Some networks also favor the 720p standard for its smoother image quality in fast moving sports programming, including ABC, FOX and ESPN; other networks supply their HD programming in 1080i, including CBS, NBC, HBO, and Discovery, which provides a sharper picture in low motion still shots.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
The average consumer appears satisfied with watching upscaled DVD's in a $50 player instead of spending $10 more for a BD disk.
The commitment of the electronics industry is really of little relevance here. Unless BD disk prices drop to near the price of standard DVD's, you will not see phenomenal shifts (and certainly not by 4Q)
Blu-ray discs are actually already quite comparable to DVDs when originally realesed and way lower THAN VHS movies when originally released. Anyway it's the price of the machines that have already dropped in half compared to last year. And holiday/depression discounting hasn't even started yet. You'll see.
Apple should (and I think will) boost the current Apple TV product up a notch or two. But no chance of Apple shipping their own brand of TV. As others have indicated - it's a saturated market with little if any way of differentiating yourself.
It would be nice if a TV existed with the existing Apple TV's functionality, plus an iPod dock. They'd sell a few, but not enough to sustain the product(s).
Best to give the existing product a big boost (3.5" hard drive, maybe an optional BD drive, bluetooth, SDK) and let Best Buy push it with every TV no matter what size or brand.
So: Would be cool, but won't happen.
Yeah, I think it'd be nice if Apple TV supported the following via its USB port:
iPod dock
choice of DVD or Blu-ray drive
TV tuner
external drives for additional storage
But it'd look like crap to hang all those devices off of there (plus possibly a USB hub to give you enough ports), so I don't see Apple doing it.
That's definitely not going to happen. The whole concept of the machine is to deliver digital content (via Internet/network), not physical media.
And it would push AppleTV to a price point where simply too few people would buy it.
I agree, not in an AppleTV. But how about a new Mac Mini with BluRay? I don't particularly mind how much the device costs, and I would love to buy online digital video content from Apple, but my TV only has one spare input. That means that in order to use an AppleTV I'd have to give up being able to watch DVDs and that just ain't going to happen, sorry Apple!
What if Apple were to build an HDTV with an Apple TV that had new DVR functionality added?
When I say DVR functionality, what if it could record and playback any signal that the HDTV receives. This would make it source agnostic. It could record a DVD or a satellite/cable feed or off-the-air television or even your favorite video game for a review of your technique. If it went to the next level, it could store this in iTunes and let you serve it up anywhere in your household, including you iPod/iPhone. If they make a new AirPort it could also include an HDMI output so that you could play back on any TV similar to the way AirTunes functions.
This would be ahead of most companies offerings so far, but is likely not feasible due to piracy concerns and copyright laws.
The article states that BluRay is a niche at this point and you reply with ... yes it is.
Then you quote all these obviously "managed" industry numbers after the fact.
Sure Iron Man "sold" a half a million copies, but I remember when DVD first came out in North America and "Lost in Space" sold a ridiculously high amount of copies also. In fact you couldn't buy a DVD player without having a copy of "Lost in Space" tossed in the bag with it at the time. These early sales figures generated by the industry itself are full of loss-leader items and promotional arrangements that have very little to do with the actual popularity of the medium.
Ask anyone who works at a Bookstore what the Best Seller list really represents. DVD's and BluRay are no different.
My point being, if Blu-Ray is a "niche" at 13% of DVD sales, then downloadable movie sales aren't even on the map. And no one was giving away copies of Iron Man on Blu-Ray to fudge the numbers, as you seem to imply.
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
Razor thin is an exaggeration. It's simply not Apple's usual 30%. It's like the iTunes store, where Apple is supposed to barely break even: John Gruber has proved this rumor bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AHeneen
I'm confused...is this article actually suggesting that Apple will drop the cinema displays in favor of HDTVs???? While obviously HDTVs are much cheaper, they are (as pointed out ) of much less resolution.
