Yes, I would be out for the rare occasions when I might like some live programming, or something that iTunes doesn't offer. But I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means saving money. All I watch is Law and Order, SG-1, Atlantis...... MythBusters... a few other things here and there. Assuming 30 bucks for an iTunes season pass, and 50 bucks a month for Dish, all of that would cost me about 120 bucks. And that's a little less than 3 months of Dish. So I could save around 400 bucks a year that I can put towards an iPhone
Which isn't really saying much. How big is that 'group' that want to enjoy downloaded media on their widescreen TVs? Sure, its bigger then the "Let's put a computer in the room" and "Let's sit around the computer and watch a movie crowd", but those are small crowds to begin with.
So, if you agree with the quote you agree that Apple made the right design choice from a business perspective, they went after the larger market (than the game consoles and computer geeks). This was his point here.
Yes, I would be out for the rare occasions when I might like some live programming, or something that iTunes doesn't offer. But I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means saving money. All I watch is Law and Order, SG-1, Atlantis...... MythBusters... a few other things here and there. Assuming 30 bucks for an iTunes season pass, and 50 bucks a month for Dish, all of that would cost me about 120 bucks. And that's a little less than 3 months of Dish. So I could save around 400 bucks a year that I can put towards an iPhone
You're forgetting the $300 investment int the AppleTV which makes your first year savings only $100.
And assuming this thing takes off, by this time next year AppleTV 2 might be out so you might shell out another $300 for that version so you're still at only $130 in savings (I factored out SG-1 since this is the last season).
This all presumes, of course, that you already have a widescreen TV otherwise you'll be back in the red.
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
Quote:
video and audio quality were quite good for anyone but picky audiophiles and videophiles
Why would you buy an AppleTV if it's not to get a better quality video, DVD film, TV program or photo slideshow?
Quote:
AppleTV can play the copy-protected music, TV shows and movies purchased from Apple's iTunes online store [...] However, it cannot play copy-protected music in Microsoft's formats, even from Windows computers.
In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.
Quote:
In its usual secretive fashion, Apple refuses to say if or when this direct-to-the-Internet capability will be expanded. But we fully expect Apple to add the capability to stream or download a variety of content directly from the Internet, and that this new capability will be available on current Apple TV boxes through software updates.
Wishfull thinking. You get what you pay for, and nothing else. Am I the only one to be impatient with analysts and journalists who report their own speculation, not facts?
Quote:
Also, the tiny, simple Apple remote control can't control the volume on either AppleTV or your TV set or audio receiver, so you have to keep reaching for the TV or audio receiver remote.
Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
Quote:
And you can't plug in an extra hard disk to add storage capacity, even though there's a USB port on the back and the built-in 40-gigabyte drive is too small to hold many TV shows or movies.
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
Apple is back to the good ol' days, prior to 1995, when:
1- it didn't feel that it had to give consumers what they want;
2- it believed that it could overcharge consumers for the "privilege" of buying a product stamped with the Apple logo. Apple directors were fools then and now. Sad.
You're forgetting the $300 investment int the AppleTV which makes your first year savings only $100.
And assuming this thing takes off, by this time next year AppleTV 2 might be out so you might shell out another $300 for that version so you're still at only $130 in savings (I factored out SG-1 since this is the last season).
This all presumes, of course, that you already have a widescreen TV otherwise you'll be back in the red.
dont forget to factor in electricity and sofa/couch wear and tear....
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
Actually he stated nothing of the sort. What he did say is that the market it's aimed at is larger than the markets that want/need these things to which you refer. As I quoted earlier
Quote:
Apple TV isn't for that small slice of techies who buy a full-blown computer and plug it directly into a TV, or for gamers who prefer to do it all through a game console. And it's not for people who are content to watch downloaded TV shows and movies directly on a computer screen. Instead, it's for the much larger group of people who want to keep their home computers where they are and yet enjoy their downloaded media on their widescreen TVs.
