I'm not convinced that the Apple TV can't do 5.1 sound. While there may not (yet) be content available from the iTMS encoded with digital sound, it doesn't appear to be technically impossible.
5.1 is digitally encoded, and actually can require less work from the playback device than analog audio, since the digital bit stream is output raw and de-encoded by your SS Receiver. I can see no reason that films from Apple couldn't be encoded with digital and output as such over the Fiber connection.
Someone want to explain why I'm wrong (PS-AAC and Apple Lossless would - I believe - both be able to carry the 5.1 signal in there encoding).
Like I said, the hardware is definitely capable of it (to output 5.1/6.1 on the digital output; there are only two analogue outputs), but all the information available from Apple so far suggests that only stereo is supported.
Yes, AAC supports multiple channels, I don't know about Apple Lossless but the bandwidth required would be too high anyway. It would be nice if iTunes downloads used 5.1 AAC and the ATV supported that and AC3 & DTS for DVD audio.
Unfortunately, I don't think Apple has any influence in those matters because the DVD is more political and legal than technical. ? Either fixing the laws or getting the license to stream DVD media is probably out of reach. The DVD forum isn't very accommodating of new ways of playing their format.
No "law fixing" or licensing needed. Are you familiar with Flip4Mac's Drive In application? It's been available (as beta) for a while now and the DVD forum doesn't seem to mind. If the AppleTV supported MPEG-2, CSS, region coding, AC3 and DTS (all of which is a software issue, not hardware), Apple could implement "Drive In" functionality in iTunes and allow that content to be played on the AppleTV.
Seems like anyone with a Macbook or a Macbook Pro can do everything ATV can do with a 19.99 cable. Am I missing the point of Apple TV. I've been using my MBP to watch my dowloaded TV shows and movies for several months now.
You are indeed missing the point. This whole interface and box were designed to beam and store content on and around your TV, so you can pick up a little remote and watch all your media on your TV without any configuring at all, or without the need to attach your lappy to your TV. Most don't want even that small hassle, and more people own desktops too. I think and hope Apple TV is a first step for Apple. It's a decent first step, but I hope they have a whole replacement for cable using direct Internet connect and iTunes subscription iPTV service planned, I hope they see what I see here.
It was really a pain in the ass to navigate everything with a a keyboard, and except for FrontRow, the entire interface was quite annoying to use as computer displays are not optimized to be used on a couch from 10 feet away.
While I haven't done it for a long while, I know what you mean. But with HDTVs, it should be so bad(?)
But that's just what I think they should have gone for. To make a front row-ish interface for all of the excellent OSX features that we all love (safari, mail at minimum), the iTV/iTunes streaming as it is now, and a DVR. I think that a nice little Apple menu would make all of that easy to use while 10-20+ feet back, and make it the ultimate tv watching machine.
You also mentioned about torrents. But for the people that say Apple would never make a DVR or DVD player because it would cut out of their sales -- so will torrents. Same thing. But, all of those users will most likely buy new movies from time to time to get them instantly -- assuming they bought the iTV in the first place. Since most of us that have DVRs, etc that see this thing as pointless -- Apple will never even get the chance to sell us any content because their such-limited device will never even make it into our house. So it's a lose-lose situation for them. No initial $299, and no ongoing fees from us. When they could've had our iTV purchase profit, and ongoing PPV movie sales.
My cable box offers PPV already, so there's obviously no point in buying an iTV for that reason. But if I did have one, I would have used it instead of my cable's PPV almost certainly. They are never going to get me to pay $2-3 per TV episode, that's just silly. Like I also said before, for anyone that watches more than 3 shows a month on cable, and wants any type of live content (news, sports, events, etc) - you **can't** cancel your cable. Which means you'd be insane not to keep using your DVR instead of buying shows through iTV. The numbers just don't add up.
From iPod to iTunes to iPod w/ video then tv shows on iTunes followed by movies, iPhone and AppleTV: by now it should have been pretty obvious that Apple introduces new features gradually.