I don't know if it is. But like you say, they are different so I don't see that happening. Unless Apple start to sell 3rd party monitors
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
The ATV is not overpriced at all, it might seem high because it is not subsidized. If ATV required a monthly service fee it would be a lot cheaper, which I think they should do something like that. $2.00 per show without rental is definitely too high.
I find one major drawback to renting movies online, they're much much higher in price than renting a DVD, that is if they're even available for rent. By law purchased DVDs could be rented without having to pay royalty fees to the movie houses. That is why companies like RedBox can rent the latest releases for $1 while ATV would initially have the same movie only for sale at $15, and after a few months it becomes available for rent at $4.
Yeah... Apple really needs to provide a program similar to, if not better than, NetFlix. This way the device and the rentals become affordable.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
-b
You've just built a strawman because you've inserted frame rates when the article stipulated none. Of course 1080i60 is going to be superior to 720p30. What you're comparing in progressive terms is 1080p30 to 720p30.
However most broadcasters are not broadcasting 720p30 they are broadcasting 720p60
In the USA, 720p is used by ABC, Fox Broadcasting Company and ESPN because the smoother image is desirable for fast-action sports telecasts, whereas 1080i is used by CBS, NBC, HBO, Showtime and Discovery HD due to the crisper picture particularly in non-moving shots.
So AI's statment is correct ..though so is yours even though it doesn't directly address the scenario of AI.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
Does anyone broadcast in 1080i59.94? Isn't 1080i30 (1080i29.97) commonplace? Isn't it 720p59.94 for that matter?
The reason why some claim that 720p is better than 1080i for sports is because there are sometimes increased compression artifacts in 1080i due to the higher bandwidth required ... and/or [edit] the better frame rate with 720p60.
The rest of that statement was about video playback resolutions. As far as I know, Apple TV does not support 1080i playback, which is what the statement implied. It's pretty much required to support input/output scaling between 720p and 1080i to be considered an HDTV compatible device.
I can record 1080i right now off my cable box or various USB tuners. I don't need 1080p content to be online for it to be useful.
AppleTV provides 1080i & 1080p output resolutions. 1080p only via HDMI
The ATV is not overpriced at all, it might seem high because it is not subsidized. If ATV required a monthly service fee it would be a lot cheaper, which I think they should do something like that. $2.00 per show without rental is definitely too high.
The 160GB version is ?399, the PS3 is ?373. How is the ATV not overpriced?
I think the article clearly demonstrates why Apple should not venture on doing a HDTV.
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
You've just built a strawman because you've inserted frame rates when the article stipulated none. Of course 1080i60 is going to be superior to 720p30. What you're comparing in progressive terms is 1080p30 to 720p30.
In essence all I was trying to say was that for a given frame rate, interlaced video will provide a smoother and seemingly more lively picture than its progressive counterpart, by virtue of the doubled field rate. Perhaps I was reading more into the statement than was intended, though.
Quote:
However most broadcasters are not broadcasting 720p30 they are broadcasting 720p60
Interesting; I didn't actually realize that 720p"60" was commonplace. Presumably then that would provide an even better picture (difference in resolution notwithstanding) than 1080i.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmjoe
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
No, but if it's drawing at twice the field rate (720p vs 1080i) there's a greater rate of new visual information being delivered.
Quote:
Does anyone broadcast in 1080i59.94? Isn't 1080i30 (1080i29.97) commonplace?
I think we're saying the same thing. It's de facto in the industry (at least, at the post facility where I work) to call 1080i video at 29.97 fps (59.94 fields per sec) as "1080i59.94".
I think the article clearly demonstrates why Apple should not venture on doing a HDTV.
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
I still think that until very high speed broadband and WiMax have achieved greater acceptance in the US, it's too early to offer an all-in-one Apple HDTV. Also, it doesn't really make sense to equip a TV with computer components that would be so rapidly outdated, unless those components can be swapped out for faster and bigger networking and storage at a later date. And we all know how Apple can be as far as backward compatibility is concerned.
