Back in the early days of computing, before wholesale use of PC's, we used dumb terminals hooked up to main frames. These dumb terminals where just little boxes with screens attached and all of the processing was done on the backend. The cool thing about them was that they required zero support and never required upgrading. This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend. When, or if, AppleTV makes sense for you is really dependent on what you have available on the backend - hardware, software, and content.
This, in my opinion, is a very smart move on Apple's part. AppleTV becomes a driver for people to purchase Macs in order to gain access to OS, iLife, and hardware features that make AppleTV work even better. DVR? DVD changer option? Automatic wake-up? Apple could add all of this to their Macs and create another reason to purchase them instead of a PC.
Additionally, since the AppleTV is so dumb, it really doesn't ever have to change or become obsolete. As a result, the costs can really come down as production ramps up. At this point, you can add AppleTV's throughout your home and save money by not having to pay for multiple DVR's, DVD playors, cable boxes, etc.
Plus, it creates the opportunity to create new types of devices. If AppleTV was combined with a screen, you would have a device that would provide all of the functionality of your home media system, but in a compact, easy to set-up system. Imagine one on your kitchen counter, in your bathroom, or even in your workshop. Why not even have a portable version? You could carry it around the house and watch/listen to it where ever you want. You get a home media system without the cost of all that hardware and without the hassle of trying to set it all up.
I think Apple is really on to something with this dumb frontend/smart backend solution. Long term, it will be cheaper and easier to use than what we have the today and creates opportunities for Apple to sell more Macs and even new types of media devices. I'm actually more excited about AppleTV than I am about the iPhone.
I will make a prediction that I think everyone would agree with, Apple will never license Apple TV technology to another manufacturer. They may at some point in time license Fair Play if they think they need to, but not the rest of it.
You have a good point, but I was just saying what I think Apple needs to do, not what they will do.
You have a good point, but I was just saying what I think Apple needs to do, not what they will do.
There are a lot of things people think Apple "Needs" to do, me included, that they don't really need to or won't do. No insult intended, and I don't know anything more than 99% of the people on this board. Apple could benefit greatly in hardware sales from licensing Fair Play to iTMS competitors, especially with the release of Apple TV. Apple does not have all the content locked in to iTMS and there is some types of content that they will never cary even if they could sign deals for it. Therefore it would benefit Apple's hardware customers would do this, but then it could also undermine iTMS and Apple's bargaining power with the content owners. One problem with success that I see for Apple is that if they had with the iPod and iTMS with the video industry then they are could be opening themselves up to anti-trust lawsuites similar to those that Microsoft went through.
I think Apple is really on to something with this dumb frontend/smart backend solution. Long term, it will be cheaper and easier to use than what we have the today and creates opportunities for Apple to sell more Macs and even new types of media devices. I'm actually more excited about AppleTV than I am about the iPhone.
They may be going for a "dummy terminal" type of solution, I'm not sure that I would agree that the computer is the place for a DVR though it could be controlled by the computer. The hardware itself should have dedicated hardware encoding to ensure maximum performance independent of other loads and demands on the main computer. It doesn't need to be part of the Apple TV, but should be able to be controlled by the same UI from either Apple TV or from the computer.
Then again the same could be said about the rest of the computers in the house, why buy 3 $1500 computers when you could buy one $2500 computer and 3 $200 dummy terminals for a front end and save money in the process.
In the long run I don't see Apple doing this, the signs do not point in that direction. Apple TV will grow into a more capable device with more features and be more computer like and independent. In a way that is what is happening with the iPod. Also Apple's AirPort is adding the network expansion at a central point, but it is moving toward a dedicated central storage area instead of a main frame computer. This makes sense because Apple makes money selling hardware, the more high end products they sell the better for their bottom line.
This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend. When, or if, AppleTV makes sense for you is really dependent on what you have available on the backend - hardware, software, and content.