Those complaining that AppleTV as configured lacks a lot of things or got some things wrong (like purchase vs movie rentals): Be patient. Apple has wisely avoided doing a Windows MCE where you dump the whole complex ogre on the consumers lap and says "There, go figure it out."
AppleTV is not meant for those of us who enjoy figuring out how to install, configure, and operate consumer electronics devices.
I've made the observation before that the key to Apple's living room invasion strategy is iTunes. Millions of us already access it at a regular basis to manage our iPods. A few millions will manage their iPhones on it as well and a few more for AppleTV. The iTunes as a content and device management app will be hard to replicate by Sony, Microsoft or whomever because who wants to deal with two separate content/device management apps?
Apple Gradalism is good. If Apple incorporated all the features that are being clamoured for, AppleTV right out of the gate will be hopelessly complex. Then it will become another Windows MCE flop.
You also mentioned about torrents. But for the people that say Apple would never make a DVR or DVD player because it would cut out of their sales -- so will torrents. Same thing.
Ah, but it's not the same thing. I wasn't referring to Apple losing a few pennies from selling you a TV show, music video or movie as Apple already get the bulk of their profit from the hardware sale so they care very little about where you get your content.
I was refering to the tenuous relationship with its content providers. Despite making money hand over fist not one of them is happy to have Apple calling the shots. If it appeared that Apple was trying purposely giving customers torrent download access and a built-in DVR the content providers would be be really pissed, perhaps not even resigning their contracts or finding a legal way to terminate it. I even suspect that at least some of the contracts with Apple has has them agreeing not to include DVR functionality in their machines.
If Apple incorporated all the features that are being clamoured for, AppleTV right out of the gate will be hopelessly complex. Then it will become another Windows MCE flop.
That's a non-argument for two reasons. One, if they will eventually offer all the features people want in a simple way they can do it now. The iPhone makes a complex situation and amalgamation of features easy, they could do that with Apple TV too.
What I think Apple REALLY needs to do right now is; sell an Apple TV with a bigger hard drive, bring TV Shows to Europe, start an iTunes TV Show subscription service. Then eventually later in 2007 or early 2008 build actual TV's in two or three sizes with Apple TV software and wireless technology inside them and the side-slot DVD player. Then here's the big one, they need to ALSO licence Apple TV technology (software interface and wireless iTunes tech) to other TV manufacturers so they can build the software inside and put an iTunes Ready sticker on their TV's. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. THAT WOULD BE HUGE. THAT WOULD TAKE THE "LIVING ROOM" IMO.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
With the exception of the DVD player, HP pretty much offers such a thing. As a set top box, I don't see Apple being that successful. It's really aimed at people who already have large iTunes collections and want to be able to transfer them to the T.V. It's three times the price of a good DVD player and the iTunes movies have some drawbacks compared to DVDs. There has to be major advanced in video compression technology and Apple has to license AppleTV technology to the television makers before this is anything more than a niche product.
The features that people want but iTunes audio and video does not yet support:
HDTV, not supported yet but supported by Apple TV at 720p. Logically Apple will update iTunes video content at some point in time to support this. Also, when technology and internet connection speeds are right Apple will logically come out with a 1080p version and gladly resell the video content to those that upgrade to the higher resolution just as Sony and others are doing with Blue Ray and HD DVD.
Surround sound. Probably not needed for most content that they sell to date, and support could be costly for Apple if they were to offer the ability in every version of the Free Quicktime or iTunes download. As I understand it Apple would have to pay a licensing fee to support most surround models in their hardware/software which is not economical in software that if free not just to Mac users but also to PC users. It does however make sense for Apple to add this support to Apple TV hardware which they are making money on. Then it is just a mater of adding it to the content that they are selling, probably when they upgrade that content to 720p.
Rental/subscription service. There is no evidence that Apple will offer it, but they could and I'm sure that they have at least discussed it internally.
DVR. Apple could add it, but it would be a more logical addition to the Mac that is the hub and has the software and disk space for doing this. Apple TV is only a playback device and Apple will keep it that way to keep costs down. Content creation, purchases, and storage are dependant on the Mac.
