fact, if not even one Mac user bought this product, but just 1% of Windows users did per year, Apple would sell 6.5 million of these devices within the US this year alone. That would be much more than they need to sell to make their numbers, and make this a very successful product.
Mac users have to stop being so parochial.
If we want this product to be a success for Apple, even if we personally may not feel a need for it, but most specially if we do, then its success in the Windows world is paramount.
Many of Apple's new products over the coming years will depend more on non Apple users accepting it, than Apple users.
Get used to it!
Well, I honestly plan on owning my Apple TV for more than one year, so it really isn't saving me $150. Its obvious that there is plenty of arguments proving that the TiVo is more economical. You could use the same reasoning for the iPod as well as any Apple product for that matter, as there is always a cheaper alternative.
One difference is that it's trivial to get non-iTunes music into the iPod. It accepted the dominant audio format, as well as Apple's prefered format, aTV doesn't do that so much. I don't think it would be where it is now if they pulled a Sony on the iPod and only played their single preferred format. Most music on an iPod doesn't come from iTunes.
Getting video into the aTV is a lot more costly, either in money to Apple or CPU cycles to transcode existing video, be it MPEG, MPEG-2, AVI to something aTV will bother to play. Transcoding or importing audio wasn't nearly so hard.
I also don't like the idea of being forced to pay monthly fees for a service if at all possible. When summer finally rolls around in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I won't be spending even 1 hour in front of the TV a week, and it will be nice to not be paying $15 a month to TiVo.
I'm pretty sure you can pay up-front, at least they used to offer that as opposed to a monthly fee. That service fee allows them to cut the price to subsidize the hardware, so that's why it is important to figure all the costs in.
You still get to keep the Tivo box after the year, it's yours. They just want to be sure they make at least a year's worth of service from you. From then on, if you have free cable/air you can record it. I guess I'm at the opposite end, I'd much rather pay a fixed monthly fee rather than a per-episode charge which I think I would run into trouble with really quick - the fact of just racking up charges left and right scares me. I like not having to think about changing the channel or show.
Yes the Tivo does pull your playlists off of iTunes, for me it's worked perfectly. For AAC, no - you are stuck there. I have everything in MP3 format anyways, but for iTMS purchases it wouldn't work [again, why I wish Apple would make the ultimate killer box to give us the best of both worlds]. I don't have a Wii, but would be neat
I honestly don't even use the majority of the features I mentioned, though I'm sure some people do. The weather and traffic are nice, as are the movie times. I would LOVE the ability to go the web with a full on Safari-lite though, and a nice email client that keeps everything synced. I'd totally pay for that alone, in fact I wish they'd focussed on that instead of what they have now. Unless of course they will have it in the final release, who knows? If the iPhone gets it on a 3" screen, shouldn't a TV?
Since the HD Tivo costs $800, people would get pretty pissed if they couldn't keep it. Of course they can.
You aren't average, which should please you.
But you don't make up much of a customer base since you are so far off from average. Therefore, your demographic will be ignored when companies think about how they are going to do this.
It's like the way they rate programs. If they are popular with the 18 to 48 year old male, then they are doing just fine. Well, I am a 57 year old male with more money to spend than most 18 to 48 years olds. But, my needs aren't as important to the Tv programmers, because they believe that most 57 year olds don't spend as much on what they want to advertise.
I honestly don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
The same is basically true for me as well. The only non-broadcast network programs I watch are probably Battlestar Galactica and South Park.
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
I honestly don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. He said he watches broadcast network programming for free over the air. Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way. At best there are sometimes 2-4 cable programs that manage to get into the 80-100 spots. Outside of a handful of cable series (and we're talking about less than ten), cable sports, and stuff for children on Disney, Nickelodeon and ABC Family Channel, almost none of the rest of cable programming has any serious viewership.
The same is basically true for me as well. The only non-broadcast network programs I watch are probably Battlestar Galactica and South Park.
Unfortunately, the Apple TV is still an overpriced, underpowered piece of hardware that I won't be buying. It's too bad Apple didn't get it right the first time, because I was excited about it right up until they announced it.
If you think that, then you aren't paying attention.
It's not what he does, but what he WOULD do.
One difference is that it's trivial to get non-iTunes music into the iPod. It accepted the dominant audio format, as well as Apple's prefered format, aTV doesn't do that so much. Most music on the typical iPod didn't come from iTunes. I don't think it would be where it is now if they pulled a Sony and only played their single preferred format.
Getting video into the aTV is a lot more costly, either in money to Apple or CPU cycles to transcode existing video, be it MPEG, MPEG-2, AVI to something aTV will bother to play. Transcoding or importing audio wasn't nearly so hard.
I'm pretty sure you can pay up-front, at least they used to offer that as opposed to a monthly fee. That service fee allows them to cut the price to subsidize the hardware, so that's why it is important to figure all the costs in.
You missed my point. You can buy thousands of other media players that play more formats than the iPod for a fraction of the price, but they don't have the ease of use. you can buy many other laptops for a fraction of the price of a macbook, but they don't have the experience of a mac. The reason the iPod is so successful is because of its ease of use and visual appeal. This is the same as the Apple TV....lots of other options to choose from that are a fraction of the price.