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
You twisted everything he said into something he wasn't saying.
He said AppleTV is fine for everyone except videophiles and auiophiles. People who need prestine quality are an extremely small number. 99% of the consumer market will prefer convenience over quality. Pristine quality does not allow for wireless streaming or media portability. For this convenience you need some degree of compression.
DVD's and CD's are not lossless they are very compressed formats. Many audiophiles prefer vinyl records over CD's.
You haven't read the AppleTV spec page. It clearly says AppleTV will play unlocked H.264 or MPEG-4 files. That means it will play more than only iTunes content. MS does not make a WM player for the Mac, or allow Macs to play WM-DRM, why should Apple support their format.
Quote:
Also, the tiny, simple Apple remote control can't control the volume on either AppleTV or your TV set or audio receiver, so you have to keep reaching for the TV or audio receiver remote.Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
Its not that unusual that you have a different remote for different consoles. Many times people's DVD remote control can not adjust the volume of their television.
But it should not be that big of a deal for Apple to add firmware that allows AppleTV to control TV volume.
Quote:
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
That depends on what type of hard drive they are using. A larger HD will use more power and create more heat.
You have to be kidding. With all the hype, the potential size of the market just from the iPod/iTunes success, and all voices of the pundits, it is going to be huge and right from the start.
Keep in mind that the techie market is extremely small. Just look at this forum. Same people all the time. Same complainers. Same supporters. We are the exception.
So are you saying it's going to be huge in the techie market, which is extremely small (i.e. big fish in small pond?) Maybe I'd buy that. But, its not going to be "Huge" (unless your concept of Huge is different then mine). This will be a blip on the overall home TV/theater market.
8) I can pull facts out of my ass as well as Mossberg can. And do it for free rather than get paid by the WSJ for it. That was the intent anyhow.
What people missed here is that it's just a bunch of rhetoric. He's creating a market segment out of nothing. Basically he's saying, "hey all you non-geeks and gamers, tired of watching your downloaded movies on that tiny movie screen, well now with AppleTV, you can watch them on your TV!" But the people here turn it into some kind of "factoid". Oooh, I'm in a market segement, and I don't want to be seen as a techie geek or gamer, and those losers still watching movies on a lame computer screen. Please, it's shameless marketing ... like you were so discontent before watching those movies on your computer; like if you ask someone watching downloaded movies on their computer if they'd like to also be able to watch it on their TV they'd say "no"? He hasn't defined some "much larger group of people", he's telling the same group of people to be discontent. It's not like he's basing this on some kind of factual marketing data that we don't have.
So, do I want to watch my downloaded videos on my TV? Yes. Do I think this device likely runs some variant of OS X? Yes. Do I even think Apple will likely enable some kind of direct Internet content content streaming/buying/etc. from AppleTV? Yes. Do I believe some guy from the WSJ when he tells me what I want or what it'll do? No way! I don't fall for rhetoric, and I won't believe unannounced specs on this device unless they come from Apple, or until some reviewer rips the device apart.
No wonder people think they have to buy this stuff. Oh you poor discontent people, get your AppleTVs and be happy.
Mossberg is a friend of Steve Jobs, but he is not blind to the faults of AppleTV, at least in its first installment.
Compare Mossberg's measured appreciation with euphoric statements from stock analysts who confidently predict sales of over 1.5 million units before the end of fiscal year 2007 (or is it calendar year 2007 ?).
Euphoric statements serve to reward overpaid Apple directors and vice-presidents through the ownership of stock options with an inflated value.
Analysts should be more careful when attempting to evaluate the potential of new products from a "secretive company" like Apple.
And yes, confusing hopes and speculation with facts doesn't sit well with me. Sorry.
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
Why would you buy an AppleTV if it's not to get a better quality video, DVD film, TV program or photo slideshow?
In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.
Wishfull thinking. You get what you pay for, and nothing else. Am I the only one to be impatient with analysts and journalists who report their own speculation, not facts?
Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
Apple is back to the good ol' days, prior to 1995, when:
1- it didn't feel that it had to give consumers what they want;
2- it believed that it could overcharge consumers for the "privilege" of buying a product stamped with the Apple logo. Apple directors were fools then and now. Sad.
couldnt agree more with your post. IN January Netgear had some kind of AppleTV-like product at the expo and it looked everthing AppleTV should be. If Apple spent as much time and effort on this as Netgear and used their OS for GUI it'd be killer product.
I dont consider myself videophile or audiophile but i dont see why i'd downgrade to AppleTV.
I think so, the fact that it is a variant on OS X means that IF Apple opens the platform up to third party developers to extend the capabilities of this then it should be easy to port over any QuickTime codec that is available for OS X, which would close the gap on one of the major limitations on this device with little or no work from Apple. This would also make it more appealing to consumers. Now we don't know that Apple will open the platform up to developers, and based on the iPod the likelihood of this happening is small. However this is not an iPod, and Apple will not be able to provide all the content that people want, and most likely won't provide some content that a lot of people would like to use with this device. There is an opportunity for Apple to gain a lot of ground by opening the platform up a bit more than the iPod, even if it means competition for iTMS in the video arena.
The real potential for a revolution here is not the Apple TV itself, but changing the way people get content to their TV's by opening up the internet as a delivery platform for both streamed and downloaded content. If they want to limit the product and it's potential then they will keep tight control over it. If they want to gain the broadest appeal to the mass market then they will open it up to allow competition in one way or another.
Comments
Wow, pmjoe really hit a nerve
You make it sound like he had a good point.
What about live programming?
Yes, I would be out for the rare occasions when I might like some live programming, or something that iTunes doesn't offer. But I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means saving money. All I watch is Law and Order, SG-1, Atlantis...... MythBusters... a few other things here and there. Assuming 30 bucks for an iTunes season pass, and 50 bucks a month for Dish, all of that would cost me about 120 bucks. And that's a little less than 3 months of Dish. So I could save around 400 bucks a year that I can put towards an iPhone
You make it sound like he had a good point.
Which isn't really saying much. How big is that 'group' that want to enjoy downloaded media on their widescreen TVs? Sure, its bigger then the "Let's put a computer in the room" and "Let's sit around the computer and watch a movie crowd", but those are small crowds to begin with.
So, if you agree with the quote you agree that Apple made the right design choice from a business perspective, they went after the larger market (than the game consoles and computer geeks). This was his point here.
Quicktime doesn't play AVIs, unless you set it up to.
in which case it DOES!
Yes, I would be out for the rare occasions when I might like some live programming, or something that iTunes doesn't offer. But I'm willing to sacrifice a little if it means saving money. All I watch is Law and Order, SG-1, Atlantis...... MythBusters... a few other things here and there. Assuming 30 bucks for an iTunes season pass, and 50 bucks a month for Dish, all of that would cost me about 120 bucks. And that's a little less than 3 months of Dish. So I could save around 400 bucks a year that I can put towards an iPhone
You're forgetting the $300 investment int the AppleTV which makes your first year savings only $100.
And assuming this thing takes off, by this time next year AppleTV 2 might be out so you might shell out another $300 for that version so you're still at only $130 in savings (I factored out SG-1 since this is the last season).
This all presumes, of course, that you already have a widescreen TV otherwise you'll be back in the red.
video and audio quality were quite good for anyone but picky audiophiles and videophiles
Why would you buy an AppleTV if it's not to get a better quality video, DVD film, TV program or photo slideshow?
AppleTV can play the copy-protected music, TV shows and movies purchased from Apple's iTunes online store [...] However, it cannot play copy-protected music in Microsoft's formats, even from Windows computers.
In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.
In its usual secretive fashion, Apple refuses to say if or when this direct-to-the-Internet capability will be expanded. But we fully expect Apple to add the capability to stream or download a variety of content directly from the Internet, and that this new capability will be available on current Apple TV boxes through software updates.