Support for other file formats. Apple may have a plug-in model for Apple TV, or could extend iTunes to import more formats. They could also just keep everyone dependant on other transcoding methods, some of which are faster and cost the consumer less than Quicktime Pro.
All of these and more are possible. If you look at the list the first 3 have not been necessary so far because Apple has not had Apple TV. This is especially true for the first 2. For the third to be a success they need both the consumer base to support it and the content library that will attract the consumer. I don't think that they have a large enough content library today to support a good rental business, especially if the consumer is limited to watching that video on their computer rather than on the big screen.
This is a first generation product and if they had everything that we wanted then there would be nothing to add to it for future upgrades. If you take the iPod as an example then there will be a number of these over the next year, and the device will be a lot more powerful than it is today to entice not only new users but also early adopters to upgrade the units that Apple will be shipping within the next week. There are even features that they could add with a simple software upgrade, the first of which will probably be released within the next 2 months. Adding support for other codecs through software would probably be fairly easy if this uses the Quicktime framework.
I think that if this is successful and Apple see's similar growth from it's sales that they did with the iPod it is going to force some changes in Apple's business practices in regards to distribution and format support. Apple has already getting scrutiny with the success of iTMS and the iPod around the world for audio. If they do the same with video and keep the same restrictions to 3rd party support then they are going to be running the risk of inviting anti-competative/trust lawsuits around the world. I think that at some point they are going to have to open up fair play for other companies to use or open up their hardware to 3rd parties to develop software that supports it. This will be voluntarily done or forced by the courts of one country or the other. The best thing Apple could do is license fair play once they are established enough to attract business away from WMP/DVIX and pocket a bit of money from every file sold from the other distributers as well as through their distribution channel.
Rental/subscription service. There is no evidence that Apple will offer it, but they could and I'm sure that they have at least discussed it internally.
I don't see them offering a rental service for Movies, but I do see them offering a subscription service for TV Shows with an certian limit to the amount of series you could subscribe to. They would need to add some free live news into the mix to give it a chance to replace a cable box.
TV Shows, news, video podcasts, Google vid and youtube. That's what we need. You still buy your music, you still buy your movies.
That's a non-argument for two reasons. One, if they will eventually offer all the features people want in a simple way they can do it now. The iPhone makes a complex situation and amalgamation of features easy, they could do that with Apple TV too.
No, no, no. You are thinking as yourself. someone who's pretty interested in and comfortable with technology. I bet Apple already has a design manual compiled that says exactly how simple things need to be when you introduce a new product to the consumer. And furthermore, I bet that manual says that when in doubt, go for less complexity.
I mean the iPod, as simple as you think that might be, is still a challenge for most people. I have nieces right down the teenage iPod-user demographic and though they are pretty good with the standard 2 or 3 routine functions --ripping, buying from iTunes, and synching, they still need help when the thing hiccups on them.
And it's not really how complex the thing is, it's the rate at which you introduce the features. If you demand the consumer learn a lot of things in a short time, then forget it, they'll pass on the device. Here's the playbook:
1. You start out by releasing the product [AppleTV, in our case] with a really simple feature set.
2. Then give it a few months for the consumer to master the simple feature set.
3. More importantly, give it enough time for that subset of consumers who always end up helping their friends/family with their tech gadgets to learn the current feature set. The size of this subset of 'handholders' depends on how complex that feature set is. If you want more handholders (and thus more free tech support), make the feature set simpler.
4. Once the consumers are comfortable with the product you introduced, then you start adding features. Again, a little at a time, with enough time in between for the consumers to learn the new features before they need to deal with the next ones. And the features you introduce must, as much as possible, be natural extensions of the features you already have. (Notice that AppleTV itself is just an extension of the whole iTunes infrastructure feature set.)
That's what Apple has been doing and that's why Steve Jobs has 3.5 billion in his pocket you and I don't.
Nope. Apple TV only does stereo. It can therefore do Dolby Pro-Logic surround sound, as the surround-sound info is embedded in the stereo signal.