I agree that getting video onto the Apple TV is going to be more of a pain in the ass than the iPod, but mediafork and others are making this easy. Also, if the ATV catches on, you can expect ATV formatted videos to start popping up all over torrent sites (not that I would download them)
As far as TiVo, if you want to use it, you have to pay a monthly fee. They used to have an up front $300 lifetime membership, but I think they got rid of it (I may be wrong). Its like a cell phone, you can get the old crappy phones for free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee, and if you want the good phones, you pay more for them and still have to pay a monthly fee.
Nearly all of the top 100 series programs are available that way.
Which is why it would be "free" with an iTV DVR. You could record them at any time of the day/night, and watch whenever. I do this in my house on 2 tivos that don't have digital boxes, just plain old cable into the box and it records perfectly. When I can get them for free, why would anyone pay for them through iTMS? Most people that know better wouldn't. Though they might buy other things that they *can't* get on their basic cable, which is where Apple would have the chance to make money, branding, and hook them. But since they'll never make it into these homes in the first place (since anyone who knows this has a DVR to get it for basically free), Apple will never get the chance to pitch anything of this, in essence making $0 instead of ongoing $some.
As far as TiVo, if you want to use it, you have to pay a monthly fee. They used to have an up front $300 lifetime membership, but I think they got rid of it (I may be wrong). Its like a cell phone, you can get the old crappy phones for free, but you still have to pay a monthly fee, and if you want the good phones, you pay more for them and still have to pay a monthly fee.
I'm pretty sure they did cut the lifetime subscription part on Tivos. But $13/month for tivo gets you everything you can get on basic cable (recorded for you at anytime and kept to watch anytime). $13 worth of iTV/iTMS TV shows gets you about 6 1/2 episodes of something. That's it. I'd rather have it all personally, how can you beat that?
What I said isn't off base.
I wasn't disputing the facts. 4.5 hours is about right, if my students are anything to judge by. And they don't watch nearly as much TV as their parents. I was critiquing your sarcasm and incredulity at his statement that he only watches a few shows a year.
I have a friend who has no Tv at home, and only listens to opera, and only allowed his daughter to listen to opera. I have nothing against opera. I have had seasons tickets at the MET for almost 30 years. But, I think that was too much for him to do. When his daughter graduated high school and went off to college, she said that she would never listen to another opera the rest of her life.
I won't restrict my daughter's interests that way.
You have permission to beat me senseless with a blunt instrument if I ever do that. I don't know when my daughter will start watching TV (and as I said, she does watch movies). But I do know I will encourage her to do other things. Hopefully by example more than anything else.
I suspect that most people who feel so determined to watch only a couple of shows aren't married, and have no kids.
Married for 9 years. My daughter is 3-1/2 and we're expecting a son next month. And it's not about being "determined" only to watch a few shows. Look at my schedule above. Who has time?
I was saying that to have everyone else buy shows rather than to be able to watch them with commercials, if they would prefer to do so, would cost THEM far more, because most people watch a dozen or more shows, plus everything else I mentioned, while he only watches three.
I'm actually not a proponent of the @TV right now, or of Apple's video media/iTS strategy. I think $2 a pop is entirely too expensive for a single episode of a show, especially considering the lack of portability (e.g., can't burn your own disks and watch in the old family truckster). But this strategy is dictated more by the demands of money-grubbing studios than of Apple itself.
Of course, for someone who watches a gagillion hours of TV--like the typical American--the iTS is not an ideal solution. (I think it is a good thing for music; though I would like a higher bit-rate encoding, I think the flexibility of buying per-song, its cheaper prices relative to a CD, and portability options (iPod, CD, or re-encode to MP3, WAV, etc.) outweight that right now.)
But maybe we should stop thinking of the competition for iTS as broadcast subscriptions, but TV-on-DVD sales.
I'm pretty sure they did cut the lifetime subscription part on Tivos. But $13/month for tivo gets you everything you can get on basic cable (recorded for you at anytime and kept to watch anytime). $13 worth of iTV/iTMS TV shows gets you about 6 1/2 episodes of something. That's it. I'd rather have it all personally, how can you beat that?
That is 13 dollars a month for Tivo. Where I live, you need to add at least another 30 dollars a month for basic cable. $43 a month worth of iTMS TV shows is more than I would watch anyway.
That is 13 dollars a month for Tivo. Where I live, you need to add at least another 30 dollars a month for basic cable. $43 a month worth of iTMS TV shows is more than I would watch anyway.
You can grab most network channels over analog cable connections or via antenna (even HD). So it's just the Tivo fee, that's all.
[updated]
Also I believe in the UK and possibly much more of Europe [maybe even more] has much more extensive free over-the-air broadcast standards. In the US I think that all major networks are mandated to broadcast OTA for free, now even in HD. So that would cover most of the major popular shows.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the iTV is completely pointless. It just seems half-a** to me. Doesn't seem like a product that benefits the consumer, being instead just a pure forced revenue source for Apple. Of course they're in it for the money like any business. But there is a fine line between useful/profitable vs extremely limited/profitable. In the iTV case I think it is just a very straightforward direct revenue stream for Apple to force you into buying their own shows. The only other option is to not use it at all, since it's a one-feature-wonder box. For me, it's not to use it at all I guess.
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.
I'd like MPEG-2 compatibility.
1) In what ways would you use the 40GB HD other than moving your iTunes library there?
Seems foolish to store a primary iTunes library (or any other data intended to be kept [semi-]permanently) on a device that can't be backed up. Right now Apple TV's HD only seems intended for temporarily caching iTunes library content.