Wishfull thinking. You get what you pay for, and nothing else. Am I the only one to be impatient with analysts and journalists who report their own speculation, not facts?
Also, the tiny, simple Apple remote control can't control the volume on either AppleTV or your TV set or audio receiver, so you have to keep reaching for the TV or audio receiver remote.
Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
And you can't plug in an extra hard disk to add storage capacity, even though there's a USB port on the back and the built-in 40-gigabyte drive is too small to hold many TV shows or movies.
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
Apple is back to the good ol' days, prior to 1995, when:
1- it didn't feel that it had to give consumers what they want;
2- it believed that it could overcharge consumers for the "privilege" of buying a product stamped with the Apple logo. Apple directors were fools then and now. Sad.
You're forgetting the $300 investment int the AppleTV which makes your first year savings only $100.
And assuming this thing takes off, by this time next year AppleTV 2 might be out so you might shell out another $300 for that version so you're still at only $130 in savings (I factored out SG-1 since this is the last season).
This all presumes, of course, that you already have a widescreen TV otherwise you'll be back in the red.
dont forget to factor in electricity and sofa/couch wear and tear....
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
Actually he stated nothing of the sort. What he did say is that the market it's aimed at is larger than the markets that want/need these things to which you refer. As I quoted earlier
Apple TV isn't for that small slice of techies who buy a full-blown computer and plug it directly into a TV, or for gamers who prefer to do it all through a game console. And it's not for people who are content to watch downloaded TV shows and movies directly on a computer screen. Instead, it's for the much larger group of people who want to keep their home computers where they are and yet enjoy their downloaded media on their widescreen TVs.
I think he gets it.
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
You twisted everything he said into something he wasn't saying.
He said AppleTV is fine for everyone except videophiles and auiophiles. People who need prestine quality are an extremely small number. 99% of the consumer market will prefer convenience over quality. Pristine quality does not allow for wireless streaming or media portability. For this convenience you need some degree of compression.
DVD's and CD's are not lossless they are very compressed formats. Many audiophiles prefer vinyl records over CD's.
You haven't read the AppleTV spec page. It clearly says AppleTV will play unlocked H.264 or MPEG-4 files. That means it will play more than only iTunes content. MS does not make a WM player for the Mac, or allow Macs to play WM-DRM, why should Apple support their format.
Also, the tiny, simple Apple remote control can't control the volume on either AppleTV or your TV set or audio receiver, so you have to keep reaching for the TV or audio receiver remote.Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
Its not that unusual that you have a different remote for different consoles. Many times people's DVD remote control can not adjust the volume of their television.
But it should not be that big of a deal for Apple to add firmware that allows AppleTV to control TV volume.
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
That depends on what type of hard drive they are using. A larger HD will use more power and create more heat.
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well
May I have a vote? Is it me or is this guy just a dork?
I would like to add pmjoe to the 'd' list.
http://wsj.com/mossbergvideo
You have to be kidding. With all the hype, the potential size of the market just from the iPod/iTunes success, and all voices of the pundits, it is going to be huge and right from the start.
Keep in mind that the techie market is extremely small. Just look at this forum. Same people all the time. Same complainers. Same supporters. We are the exception.
So are you saying it's going to be huge in the techie market, which is extremely small (i.e. big fish in small pond?) Maybe I'd buy that. But, its not going to be "Huge" (unless your concept of Huge is different then mine). This will be a blip on the overall home TV/theater market.
Wow, pmjoe really hit a nerve
8) I can pull facts out of my ass as well as Mossberg can. And do it for free rather than get paid by the WSJ for it. That was the intent anyhow.