I'm pretty dumbfounded that the ATV doesn't do proper 5.1/6.1 surround sound, or natively decode MPEG-2. If the ATV supported AC3, DTS, MPEG-2 and DVD's CSS copy-protection system (all of which are easily technically achievable), Apple would be able to provide a solution to watching ripped DVDs from your computer without them contravening the DMCA.
iTunes could just copy the data from DVDs, with the CSS and region coding etc. still in tact, then stream that info to the ATV which would de-scramble the content, decode it, and show it on your TV.
As it stands, users in America who want to watch their own legally-purchased DVD content via an ATV would have to risk breaking the law (I believe removing CSS for personal use purposes still hasn't been tested in court) by ripping the content to disk, removing CSS, converting the video to MPEG-4 (losing quality) and the audio to Stereo AAC or MP3 (again losing quality).
I honestly can't believe the ATV sucks so badly and hardly anyone's noticed.
It IS technically possible, the problem is the OK of content providers, especially movie studios like Disney, where does SJ sit on the board.. right. They could go full frontal, and provide semi legal ways of going around that but (like with the iPod) they prefer to be all open to content providers (contrary to recent lover google with youtube).
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
oh my, here you go again.
That's sound very intelligent. a TV with AppleTV built-in, so then in one year when Apple releases a new version of AppleTV, my whole TV set is obsolete and all the good cash I put on a great TV from Apple is down the tubes because now my AppleTV built in is not as good as the new one, but my TV still a fantastic display.
That doesn't make any sense. Unless you are expecting Apple to bring a cheap TV set with AppleTV built in, So if you replace it you don't break the bank.
Seriously, I rather pay good money for a top of the line flat HDTV monitor and buy AppleTV separately for $300 bucks and then in one year or two replace it with a new version and keep my kick ass HDTV monitor. That seems more plausible to me.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
you don't understand. AppleTV is here to pave the road for future products. But the future will be not one product doing everything (MS style) but a set of products doing a couple of things very good. If you wan't everything you describe buy a Mini, a second external hard drive or something like this.
Apple TV is a way to capitalize on the iTunes-iPod success and putting your content on the most widespread electronics device, the TV-set. it's that easy, it really is.
I don't see them offering a rental service for Movies, but I do see them offering a subscription service for TV Shows with an certian limit to the amount of series you could subscribe to. They would need to add some free live news into the mix to give it a chance to replace a cable box.
TV Shows, news, video podcasts, Google vid and youtube. That's what we need. You still buy your music, you still buy your movies.
You might be right, the old rental format that made Blockbuster a success was changed by NetFlix into a subscription service. The subscription service makes more with downloaded content, depending on the rules that is. There has to be a balance of conserving the providers bandwidth (which costs the provider money) and keeping the service attractive enough for the consumer to use over the rest of the offerings. Can I have 3 movies "out" at a time, are they active for a certain amount of time after I download them, can I download and watch whatever I want as long as I am a member of the service. The last is the most consumer friendly, but could be abused by the consumer with "constant" downloads to build up an on site library. Also, if Apple were to do this then they need to maintain a reason for the consumer to buy movies as well since they sell them too and the studio's are going to want to sell the movies still.
.... and there's no "discovery" for new programming....
All they have to do is offer the pilot episode for free to get you "hooked" as well as rely on how people currently "discover" new series such as word of mouth.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
I don't foresee Apple making a TV with the box built in. What happens if the box breaks? What happens if the TV breaks? That would be way to expensive to have as one box.
Also, Apple TV is suppose to be usable by anyone -- and most people wouldn't buy an Apple Television, myself included.
Comments
I'm not convinced that the Apple TV can't do 5.1 sound. While there may not (yet) be content available from the iTMS encoded with digital sound, it doesn't appear to be technically impossible.
5.1 is digitally encoded, and actually can require less work from the playback device than analog audio, since the digital bit stream is output raw and de-encoded by your SS Receiver. I can see no reason that films from Apple couldn't be encoded with digital and output as such over the Fiber connection.