Blu-ray discs are actually already quite comparable to DVDs when originally realesed and way lower THAN VHS movies when originally released. Anyway it's the price of the machines that have already dropped in half compared to last year. And holiday/depression discounting hasn't even started yet. You'll see.
On average selling prices, they are not. Certainly not quite that is, according to the Blue Ray Association, not going to happen anytime soon either. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39347/97/
While I love the quality of BD, I am not holding my breath. While the current economic outlook can lower prices, it will also lower consumer spending...
Well I as a customer of the MacMini Home Theater concept do appreciate this type of news. However I run my Mini through a 720p Projector which puts a 148" screen (16:10) on my wall. With Front Row I'm all good. I've purchased HD content through itunes and found the quality outstanding!
If I were Apple...
AppleTV upgrade to Via C7 Nano 2.0ghz running OS X. This would give them the SSE3/4 codes and smooth scaling HD Content even in 1080i/p resolution. It also reduces the power cunsumption from the Pentium M by 2/3rds. Reduced heat and 1 board controller chip would reduce costs as well as increase speed and reduce room in the box itself. Via's Padlock encryption could easily be used for Apple OS X as well. C7 Nano is NOT available outside of prototypes yet but in testing compared to the Intel Atom 330 (dual core 1.6ghz) it outperformed it 4:1 in video playback of HD content and used the same if not less power. It's also the first 64bit mini-cpu with a TDP below 5w. And they have plans for a dual core 11mmx11mm chip for 2nd half of 2009!
Cost wise the Via is about 20% cheaper than the P-M as well and with 1 board controller instead of 2 you save on power, heat and cost again. Via Chips are used on Comcast HD set-top boxes (C3/C7-M ULV and have proven to give exceptional performance on HD streamed content- See iTunes Video model). All Via C7 cpu's are x86 compliant, Nano adds x64 along side x86 for a x86-64 dual compatible code and allows out of sync proccessing.
The ONLY way to accelerate AppleTV sales is to add a Tuner at the very least. PVR would be cool too.
Screens... Anything from Panasonic would be Best. But I think we'll see Apple partner with 3rd party companies to integrate AppleTV into the TV's themselves. Apple would supply the boards and HD's, TV companies would build these into the sets. So you would see 50" LCD 1080i TV's NOW with integrated AppleTV!
it doesn't really make sense to equip a TV with computer components that would be so rapidly outdated, unless those components can be swapped out for faster and bigger networking and storage at a later date. And we all know how Apple can be as far as backward compatibility is concerned.
Very true, one more reason I don't like AIO things very much.
People tend to keep their tv sets for while. I had my Sony CRT 32" for 12 years before upgrading to a plasma flat panel from Pioneer. I have intention to keep this set for at least another 6 to 7 years. Why would I want a piece of tech that can be outdated in 2 years like AppleTV while my TV sets still delivering flawless picture?
I much rather buy every two years a new AppleTV stand alone box for $200 than upgrade my whole set. It just doesn't make sense IMHO.
The 160GB version is €399, the PS3 is €373. How is the ATV not overpriced?
In Europe, the AppleTV is surprisingly expensive. The 40GB version, which better compares to the PS3 costs $229 in the US. Probably because the content sales/rental market is so small compared to the US.
Unlike Sony, who sells the PS3 at a loss to receive large revenues from sales/royalties on high-margin games, Apple is in business to make money.
Comments
Some networks also favor the 720p standard for its smoother image quality in fast moving sports programming, including ABC, FOX and ESPN; other networks supply their HD programming in 1080i, including CBS, NBC, HBO, and Discovery, which provides a sharper picture in low motion still shots.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
-b
The average consumer appears satisfied with watching upscaled DVD's in a $50 player instead of spending $10 more for a BD disk.