Interesting point, but I don't think this was exactly what Apple was going for. I think that they are/were trying to make a device that would sell lots of iTMS content plain and simple. While this may bring in a little bit of revenue from the severely-limited audience that would pay for TV shows on a per-episode basis, I really think they missed the mark.
If their plan from the beginning was to make a dumb-terminal device, I guess it worked
But from their pricing model, they must have been thinking more. Your point about having the backend Mac do all of the work and the iTV only being a terminal would in theory be ok [Apple would make a killing]. But in practice that is way too expensive to be an option for most people. The strong point I'm trying to make is that the Mac and TV are very separate entities. Sure, there might be times when you want to stream a few photos and movies for the holiday party but overall there doesn't seem to be a big need to have them arm-and-leg tied together just to have the iTV function. Without a Mac, the iTV is useless. Again this is nice for Apple to make money selling more Macs; but I don't want to have my main Mac being tied up (CPU cycles, major HD space, RAM overhead, etc etc) for the sole purpose of watching TV, seems very counterintuitive. The only option is to buy another separate Mac to act as the backend powerhouse/storage server [which is again very cost prohibitive]. Just to get it even with a DVR, you're looking at a little under $1,000 minimum (mac mini + elgato type solution), and even then you'll end up with an oddball disconnected set of multiple units trying to jury-rig a consistent user experience with multiple remotes.
The iTV should be at least able to be a self-sustaining device. When I want it to connect to my Mac(s), great! When I just want to watch/record TV, let me do it with it. They're trying to tie together 2 completely separate devices, unsuccessfully by making the iTV so codependent.
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer.
Which means that instead of a $300 device you have a $3,000 dollar device because you'll need the new server. I personally would not be comfortable working on a computer that was streaming video in the background. Multi-tasking is great but it seldom works as well as advertised. Just when you click save on your important document, the the kids in the living room are flipping channels. But I guess Macs never crash.
Quote:
AppleTV becomes a driver for people to purchase Macs .
You might be right for the same reason as above.
Quote:
Additionally, since the AppleTV is so dumb, it really doesn't ever have to change or become obsolete. As a result, the costs can really come down as production ramps up.
When has Apple ever lowered the price on anything? They just upgrade the featues for the same price.
Quote:
Why not even have a portable version? You could carry it around the house and watch/listen to it where ever you want.
I have heard that Bill Gates has 100's of TVs in his house. I only have 4-5 rooms I can't see carrying a box and a monitor and trying to find a plug, reestabish a wireless connection, etc. I already have a TV in the living room and the bedroom.
Yeah, I meant to upload something like this but I've not go round to it because I've been a bit busy replying to comments like this and making cups of tea
$299. No offense but you'd be lucky to get $20. The name is too long, and particularly advantageous or relevant. Also, there isn't a huge market for domain names with that subject.
It was truly un-visionary to register leopardvision.com. We we all learn our lessons one way or another -- I've made plenty of mistakes.
Just promise me you don't do lionvision.com when Apple OS X Lion comes out :-)
$299. No offense but you'd be lucky to get $20. The name is too long, and particularly advantageous or relevant. Also, there isn't a huge market for domain names with that subject.
It was truly un-visionary to register leopardvision.com. We we all learn our lessons one way or another -- I've made plenty of mistakes.
Just promise me you don't do lionvision.com when Apple OS X Lion comes out :-)
Well if I do ever put that up we'll see. A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.
...The iTV should be at least able to be a self-sustaining device. When I want it to connect to my Mac(s), great! When I just want to watch/record TV, let me do it with it. They're trying to tie together 2 completely separate devices, unsuccessfully by making the iTV so codependent.
And Apple TV basically is a self-sustaining device, not a dummy terminal. It has a 40 GB HD that can store content for viewing independently of the host computer or any other's that it can link to on the network. I believe that it is also set up to link to Apple's Quicktime site for viewing trailers over the internet. Apple TV has a processor and an OS which is probably based on the OS X core with a Core Video, Animation, and Image as well as a Quicktime framework. Apple TV is not a dummy terminal that relies on the host computer for it's processing, and it can accept streamed content from any computer it is networked to. As long as that streaming is of an encoded file and the decoding is done on the Apple TV then the processor load to any computer that is streaming video will be minimal since it is just reading the disk and sending packets out to the network.