Someone want to explain why I'm wrong (PS-AAC and Apple Lossless would - I believe - both be able to carry the 5.1 signal in there encoding).
Like I said, the hardware is definitely capable of it (to output 5.1/6.1 on the digital output; there are only two analogue outputs), but all the information available from Apple so far suggests that only stereo is supported.
Yes, AAC supports multiple channels, I don't know about Apple Lossless but the bandwidth required would be too high anyway. It would be nice if iTunes downloads used 5.1 AAC and the ATV supported that and AC3 & DTS for DVD audio.
Unfortunately, I don't think Apple has any influence in those matters because the DVD is more political and legal than technical. ? Either fixing the laws or getting the license to stream DVD media is probably out of reach. The DVD forum isn't very accommodating of new ways of playing their format.
No "law fixing" or licensing needed. Are you familiar with Flip4Mac's Drive In application? It's been available (as beta) for a while now and the DVD forum doesn't seem to mind. If the AppleTV supported MPEG-2, CSS, region coding, AC3 and DTS (all of which is a software issue, not hardware), Apple could implement "Drive In" functionality in iTunes and allow that content to be played on the AppleTV.
Seems like anyone with a Macbook or a Macbook Pro can do everything ATV can do with a 19.99 cable. Am I missing the point of Apple TV. I've been using my MBP to watch my dowloaded TV shows and movies for several months now.
You are indeed missing the point. This whole interface and box were designed to beam and store content on and around your TV, so you can pick up a little remote and watch all your media on your TV without any configuring at all, or without the need to attach your lappy to your TV. Most don't want even that small hassle, and more people own desktops too. I think and hope Apple TV is a first step for Apple. It's a decent first step, but I hope they have a whole replacement for cable using direct Internet connect and iTunes subscription iPTV service planned, I hope they see what I see here.
It was really a pain in the ass to navigate everything with a a keyboard, and except for FrontRow, the entire interface was quite annoying to use as computer displays are not optimized to be used on a couch from 10 feet away.
While I haven't done it for a long while, I know what you mean. But with HDTVs, it should be so bad(?)
But that's just what I think they should have gone for. To make a front row-ish interface for all of the excellent OSX features that we all love (safari, mail at minimum), the iTV/iTunes streaming as it is now, and a DVR. I think that a nice little Apple menu would make all of that easy to use while 10-20+ feet back, and make it the ultimate tv watching machine.
You also mentioned about torrents. But for the people that say Apple would never make a DVR or DVD player because it would cut out of their sales -- so will torrents. Same thing. But, all of those users will most likely buy new movies from time to time to get them instantly -- assuming they bought the iTV in the first place. Since most of us that have DVRs, etc that see this thing as pointless -- Apple will never even get the chance to sell us any content because their such-limited device will never even make it into our house. So it's a lose-lose situation for them. No initial $299, and no ongoing fees from us. When they could've had our iTV purchase profit, and ongoing PPV movie sales.
My cable box offers PPV already, so there's obviously no point in buying an iTV for that reason. But if I did have one, I would have used it instead of my cable's PPV almost certainly. They are never going to get me to pay $2-3 per TV episode, that's just silly. Like I also said before, for anyone that watches more than 3 shows a month on cable, and wants any type of live content (news, sports, events, etc) - you **can't** cancel your cable. Which means you'd be insane not to keep using your DVR instead of buying shows through iTV. The numbers just don't add up.
Those complaining that AppleTV as configured lacks a lot of things or got some things wrong (like purchase vs movie rentals): Be patient. Apple has wisely avoided doing a Windows MCE where you dump the whole complex ogre on the consumers lap and says "There, go figure it out."
AppleTV is not meant for those of us who enjoy figuring out how to install, configure, and operate consumer electronics devices.
I've made the observation before that the key to Apple's living room invasion strategy is iTunes. Millions of us already access it at a regular basis to manage our iPods. A few millions will manage their iPhones on it as well and a few more for AppleTV. The iTunes as a content and device management app will be hard to replicate by Sony, Microsoft or whomever because who wants to deal with two separate content/device management apps?