The commitment of the electronics industry is really of little relevance here. Unless BD disk prices drop to near the price of standard DVD's, you will not see phenomenal shifts (and certainly not by 4Q)
Blu-ray discs are actually already quite comparable to DVDs when originally realesed and way lower THAN VHS movies when originally released. Anyway it's the price of the machines that have already dropped in half compared to last year. And holiday/depression discounting hasn't even started yet. You'll see.
Apple should (and I think will) boost the current Apple TV product up a notch or two. But no chance of Apple shipping their own brand of TV. As others have indicated - it's a saturated market with little if any way of differentiating yourself.
It would be nice if a TV existed with the existing Apple TV's functionality, plus an iPod dock. They'd sell a few, but not enough to sustain the product(s).
Best to give the existing product a big boost (3.5" hard drive, maybe an optional BD drive, bluetooth, SDK) and let Best Buy push it with every TV no matter what size or brand.
So: Would be cool, but won't happen.
Yeah, I think it'd be nice if Apple TV supported the following via its USB port:
- iPod dock
- choice of DVD or Blu-ray drive
- TV tuner
- external drives for additional storage
But it'd look like crap to hang all those devices off of there (plus possibly a USB hub to give you enough ports), so I don't see Apple doing it.That's definitely not going to happen. The whole concept of the machine is to deliver digital content (via Internet/network), not physical media.
And it would push AppleTV to a price point where simply too few people would buy it.
I agree, not in an AppleTV. But how about a new Mac Mini with BluRay? I don't particularly mind how much the device costs, and I would love to buy online digital video content from Apple, but my TV only has one spare input. That means that in order to use an AppleTV I'd have to give up being able to watch DVDs and that just ain't going to happen, sorry Apple!
When I say DVR functionality, what if it could record and playback any signal that the HDTV receives. This would make it source agnostic. It could record a DVD or a satellite/cable feed or off-the-air television or even your favorite video game for a review of your technique. If it went to the next level, it could store this in iTunes and let you serve it up anywhere in your household, including you iPod/iPhone. If they make a new AirPort it could also include an HDMI output so that you could play back on any TV similar to the way AirTunes functions.
This would be ahead of most companies offerings so far, but is likely not feasible due to piracy concerns and copyright laws.
Oh well, it's a thought.
This is just hyperbole.
The article states that BluRay is a niche at this point and you reply with ... yes it is.
Then you quote all these obviously "managed" industry numbers after the fact.
Sure Iron Man "sold" a half a million copies, but I remember when DVD first came out in North America and "Lost in Space" sold a ridiculously high amount of copies also. In fact you couldn't buy a DVD player without having a copy of "Lost in Space" tossed in the bag with it at the time. These early sales figures generated by the industry itself are full of loss-leader items and promotional arrangements that have very little to do with the actual popularity of the medium.
Ask anyone who works at a Bookstore what the Best Seller list really represents. DVD's and BluRay are no different.
My point being, if Blu-Ray is a "niche" at 13% of DVD sales, then downloadable movie sales aren't even on the map. And no one was giving away copies of Iron Man on Blu-Ray to fudge the numbers, as you seem to imply.
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
Razor thin is an exaggeration. It's simply not Apple's usual 30%. It's like the iTunes store, where Apple is supposed to barely break even: John Gruber has proved this rumor bullshit.
I'm confused...is this article actually suggesting that Apple will drop the cinema displays in favor of HDTVs???? While obviously HDTVs are much cheaper, they are (as pointed out ) of much less resolution.
I don't know if it is. But like you say, they are different so I don't see that happening. Unless Apple start to sell 3rd party monitors
This surprises me, as the one thing that really stands out to me is that the Apple TV is grossly overpriced for what it does. If this is true, they really need to figure out a way to make them less expensive to build.
The ATV is not overpriced at all, it might seem high because it is not subsidized. If ATV required a monthly service fee it would be a lot cheaper, which I think they should do something like that. $2.00 per show without rental is definitely too high.