Well if I do ever put that up we'll see. A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.
You could maybe sell this to Apple although I doubt they'd pay a lot for it. ~250-2000 maybe.
As far as Leopard Vision though, that has nothing to do with a potential product name so it wouldn't work. Apple TV did have a potential product name when you bought it.
I believe that it is also set up to link to Apple's Quicktime site for viewing trailers over the internet. ... .... As long as that streaming is of an encoded file and the decoding is done on the Apple TV then the processor load to any computer that is streaming video will be minimal since it is just reading the disk and sending packets out to the network.
There's the catch!
Are movie trailers really that all important? But sure, leave them be - I'm not saying cut it from iTV, just add it to the main subset of the device [which should be a DVR].
**IF** the content is already encoded on an other machine you're saying, the internal HD can be used. Does anyone even know exactly what the internal HD is actually going to be utilized for at this point? Even if it does transfer over shows captured from my elgato-enabled Mac, there're still all of the other issues I mentioned before. It's turning a relatively easy processes into a multistep, perpetually unneeded copying process. It'd be like recording a show to VHS, then dubbing it to another VHS tape (tying up both VHS players) and then finally playing it -- then starting it all over again, all day long. With no return on investment.
Plus, doing all of that encoding, running the program (elgato, etc) to get it, and the storage needed to store it, at least initially -- is all on my desktop Mac that I'm using all day long for other tasks.
You could maybe sell this to Apple although I doubt they'd pay a lot for it. ~250-2000 maybe.
As far as Leopard Vision though, that has nothing to do with a potential product name so it wouldn't work. Apple TV did have a potential product name when you bought it.
I just thought LeopardVision had a nice ring to it. I received about 20 email enquires for it. It would make sense to put up the price thing, but we'll see, I might bother later in the month. As for Apple buying that other domain, would never happen. If they want it they can email me, I'm not going to ask them.
That's a FAQ for iTunes Movie downloads, not the AppleTV. And the surround sound to which they refer is Dolby Pro-Logic, which as I already said is embedded into a stereo signal. It is based on a technique originally developed by Dolby in 1976.
AC3 and DTS have 5 discrete full-bandwidth channels and one dedicated bass channel, and as such are a significant improvement over Pro-Logic.
Anyone have any reputable quotes/links that say Apple TV won't do 5.1??
Well, when Jobs announced the AppleTV, he explicitly said that it would support stereo, and by extension, Dolby Pro-Logic. I remember it well because I was so shocked that it seemed it wouldn't do proper surround-sound.
In addition, the AppleTV specs do not list either AC3 or DTS as supported audio, and make no specific mention of multi-channel AAC (which you would have thought would be explicitly stated if it did it).
Are movie trailers really that all important? But sure, leave them be - I'm not saying cut it from iTV, just add it to the main subset of the device [which should be a DVR].
**IF** the content is already encoded on an other machine you're saying, the internal HD can be used. Does anyone even know exactly what the internal HD is actually going to be utilized for at this point? Even if it does transfer over shows captured from my elgato-enabled Mac, there're still all of the other issues I mentioned before. It's turning a relatively easy processes into a multistep, perpetually unneeded copying process. It'd be like recording a show to VHS, then dubbing it to another VHS tape (tying up both VHS players) and then finally playing it -- then starting it all over again, all day long. With no return on investment.
Plus, doing all of that encoding, running the program (elgato, etc) to get it, and the storage needed to store it, at least initially -- is all on my desktop Mac that I'm using all day long for other tasks.
The fact that Apple is, as I understand it from the keynote, streaming to trailers Apple TV directly from the internet and not the host PC means that they can deliver content to the device in that manner. It also means that it is decoding the video onboard and not on the host PC.