Apple Gradalism is good. If Apple incorporated all the features that are being clamoured for, AppleTV right out of the gate will be hopelessly complex. Then it will become another Windows MCE flop.
You also mentioned about torrents. But for the people that say Apple would never make a DVR or DVD player because it would cut out of their sales -- so will torrents. Same thing.
Ah, but it's not the same thing. I wasn't referring to Apple losing a few pennies from selling you a TV show, music video or movie as Apple already get the bulk of their profit from the hardware sale so they care very little about where you get your content.
I was refering to the tenuous relationship with its content providers. Despite making money hand over fist not one of them is happy to have Apple calling the shots. If it appeared that Apple was trying purposely giving customers torrent download access and a built-in DVR the content providers would be be really pissed, perhaps not even resigning their contracts or finding a legal way to terminate it. I even suspect that at least some of the contracts with Apple has has them agreeing not to include DVR functionality in their machines.
If Apple incorporated all the features that are being clamoured for, AppleTV right out of the gate will be hopelessly complex. Then it will become another Windows MCE flop.
That's a non-argument for two reasons. One, if they will eventually offer all the features people want in a simple way they can do it now. The iPhone makes a complex situation and amalgamation of features easy, they could do that with Apple TV too.
What I think Apple REALLY needs to do right now is; sell an Apple TV with a bigger hard drive, bring TV Shows to Europe, start an iTunes TV Show subscription service. Then eventually later in 2007 or early 2008 build actual TV's in two or three sizes with Apple TV software and wireless technology inside them and the side-slot DVD player. Then here's the big one, they need to ALSO licence Apple TV technology (software interface and wireless iTunes tech) to other TV manufacturers so they can build the software inside and put an iTunes Ready sticker on their TV's. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME. THAT WOULD BE HUGE. THAT WOULD TAKE THE "LIVING ROOM" IMO.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
With the exception of the DVD player, HP pretty much offers such a thing. As a set top box, I don't see Apple being that successful. It's really aimed at people who already have large iTunes collections and want to be able to transfer them to the T.V. It's three times the price of a good DVD player and the iTunes movies have some drawbacks compared to DVDs. There has to be major advanced in video compression technology and Apple has to license AppleTV technology to the television makers before this is anything more than a niche product.
- HDTV, not supported yet but supported by Apple TV at 720p. Logically Apple will update iTunes video content at some point in time to support this. Also, when technology and internet connection speeds are right Apple will logically come out with a 1080p version and gladly resell the video content to those that upgrade to the higher resolution just as Sony and others are doing with Blue Ray and HD DVD.
- Surround sound. Probably not needed for most content that they sell to date, and support could be costly for Apple if they were to offer the ability in every version of the Free Quicktime or iTunes download. As I understand it Apple would have to pay a licensing fee to support most surround models in their hardware/software which is not economical in software that if free not just to Mac users but also to PC users. It does however make sense for Apple to add this support to Apple TV hardware which they are making money on. Then it is just a mater of adding it to the content that they are selling, probably when they upgrade that content to 720p.
- Rental/subscription service. There is no evidence that Apple will offer it, but they could and I'm sure that they have at least discussed it internally.
- DVR. Apple could add it, but it would be a more logical addition to the Mac that is the hub and has the software and disk space for doing this. Apple TV is only a playback device and Apple will keep it that way to keep costs down. Content creation, purchases, and storage are dependant on the Mac.
- Support for other file formats. Apple may have a plug-in model for Apple TV, or could extend iTunes to import more formats. They could also just keep everyone dependant on other transcoding methods, some of which are faster and cost the consumer less than Quicktime Pro.
All of these and more are possible. If you look at the list the first 3 have not been necessary so far because Apple has not had Apple TV. This is especially true for the first 2. For the third to be a success they need both the consumer base to support it and the content library that will attract the consumer. I don't think that they have a large enough content library today to support a good rental business, especially if the consumer is limited to watching that video on their computer rather than on the big screen.This is a first generation product and if they had everything that we wanted then there would be nothing to add to it for future upgrades. If you take the iPod as an example then there will be a number of these over the next year, and the device will be a lot more powerful than it is today to entice not only new users but also early adopters to upgrade the units that Apple will be shipping within the next week. There are even features that they could add with a simple software upgrade, the first of which will probably be released within the next 2 months. Adding support for other codecs through software would probably be fairly easy if this uses the Quicktime framework.