I find one major drawback to renting movies online, they're much much higher in price than renting a DVD, that is if they're even available for rent. By law purchased DVDs could be rented without having to pay royalty fees to the movie houses. That is why companies like RedBox can rent the latest releases for $1 while ATV would initially have the same movie only for sale at $15, and after a few months it becomes available for rent at $4.
Yeah... Apple really needs to provide a program similar to, if not better than, NetFlix. This way the device and the rentals become affordable.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
-b
You've just built a strawman because you've inserted frame rates when the article stipulated none. Of course 1080i60 is going to be superior to 720p30. What you're comparing in progressive terms is 1080p30 to 720p30.
However most broadcasters are not broadcasting 720p30 they are broadcasting 720p60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p#720p_versus_1080i
In the USA, 720p is used by ABC, Fox Broadcasting Company and ESPN because the smoother image is desirable for fast-action sports telecasts, whereas 1080i is used by CBS, NBC, HBO, Showtime and Discovery HD due to the crisper picture particularly in non-moving shots.
So AI's statment is correct ..though so is yours even though it doesn't directly address the scenario of AI.
Um, this is exactly backwards. 1080i59.94 provides "smoother image quality in fast-moving sports programming", while 720p29.97 (etc.), being half the field rate (or less) but around twice the vertical resolution per frame, is better suited to provide a "sharper picture in low-motion still shots".
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
Does anyone broadcast in 1080i59.94? Isn't 1080i30 (1080i29.97) commonplace? Isn't it 720p59.94 for that matter?
The reason why some claim that 720p is better than 1080i for sports is because there are sometimes increased compression artifacts in 1080i due to the higher bandwidth required ... and/or [edit] the better frame rate with 720p60.
The rest of that statement was about video playback resolutions. As far as I know, Apple TV does not support 1080i playback, which is what the statement implied. It's pretty much required to support input/output scaling between 720p and 1080i to be considered an HDTV compatible device.
I can record 1080i right now off my cable box or various USB tuners. I don't need 1080p content to be online for it to be useful.
AppleTV provides 1080i & 1080p output resolutions. 1080p only via HDMI
The ATV is not overpriced at all, it might seem high because it is not subsidized. If ATV required a monthly service fee it would be a lot cheaper, which I think they should do something like that. $2.00 per show without rental is definitely too high.
The 160GB version is ?399, the PS3 is ?373. How is the ATV not overpriced?
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
You've just built a strawman because you've inserted frame rates when the article stipulated none. Of course 1080i60 is going to be superior to 720p30. What you're comparing in progressive terms is 1080p30 to 720p30.
In essence all I was trying to say was that for a given frame rate, interlaced video will provide a smoother and seemingly more lively picture than its progressive counterpart, by virtue of the doubled field rate. Perhaps I was reading more into the statement than was intended, though.
However most broadcasters are not broadcasting 720p30 they are broadcasting 720p60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p#720p_versus_1080i
Interesting; I didn't actually realize that 720p"60" was commonplace. Presumably then that would provide an even better picture (difference in resolution notwithstanding) than 1080i.
Are you claiming that a 1280x720 picture has a higher vertical resolution than 1920x1080?
No, but if it's drawing at twice the field rate (720p vs 1080i) there's a greater rate of new visual information being delivered.
Does anyone broadcast in 1080i59.94? Isn't 1080i30 (1080i29.97) commonplace?
I think we're saying the same thing. It's de facto in the industry (at least, at the post facility where I work) to call 1080i video at 29.97 fps (59.94 fields per sec) as "1080i59.94".
-b
I think the article clearly demonstrates why Apple should not venture on doing a HDTV.
Seriously there is no reason to ask Apple to put their brand on everything. I would love to see them back focusing on computers hardware and software than start spreading their brand all over the place and losing focus on what is important.
HDTV profit margins are very thin and manufactures are merging, outsourcing and cutting costs to stay afloat. Apple bringing their business to the HDTV market would not change the landscape much. Plus there is amazing technology already out there that brings fantastic picture quality to the current displays.