Apple has said that the formats that Apple TV will recognize is H.264, so if it is not encoded in that format Apple TV will not recognize. If it is in that format then Apple TV will recognize it and will not need the host PC to decode the video.
According to Apple the internal HD is for storage of audio, video, and pictures. It will sync with one computer and be able to receive streams from other computers on the network.
Now while I agree that DVR would be great, it is not in the cards from what we know. Apple is setting up the workings of a decentralized home network from what I can tell. Apple would like you to buy a computer, hopefully an Apple but if there are PC's in the network that is OK, an Apple TV, and iPod, and an AirPort extreme with a USB printer hooked up to it as well as as many USB HD's as you need for "cheap" (compared to a typical NAS) storage. They will probably add more to that and and might give us things that we think that they won't, like a DVR or a TV.
Well, when Jobs announced the AppleTV, he explicitly said that it would support stereo, and by extension, Dolby Pro-Logic. I remember it well because I was so shocked that it seemed it wouldn't do proper surround-sound.
In addition, the AppleTV specs do not list either AC3 or DTS as supported audio, and make no specific mention of multi-channel AAC (which you would have thought would be explicitly stated if it did it).
Interesting. Again, supporting AC3 (Dolby Digital) just means passing it through, and not doing ANYTHING with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (in the AppleTV FAQ above)
Movies include audio which is encoded using Dolby Surround which delivers multichannel audio when played using Dolby Pro Logic systems.
This quote is a worry... it "includes audio which is encoded using dolby surround". Doesn't sound like a description of digital.
Comments
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend. When, or if, AppleTV makes sense for you is really dependent on what you have available on the backend - hardware, software, and content.
This, in my opinion, is a very smart move on Apple's part. AppleTV becomes a driver for people to purchase Macs in order to gain access to OS, iLife, and hardware features that make AppleTV work even better. DVR? DVD changer option? Automatic wake-up? Apple could add all of this to their Macs and create another reason to purchase them instead of a PC.
Additionally, since the AppleTV is so dumb, it really doesn't ever have to change or become obsolete. As a result, the costs can really come down as production ramps up. At this point, you can add AppleTV's throughout your home and save money by not having to pay for multiple DVR's, DVD playors, cable boxes, etc.
Plus, it creates the opportunity to create new types of devices. If AppleTV was combined with a screen, you would have a device that would provide all of the functionality of your home media system, but in a compact, easy to set-up system. Imagine one on your kitchen counter, in your bathroom, or even in your workshop. Why not even have a portable version? You could carry it around the house and watch/listen to it where ever you want. You get a home media system without the cost of all that hardware and without the hassle of trying to set it all up.
I think Apple is really on to something with this dumb frontend/smart backend solution. Long term, it will be cheaper and easier to use than what we have the today and creates opportunities for Apple to sell more Macs and even new types of media devices. I'm actually more excited about AppleTV than I am about the iPhone.
I will make a prediction that I think everyone would agree with, Apple will never license Apple TV technology to another manufacturer. They may at some point in time license Fair Play if they think they need to, but not the rest of it.
You have a good point, but I was just saying what I think Apple needs to do, not what they will do.
I'm actually more excited about AppleTV than I am about the iPhone.
So you're the one.
You have a good point, but I was just saying what I think Apple needs to do, not what they will do.
There are a lot of things people think Apple "Needs" to do, me included, that they don't really need to or won't do. No insult intended, and I don't know anything more than 99% of the people on this board. Apple could benefit greatly in hardware sales from licensing Fair Play to iTMS competitors, especially with the release of Apple TV. Apple does not have all the content locked in to iTMS and there is some types of content that they will never cary even if they could sign deals for it. Therefore it would benefit Apple's hardware customers would do this, but then it could also undermine iTMS and Apple's bargaining power with the content owners. One problem with success that I see for Apple is that if they had with the iPod and iTMS with the video industry then they are could be opening themselves up to anti-trust lawsuites similar to those that Microsoft went through.