I think that if this is successful and Apple see's similar growth from it's sales that they did with the iPod it is going to force some changes in Apple's business practices in regards to distribution and format support. Apple has already getting scrutiny with the success of iTMS and the iPod around the world for audio. If they do the same with video and keep the same restrictions to 3rd party support then they are going to be running the risk of inviting anti-competative/trust lawsuits around the world. I think that at some point they are going to have to open up fair play for other companies to use or open up their hardware to 3rd parties to develop software that supports it. This will be voluntarily done or forced by the courts of one country or the other. The best thing Apple could do is license fair play once they are established enough to attract business away from WMP/DVIX and pocket a bit of money from every file sold from the other distributers as well as through their distribution channel.
Rental/subscription service. There is no evidence that Apple will offer it, but they could and I'm sure that they have at least discussed it internally.
I don't see them offering a rental service for Movies, but I do see them offering a subscription service for TV Shows with an certian limit to the amount of series you could subscribe to. They would need to add some free live news into the mix to give it a chance to replace a cable box.
TV Shows, news, video podcasts, Google vid and youtube. That's what we need. You still buy your music, you still buy your movies.
That's a non-argument for two reasons. One, if they will eventually offer all the features people want in a simple way they can do it now. The iPhone makes a complex situation and amalgamation of features easy, they could do that with Apple TV too.
No, no, no. You are thinking as yourself. someone who's pretty interested in and comfortable with technology. I bet Apple already has a design manual compiled that says exactly how simple things need to be when you introduce a new product to the consumer. And furthermore, I bet that manual says that when in doubt, go for less complexity.
I mean the iPod, as simple as you think that might be, is still a challenge for most people. I have nieces right down the teenage iPod-user demographic and though they are pretty good with the standard 2 or 3 routine functions --ripping, buying from iTunes, and synching, they still need help when the thing hiccups on them.
And it's not really how complex the thing is, it's the rate at which you introduce the features. If you demand the consumer learn a lot of things in a short time, then forget it, they'll pass on the device. Here's the playbook:
1. You start out by releasing the product [AppleTV, in our case] with a really simple feature set.
2. Then give it a few months for the consumer to master the simple feature set.
3. More importantly, give it enough time for that subset of consumers who always end up helping their friends/family with their tech gadgets to learn the current feature set. The size of this subset of 'handholders' depends on how complex that feature set is. If you want more handholders (and thus more free tech support), make the feature set simpler.
4. Once the consumers are comfortable with the product you introduced, then you start adding features. Again, a little at a time, with enough time in between for the consumers to learn the new features before they need to deal with the next ones. And the features you introduce must, as much as possible, be natural extensions of the features you already have. (Notice that AppleTV itself is just an extension of the whole iTunes infrastructure feature set.)
That's what Apple has been doing and that's why Steve Jobs has 3.5 billion in his pocket you and I don't.
The DVR would be nice, but Elgato is a good add on and they seem to have a good integration to the iTunes. So, I would not mind to purchase Elgato.
I would love to see a drop in price for AppleTV. $150 to $200 would be a great price and very attractive thing for people to buy.
So, Hopefully the 2.0 version will address my wishes above.
Nope. Apple TV only does stereo. It can therefore do Dolby Pro-Logic surround sound, as the surround-sound info is embedded in the stereo signal.
I'm pretty dumbfounded that the ATV doesn't do proper 5.1/6.1 surround sound, or natively decode MPEG-2. If the ATV supported AC3, DTS, MPEG-2 and DVD's CSS copy-protection system (all of which are easily technically achievable), Apple would be able to provide a solution to watching ripped DVDs from your computer without them contravening the DMCA.
iTunes could just copy the data from DVDs, with the CSS and region coding etc. still in tact, then stream that info to the ATV which would de-scramble the content, decode it, and show it on your TV.