Apple needs to focus on their own AppleTV hardware first, make the product compelling to the mass market prior to entering the HDTV set segment. Right now AppleTV is even called by Steve Jobs a hobby. Unless they shift their strategy and make a a serious piece of hardware, why bother making a television.
I still think that until very high speed broadband and WiMax have achieved greater acceptance in the US, it's too early to offer an all-in-one Apple HDTV. Also, it doesn't really make sense to equip a TV with computer components that would be so rapidly outdated, unless those components can be swapped out for faster and bigger networking and storage at a later date. And we all know how Apple can be as far as backward compatibility is concerned.
Blu-ray discs are actually already quite comparable to DVDs when originally realesed and way lower THAN VHS movies when originally released. Anyway it's the price of the machines that have already dropped in half compared to last year. And holiday/depression discounting hasn't even started yet. You'll see.
On average selling prices, they are not. Certainly not quite that is, according to the Blue Ray Association, not going to happen anytime soon either. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39347/97/
While I love the quality of BD, I am not holding my breath. While the current economic outlook can lower prices, it will also lower consumer spending...
If I were Apple...
AppleTV upgrade to Via C7 Nano 2.0ghz running OS X. This would give them the SSE3/4 codes and smooth scaling HD Content even in 1080i/p resolution. It also reduces the power cunsumption from the Pentium M by 2/3rds. Reduced heat and 1 board controller chip would reduce costs as well as increase speed and reduce room in the box itself. Via's Padlock encryption could easily be used for Apple OS X as well. C7 Nano is NOT available outside of prototypes yet but in testing compared to the Intel Atom 330 (dual core 1.6ghz) it outperformed it 4:1 in video playback of HD content and used the same if not less power. It's also the first 64bit mini-cpu with a TDP below 5w. And they have plans for a dual core 11mmx11mm chip for 2nd half of 2009!
Cost wise the Via is about 20% cheaper than the P-M as well and with 1 board controller instead of 2 you save on power, heat and cost again. Via Chips are used on Comcast HD set-top boxes (C3/C7-M ULV and have proven to give exceptional performance on HD streamed content- See iTunes Video model). All Via C7 cpu's are x86 compliant, Nano adds x64 along side x86 for a x86-64 dual compatible code and allows out of sync proccessing.
The ONLY way to accelerate AppleTV sales is to add a Tuner at the very least. PVR would be cool too.
Screens... Anything from Panasonic would be Best. But I think we'll see Apple partner with 3rd party companies to integrate AppleTV into the TV's themselves. Apple would supply the boards and HD's, TV companies would build these into the sets. So you would see 50" LCD 1080i TV's NOW with integrated AppleTV!
...it doesn't really make sense to equip a TV with computer components that would be so rapidly outdated,
Amen.
Thus there will be no TV from Apple.
And no Apple branded radio either.
it doesn't really make sense to equip a TV with computer components that would be so rapidly outdated, unless those components can be swapped out for faster and bigger networking and storage at a later date. And we all know how Apple can be as far as backward compatibility is concerned.
Very true, one more reason I don't like AIO things very much.
People tend to keep their tv sets for while. I had my Sony CRT 32" for 12 years before upgrading to a plasma flat panel from Pioneer. I have intention to keep this set for at least another 6 to 7 years. Why would I want a piece of tech that can be outdated in 2 years like AppleTV while my TV sets still delivering flawless picture?
I much rather buy every two years a new AppleTV stand alone box for $200 than upgrade my whole set. It just doesn't make sense IMHO.
The 160GB version is €399, the PS3 is €373. How is the ATV not overpriced?
In Europe, the AppleTV is surprisingly expensive. The 40GB version, which better compares to the PS3 costs $229 in the US. Probably because the content sales/rental market is so small compared to the US.
Unlike Sony, who sells the PS3 at a loss to receive large revenues from sales/royalties on high-margin games, Apple is in business to make money.
I hardly call that overpricing...