I think Apple is really on to something with this dumb frontend/smart backend solution. Long term, it will be cheaper and easier to use than what we have the today and creates opportunities for Apple to sell more Macs and even new types of media devices. I'm actually more excited about AppleTV than I am about the iPhone.
They may be going for a "dummy terminal" type of solution, I'm not sure that I would agree that the computer is the place for a DVR though it could be controlled by the computer. The hardware itself should have dedicated hardware encoding to ensure maximum performance independent of other loads and demands on the main computer. It doesn't need to be part of the Apple TV, but should be able to be controlled by the same UI from either Apple TV or from the computer.
Then again the same could be said about the rest of the computers in the house, why buy 3 $1500 computers when you could buy one $2500 computer and 3 $200 dummy terminals for a front end and save money in the process.
In the long run I don't see Apple doing this, the signs do not point in that direction. Apple TV will grow into a more capable device with more features and be more computer like and independent. In a way that is what is happening with the iPod. Also Apple's AirPort is adding the network expansion at a central point, but it is moving toward a dedicated central storage area instead of a main frame computer. This makes sense because Apple makes money selling hardware, the more high end products they sell the better for their bottom line.
This is really what an AppleTV is - its a dumb terminal that isn't suppossed to do anything except provide a front end to a backend server.
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer. All of the negatives mentioned around AppleTV are really features missing from the backend. When, or if, AppleTV makes sense for you is really dependent on what you have available on the backend - hardware, software, and content.
Interesting point, but I don't think this was exactly what Apple was going for. I think that they are/were trying to make a device that would sell lots of iTMS content plain and simple. While this may bring in a little bit of revenue from the severely-limited audience that would pay for TV shows on a per-episode basis, I really think they missed the mark.
If their plan from the beginning was to make a dumb-terminal device, I guess it worked
But from their pricing model, they must have been thinking more. Your point about having the backend Mac do all of the work and the iTV only being a terminal would in theory be ok [Apple would make a killing]. But in practice that is way too expensive to be an option for most people. The strong point I'm trying to make is that the Mac and TV are very separate entities. Sure, there might be times when you want to stream a few photos and movies for the holiday party but overall there doesn't seem to be a big need to have them arm-and-leg tied together just to have the iTV function. Without a Mac, the iTV is useless. Again this is nice for Apple to make money selling more Macs; but I don't want to have my main Mac being tied up (CPU cycles, major HD space, RAM overhead, etc etc) for the sole purpose of watching TV, seems very counterintuitive. The only option is to buy another separate Mac to act as the backend powerhouse/storage server [which is again very cost prohibitive]. Just to get it even with a DVR, you're looking at a little under $1,000 minimum (mac mini + elgato type solution), and even then you'll end up with an oddball disconnected set of multiple units trying to jury-rig a consistent user experience with multiple remotes.
The iTV should be at least able to be a self-sustaining device. When I want it to connect to my Mac(s), great! When I just want to watch/record TV, let me do it with it. They're trying to tie together 2 completely separate devices, unsuccessfully by making the iTV so codependent.
As a result, everything that you might want from an AppleTV is actually what you want for the backend - want DVR, add it to the backend computer.
Which means that instead of a $300 device you have a $3,000 dollar device because you'll need the new server. I personally would not be comfortable working on a computer that was streaming video in the background. Multi-tasking is great but it seldom works as well as advertised. Just when you click save on your important document, the the kids in the living room are flipping channels. But I guess Macs never crash.
AppleTV becomes a driver for people to purchase Macs .
You might be right for the same reason as above.
Additionally, since the AppleTV is so dumb, it really doesn't ever have to change or become obsolete. As a result, the costs can really come down as production ramps up.
When has Apple ever lowered the price on anything? They just upgrade the featues for the same price.
Why not even have a portable version? You could carry it around the house and watch/listen to it where ever you want.