As it stands, users in America who want to watch their own legally-purchased DVD content via an ATV would have to risk breaking the law (I believe removing CSS for personal use purposes still hasn't been tested in court) by ripping the content to disk, removing CSS, converting the video to MPEG-4 (losing quality) and the audio to Stereo AAC or MP3 (again losing quality).
I honestly can't believe the ATV sucks so badly and hardly anyone's noticed.
It IS technically possible, the problem is the OK of content providers, especially movie studios like Disney, where does SJ sit on the board.. right. They could go full frontal, and provide semi legal ways of going around that but (like with the iPod) they prefer to be all open to content providers (contrary to recent lover google with youtube).
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
oh my, here you go again.
That's sound very intelligent. a TV with AppleTV built-in, so then in one year when Apple releases a new version of AppleTV, my whole TV set is obsolete and all the good cash I put on a great TV from Apple is down the tubes because now my AppleTV built in is not as good as the new one, but my TV still a fantastic display.
That doesn't make any sense. Unless you are expecting Apple to bring a cheap TV set with AppleTV built in, So if you replace it you don't break the bank.
Seriously, I rather pay good money for a top of the line flat HDTV monitor and buy AppleTV separately for $300 bucks and then in one year or two replace it with a new version and keep my kick ass HDTV monitor. That seems more plausible to me.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
you don't understand. AppleTV is here to pave the road for future products. But the future will be not one product doing everything (MS style) but a set of products doing a couple of things very good. If you wan't everything you describe buy a Mini, a second external hard drive or something like this.
Apple TV is a way to capitalize on the iTunes-iPod success and putting your content on the most widespread electronics device, the TV-set. it's that easy, it really is.
a-Maze
Gene Munster is clueless. Apple needs to do "four" things to take the digital living room:
1. iTunes TV Show subscription service with some free live content (not including Podcasts, YouTube or Google video, I'm talking news)
2. Make Apple TV connect directly to the internet without the need for a computer.
3. Make Apple TV with bigger hard drive.
4. Manufacturer actual TV's with built-in Apple TV.
I'd agree and add... need DVR functionality.
If I were paying for satellite or cable, I couldn't throw either out in favor of AppleTV yet... and there's no "discovery" for new programming.
Man, this thing has a long way to go.
I don't see them offering a rental service for Movies, but I do see them offering a subscription service for TV Shows with an certian limit to the amount of series you could subscribe to. They would need to add some free live news into the mix to give it a chance to replace a cable box.
TV Shows, news, video podcasts, Google vid and youtube. That's what we need. You still buy your music, you still buy your movies.
You might be right, the old rental format that made Blockbuster a success was changed by NetFlix into a subscription service. The subscription service makes more with downloaded content, depending on the rules that is. There has to be a balance of conserving the providers bandwidth (which costs the provider money) and keeping the service attractive enough for the consumer to use over the rest of the offerings. Can I have 3 movies "out" at a time, are they active for a certain amount of time after I download them, can I download and watch whatever I want as long as I am a member of the service. The last is the most consumer friendly, but could be abused by the consumer with "constant" downloads to build up an on site library. Also, if Apple were to do this then they need to maintain a reason for the consumer to buy movies as well since they sell them too and the studio's are going to want to sell the movies still.
.... and there's no "discovery" for new programming....
All they have to do is offer the pilot episode for free to get you "hooked" as well as rely on how people currently "discover" new series such as word of mouth.
You don't really get it, I'm not talking about a TV for Apple TV.. I'm talking an Apple TV that is a TV, as in a TV screen with a built-in Apple TV box - a TV from Apple with a 250GB hard drive, a slot load DVD drive and wireless Apple TV-like connection.
I don't foresee Apple making a TV with the box built in. What happens if the box breaks? What happens if the TV breaks? That would be way to expensive to have as one box.
Also, Apple TV is suppose to be usable by anyone -- and most people wouldn't buy an Apple Television, myself included.