What people missed here is that it's just a bunch of rhetoric. He's creating a market segment out of nothing. Basically he's saying, "hey all you non-geeks and gamers, tired of watching your downloaded movies on that tiny movie screen, well now with AppleTV, you can watch them on your TV!" But the people here turn it into some kind of "factoid". Oooh, I'm in a market segement, and I don't want to be seen as a techie geek or gamer, and those losers still watching movies on a lame computer screen. Please, it's shameless marketing ... like you were so discontent before watching those movies on your computer; like if you ask someone watching downloaded movies on their computer if they'd like to also be able to watch it on their TV they'd say "no"? He hasn't defined some "much larger group of people", he's telling the same group of people to be discontent. It's not like he's basing this on some kind of factual marketing data that we don't have.
So, do I want to watch my downloaded videos on my TV? Yes. Do I think this device likely runs some variant of OS X? Yes. Do I even think Apple will likely enable some kind of direct Internet content content streaming/buying/etc. from AppleTV? Yes. Do I believe some guy from the WSJ when he tells me what I want or what it'll do? No way! I don't fall for rhetoric, and I won't believe unannounced specs on this device unless they come from Apple, or until some reviewer rips the device apart.
No wonder people think they have to buy this stuff. Oh you poor discontent people, get your AppleTVs and be happy.
Compare Mossberg's measured appreciation with euphoric statements from stock analysts who confidently predict sales of over 1.5 million units before the end of fiscal year 2007 (or is it calendar year 2007 ?).
Euphoric statements serve to reward overpaid Apple directors and vice-presidents through the ownership of stock options with an inflated value.
Analysts should be more careful when attempting to evaluate the potential of new products from a "secretive company" like Apple.
And yes, confusing hopes and speculation with facts doesn't sit well with me. Sorry.
Mossberg is a friend of Steve Jobs, but he is not blind to the faults of AppleTV, at least in its first installment.…
Could you point to a reference that confirms Mossberg's is an 'analyst'?
As stated by Mossberg, AppleTV is very much a product in search of a market since it doesn't do anything very well. For instance:
Why would you buy an AppleTV if it's not to get a better quality video, DVD film, TV program or photo slideshow?
In other words, you are restricted to the iTunes store, period. It won't play or stream DVDs, CDs or lossless music formats. Not for me.
Wishfull thinking. You get what you pay for, and nothing else. Am I the only one to be impatient with analysts and journalists who report their own speculation, not facts?
Living room nightmare. Shows you how flawed AppleTV is.
How hard would it be for Apple to use a 60 GB or 80 GB hard drive?
Apple is back to the good ol' days, prior to 1995, when:
1- it didn't feel that it had to give consumers what they want;
2- it believed that it could overcharge consumers for the "privilege" of buying a product stamped with the Apple logo. Apple directors were fools then and now. Sad.
couldnt agree more with your post. IN January Netgear had some kind of AppleTV-like product at the expo and it looked everthing AppleTV should be. If Apple spent as much time and effort on this as Netgear and used their OS for GUI it'd be killer product.
I dont consider myself videophile or audiophile but i dont see why i'd downgrade to AppleTV.
Does it really matter what OS it uses?
I think so, the fact that it is a variant on OS X means that IF Apple opens the platform up to third party developers to extend the capabilities of this then it should be easy to port over any QuickTime codec that is available for OS X, which would close the gap on one of the major limitations on this device with little or no work from Apple. This would also make it more appealing to consumers. Now we don't know that Apple will open the platform up to developers, and based on the iPod the likelihood of this happening is small. However this is not an iPod, and Apple will not be able to provide all the content that people want, and most likely won't provide some content that a lot of people would like to use with this device. There is an opportunity for Apple to gain a lot of ground by opening the platform up a bit more than the iPod, even if it means competition for iTMS in the video arena.
The real potential for a revolution here is not the Apple TV itself, but changing the way people get content to their TV's by opening up the internet as a delivery platform for both streamed and downloaded content. If they want to limit the product and it's potential then they will keep tight control over it. If they want to gain the broadest appeal to the mass market then they will open it up to allow competition in one way or another.