I have heard that Bill Gates has 100's of TVs in his house. I only have 4-5 rooms I can't see carrying a box and a monitor and trying to find a plug, reestabish a wireless connection, etc. I already have a TV in the living room and the bedroom.
Yeah, I meant to upload something like this but I've not go round to it because I've been a bit busy replying to comments like this and making cups of tea
$299. No offense but you'd be lucky to get $20. The name is too long, and particularly advantageous or relevant. Also, there isn't a huge market for domain names with that subject.
It was truly un-visionary to register leopardvision.com. We we all learn our lessons one way or another -- I've made plenty of mistakes.
Just promise me you don't do lionvision.com when Apple OS X Lion comes out :-)
$299. No offense but you'd be lucky to get $20. The name is too long, and particularly advantageous or relevant. Also, there isn't a huge market for domain names with that subject.
It was truly un-visionary to register leopardvision.com. We we all learn our lessons one way or another -- I've made plenty of mistakes.
Just promise me you don't do lionvision.com when Apple OS X Lion comes out :-)
Well if I do ever put that up we'll see. A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.
...The iTV should be at least able to be a self-sustaining device. When I want it to connect to my Mac(s), great! When I just want to watch/record TV, let me do it with it. They're trying to tie together 2 completely separate devices, unsuccessfully by making the iTV so codependent.
And Apple TV basically is a self-sustaining device, not a dummy terminal. It has a 40 GB HD that can store content for viewing independently of the host computer or any other's that it can link to on the network. I believe that it is also set up to link to Apple's Quicktime site for viewing trailers over the internet. Apple TV has a processor and an OS which is probably based on the OS X core with a Core Video, Animation, and Image as well as a Quicktime framework. Apple TV is not a dummy terminal that relies on the host computer for it's processing, and it can accept streamed content from any computer it is networked to. As long as that streaming is of an encoded file and the decoding is done on the Apple TV then the processor load to any computer that is streaming video will be minimal since it is just reading the disk and sending packets out to the network.
Well if I do ever put that up we'll see. A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.
Hey Ireland,
Who are you expecting to buy such a domain name?
Apple?
Just curious and puzzled.
Hey Ireland,
Who are you expecting to buy such a domain name?
Apple?
Just curious and puzzled.
Dunno, certainly not Apple. I buy domains like kids buy candy.
Well if I do ever put that up we'll see. A few months ago someone would have said "apple-tv.com" was worthless, but not now - I own that one too.
You could maybe sell this to Apple although I doubt they'd pay a lot for it. ~250-2000 maybe.
As far as Leopard Vision though, that has nothing to do with a potential product name so it wouldn't work. Apple TV did have a potential product name when you bought it.
I believe that it is also set up to link to Apple's Quicktime site for viewing trailers over the internet. ... .... As long as that streaming is of an encoded file and the decoding is done on the Apple TV then the processor load to any computer that is streaming video will be minimal since it is just reading the disk and sending packets out to the network.
There's the catch!
Are movie trailers really that all important? But sure, leave them be - I'm not saying cut it from iTV, just add it to the main subset of the device [which should be a DVR].
**IF** the content is already encoded on an other machine you're saying, the internal HD can be used. Does anyone even know exactly what the internal HD is actually going to be utilized for at this point? Even if it does transfer over shows captured from my elgato-enabled Mac, there're still all of the other issues I mentioned before. It's turning a relatively easy processes into a multistep, perpetually unneeded copying process. It'd be like recording a show to VHS, then dubbing it to another VHS tape (tying up both VHS players) and then finally playing it -- then starting it all over again, all day long. With no return on investment.
Plus, doing all of that encoding, running the program (elgato, etc) to get it, and the storage needed to store it, at least initially -- is all on my desktop Mac that I'm using all day long for other tasks.
You could maybe sell this to Apple although I doubt they'd pay a lot for it. ~250-2000 maybe.
As far as Leopard Vision though, that has nothing to do with a potential product name so it wouldn't work. Apple TV did have a potential product name when you bought it.
I just thought LeopardVision had a nice ring to it. I received about 20 email enquires for it. It would make sense to put up the price thing, but we'll see, I might bother later in the month. As for Apple buying that other domain, would never happen. If they want it they can email me, I'm not going to ask them.
Best reference that I know of, i.e., that it supports surround sound and more is right on the Apple site.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...m=304277#faq26
That's a FAQ for iTunes Movie downloads, not the AppleTV. And the surround sound to which they refer is Dolby Pro-Logic, which as I already said is embedded into a stereo signal. It is based on a technique originally developed by Dolby in 1976.
AC3 and DTS have 5 discrete full-bandwidth channels and one dedicated bass channel, and as such are a significant improvement over Pro-Logic.
More info about Pro Logic, AC3 and DTS.
I agree totally.
Anyone have any reputable quotes/links that say Apple TV won't do 5.1??
Well, when Jobs announced the AppleTV, he explicitly said that it would support stereo, and by extension, Dolby Pro-Logic. I remember it well because I was so shocked that it seemed it wouldn't do proper surround-sound.
In addition, the AppleTV specs do not list either AC3 or DTS as supported audio, and make no specific mention of multi-channel AAC (which you would have thought would be explicitly stated if it did it).
There's the catch!
Are movie trailers really that all important? But sure, leave them be - I'm not saying cut it from iTV, just add it to the main subset of the device [which should be a DVR].
**IF** the content is already encoded on an other machine you're saying, the internal HD can be used. Does anyone even know exactly what the internal HD is actually going to be utilized for at this point? Even if it does transfer over shows captured from my elgato-enabled Mac, there're still all of the other issues I mentioned before. It's turning a relatively easy processes into a multistep, perpetually unneeded copying process. It'd be like recording a show to VHS, then dubbing it to another VHS tape (tying up both VHS players) and then finally playing it -- then starting it all over again, all day long. With no return on investment.
Plus, doing all of that encoding, running the program (elgato, etc) to get it, and the storage needed to store it, at least initially -- is all on my desktop Mac that I'm using all day long for other tasks.
The fact that Apple is, as I understand it from the keynote, streaming to trailers Apple TV directly from the internet and not the host PC means that they can deliver content to the device in that manner. It also means that it is decoding the video onboard and not on the host PC.
Apple has said that the formats that Apple TV will recognize is H.264, so if it is not encoded in that format Apple TV will not recognize. If it is in that format then Apple TV will recognize it and will not need the host PC to decode the video.
According to Apple the internal HD is for storage of audio, video, and pictures. It will sync with one computer and be able to receive streams from other computers on the network.
Now while I agree that DVR would be great, it is not in the cards from what we know. Apple is setting up the workings of a decentralized home network from what I can tell. Apple would like you to buy a computer, hopefully an Apple but if there are PC's in the network that is OK, an Apple TV, and iPod, and an AirPort extreme with a USB printer hooked up to it as well as as many USB HD's as you need for "cheap" (compared to a typical NAS) storage. They will probably add more to that and and might give us things that we think that they won't, like a DVR or a TV.
Best reference that I know of, i.e., that it supports surround sound and more is right on the Apple site.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.h...m=304277#faq26
Thanks for the link
Well, when Jobs announced the AppleTV, he explicitly said that it would support stereo, and by extension, Dolby Pro-Logic. I remember it well because I was so shocked that it seemed it wouldn't do proper surround-sound.
In addition, the AppleTV specs do not list either AC3 or DTS as supported audio, and make no specific mention of multi-channel AAC (which you would have thought would be explicitly stated if it did it).
Interesting. Again, supporting AC3 (Dolby Digital) just means passing it through, and not doing ANYTHING with it.
Movies include audio which is encoded using Dolby Surround which delivers multichannel audio when played using Dolby Pro Logic systems.
This quote is a worry... it "includes audio which is encoded using dolby surround". Doesn't sound like a description of digital.
Hmmm!?!